(Source: NPR)

NPR’s three part special series titled ” Flight Mechanics: The Business of Airline Repairs” examines the industry practices to cut costs and how they  are battling to survive the economic downturn.  The short blurb of the special report says “Recent maintenance mistakes raise questions about a growing practice at U.S. airlines: Since an economic crisis began shaking the industry in 2002, most major airlines have stopped repairing and overhauling most of their own planes. Instead, they are sending the planes to be fixed for less money by private repair companies — often in developing countries.” Here is an (Text and Audio) excerpt from Part 2 of the three-part series.

———————————————————————————————–

“Shortly before sunrise on Jan. 23, 2009, passengers on US Airways Flight 518, who were flying from Omaha to Phoenix, were startled by a terrifying shriek.

The pressure seal around the main cabin door was failing, and that shriek was the sound of air leaking through. The plane diverted to Denver. Everybody was safe.

In the weeks before the door seal started to fail, US Airways had sent that Boeing 737 to be overhauled at Aeroman, a repair company in El Salvador. And mechanics installed a key part on the door — a “snubber” — backward.

Source: FAA Inspector General, Aeronautical Repair Station Association Credit: NPR

But that was before 2002 — when US Airways filed for bankruptcy, American Airlines slashed flights, and other airlines teetered at the brink. Since then, airlines have been trying to survive by cutting back on any expenses they can control — including the little bags of peanuts.

One of the biggest areas airlines can cut costs is maintenance. Consider this: If an airline fixes its own planes in the U.S., it spends up to $100 per hour for every union mechanic, including overhead and other expenses, according to industry analysts. The airline spends roughly half as much at an independent, nonunion shop in America. And it spends only a third as much in a developing country, such as El Salvador.

Since the airline crisis hit seven years ago, the statistics have flip-flopped: The industry is now sending most of its planes to be overhauled and fixed at private repair shops both in the U.S. and overseas. And roughly 20 percent of planes are going to facilities in developing countries, according to industry surveys.

Industry analysts say there are roughly 700 FAA-approved repair companies in other countries — including repair shops in Argentina, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Kenya, China and Indonesia. The Aeroman company in El Salvador is becoming one of the more popular, drawing business from US Airways, JetBlue, Frontier, Southwest and other U.S. carriers.

The way the system works, the airlines fly empty planes needing an overhaul to Aeroman’s hangars at the international airport near the capital, San Salvador. Salvadoran mechanics strip the inside of the plane down to the bare metal. They fix cracks and rust and bad wiring. Then they put everything back together, and the plane is flown back to the U.S.

When people hear that U.S. airlines are getting their planes fixed in developing countries, they often raise their eyebrows and ask, “Should I worry?”

—————————————————————————————————-

Part I – To Cut Costs, Airlines Send Repairs Abroad: Recent malfunctions affecting US Airways planes raise questions about a controversial and growing practice at most U.S. airlines: The industry is sending almost 1 out of every 5 planes needing overhaul or repair to developing countries, from Central America to Asia.

Part II – Crossed Wires: Flaws In Airline Repairs Abroad: Mechanics have made some mistakes fixing US Airways planes at an FAA-approved facility in El Salvador. Industry executives and the FAA say the maintenance work is just as safe as any work done in the U.S. But airlines and the FAA don’t make maintenance problems public.

Part III – Bucking Trend, Airline Keeps Repairs In-House: As many major U.S. airlines shift their repair and maintenance work to outside firms, American Airlines is taking a different approach. The airline has its own crew of 6,000 mechanics based in Tulsa, Okla., who service its fleet and even contract for outside business.

Click here to read/listen the entire series. Don’t forget to check the interactive map while you are reading the special report.

(Sources: AP via Yahoo; KMPH Fox26 & LA Times)

The 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe roared away with officers in pursuit, but shortly after the suspect made a right turn, operators at General Motors Co.’s OnStar service sent a command that electronically disabled the gas pedal and the SUV gradually came to a halt.

The flustered thief got out and ran, but was quickly nabbed after he climbed several fences and fell into a backyard swimming pool, police said.

It was the first time since OnStar began offering the service in the 2009 model year that it was used to end a chase that could otherwise have had dire consequences.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Esquire)

In a brilliant article, Esquire’s Brian Mockenhaupt goes deep into the world of UAVs (aka Drones) and those who operate them for the US military.   Here are some interesting excerpts from this lengthy, 5-page article, which is a MUST READ material if you are a tech junkie or an aviation nut..

Image Courtesy: Esquire - Dan Winters: The Predator's big brother, the Reaper, is a third bigger, flies three times as fast, and carries a much bigger payload

At this very moment, at any given moment, three dozen armed, unmanned American airplanes are flying lazy loops over Afghanistan and Iraq. They linger there, all day and all night. When one lands to refuel or rearm, another replaces it. They guard soldiers on patrol, spy on Al Qaeda leaders, and send missiles shrieking down on insurgents massing in the night. Add to those the hundreds of smaller, unarmed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles being flown over the two countries by the Army, the Marines, and coalition countries, and a handful of missile-laden planes owned by the Central Intelligence Agency circling above Pakistan. Efficient and effective, the planes have fast become indispensable assets, transforming today’s battlefields just as profoundly as the first airplanes transformed warfare during World War I.

Every so often in history, something profound happens that changes warfare forever. Next year, for the first time ever, the Pentagon will buy more unmanned aircraft than manned, line-item proof that we are in a new age of fighting machines, in which war will be ever more abstract, ever more distant, and ruthlessly efficient.

The Air Force now has 138 Predators and 36 Reapers. The military’s overall UAV inventory has swollen to seven thousand, from hand-launched Ravens to jet-powered Global Hawks, which can fly twelve miles high and monitor a swath the size of Kentucky in a day. And the revolution has just begun. Within the next twenty years, the Air Force envisions unmanned planes launching tiny missiles in hypertargeted strikes, swarms of bug-sized UAVs, and squadrons of networked unmanned fighters, bombers, and tankers, many of which will fly autonomously. And the enemy will have unmanned planes, too. More than forty countries currently fly them. In February, an American F-16 shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. And Hezbollah has used them to spy on Israel and attack a ship during fighting in 2006. They can be built cheaply, with off-the-shelf software and hardware, a natural progression for insurgents who have been building increasingly sophisticated bombs.

Much of the U.S. Air Force Predator and Reaper fleet for Afghanistan is maintained out of a small cluster of buildings and tents next to the runway at Kandahar Airfield. It is here that I saw the planes up close for the first time. Where fighter jets are at once sleek and muscled, these planes look emaciated. Rap a knuckle on a rib cage and hear the hollow reply. It’s hard to see how this is the plane that’s revolutionizing warfare. Perched on twiggy landing gear, it looks less like a piece of deadly, cutting-edge military hardware than an oversized version of the windup balsa-wood planes boys build from kits. Twenty-seven feet long, with a forty-nine-foot wingspan, the Predator weighs just twelve hundred pounds without fuel or missiles. A four-cycle snowmobile engine mounted in the rear propels it with a high-pitched whine. The Reaper, a third bigger than the Predator, seems far sturdier, and with a larger engine it flies at three hundred miles per hour, three times faster. The next generation will be jet-powered with a three-thousand-pound payload. Yet even the wispy Predator has a menacing quality. Glass-bubbled cockpits remind us that man controls the killing machine.

The planes are also much cheaper to buy and fly. A Predator costs about $4 million and a Reaper $11 million, half as much as an F-16, one of the Air Force’s workhorses. In Iraq and Afghanistan, jets and UAVs are often called on for similar missions that support ground troops. The drones can’t do strafing runs or intimidate with a low, fast, ear-splitting flyover, but they use a fraction of the resources, a moped instead of a monster truck. F-16’s, which fly in pairs for safety, burn about a thousand gallons of fuel an hour. At that rate, they can stay over a target for about an hour before they must swap out with other planes or fill up at an aerial tanker. A Predator carries a hundred gallons of fuel with which it can stay aloft for twenty-four hours. As the Air Force likes to point out, a bomb from an F-16 killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but the final strike against the Iraqi insurgent leader came after Predators had gathered six hundred hours of surveillance footage in the hunt for him and his associates. Keeping two F-16’s in the air that long would require about 120 tanker trucks’ worth of fuel.

Although they have never set foot in Afghanistan, Nelson and Anderson make effective counterinsurgents. They have spent hours watching the same roads, the same villages, the same people. “You gradually gain a better understanding of who they are and how they live,” Nelson says. He felt the same during his Mormon mission to the Dominican Republic, after his sophomore year at the Air Force Academy. For two years he walked or rode his bike on unpaved roads through villages and talked to people twelve hours a day. There he saw homes made of coffee cans and palm fronds. Now he gazes at houses made of mud bricks. To balance out the lack of human interaction, he has taken Afghanistan-familiarization courses offered by the Air Force. “You can picture them more as a people and a civilization,” he says.

Indeed, they see many things meant to be secret, like men having sex with sheep and goats in the deep of night. I first heard this from infantry soldiers and took it as rumor, but at Bagram I met a civilian contractor who works in UAV operations. “All the time,” he said. “They just don’t think we can see them.” Which sums up a major allure of UAVs: Though they should know better by now, many insurgents still feel safe working in darkness or in the shelter of distant mountains and valleys, so they are exposed again and again. The unmanned planes have eroded their freedom of movement and simple early-warning systems, two of their few assets when outmatched in weapons, technology, and resources. Helicopters can be heard a mile or more away. Spotters watch vehicles leave bases and follow the slow advance of dismounted patrols. Surprise is a rarity for U. S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgents almost always know they’re coming, with at least several minutes’ notice. So they toss weapons behind a rock and become, in an instant, civilians. But with a camera parked three miles overhead, last-minute subterfuge doesn’t work.

Enter the Betas, the future armchair fighter jocks. The Air Force is now training a first-ever test group brought straight into the Predator program. After six months of screening and basic flight instruction, the Betas started a nine-week initial qualification course at Creech, the same taken by pilots, which includes forty hours in a simulator and nine or more actual flights. The eight Beta students were still in the academics phase when I visited Creech, but the nonpilots, who came from jobs like military police, civil engineering, and acquisitions, had so far performed as well as trained pilots, Gersten says. For this type of work, how they grew up might be more important than whether they’ve logged a thousand hours flying supersonic. “This generation, where were they when 9/11 started? They were in junior high and high school,” Gersten says. “And they grew up with the very technology that we fly with here.” Those who dreamed of being fighter pilots might never get the chance as the skies unman, but America’s pool of gamers, texters, and TV watchers is certainly vast and deep. The Betas’ progress is being closely tracked by the Pentagon, which can build plenty of planes if it has the people to fly them.

Click here to read more.

To promote greater cooperation between the U.S. and Indian aviation sectors, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), in cooperation with the India Ministry of Civil Aviation, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Airports Authority of India, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, US. Transportation Security Administration, U.S.-India Aviation Cooperation Program, and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)/International Association of Airport Executives (IAAE), is sponsoring the U.S.- India Aviation Partnership Summit. The event will take place December 7-9, 2009, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. The summit will include participation from India’s three key civil aviation agencies – Ministry of Civil Aviation, Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Airports Authority of India – key industry members in the aviation sector, the U.S. government (USTDA, DOT/FAA, TSA, Departments of State and Commerce), and select members of Congress.

• Registration
• Agenda
• Hotel
• Transportation
• Sponsors
• Exhibitors
• Contacts

The 2009 U.S.-India Aviation Partnership Summit is designed to foster high-level dialogue on key issues related to India’s ongoing modernization: aviation safety, air traffic control management, aviation security, airspace utilization, sector environmental practices, and sector training. The summit will serve as a technical, policy and commercial symposium to assist Indian civil aviation agencies and aviation industry representatives in identifying advanced technology and practices that would best suit its expansion and modernization needs. The summit will provide momentum to the growing strategic and commercial relationship between the Indian and U.S. aviation sectors for the long term.

The U.S. India Aviation Partnership Summit will include a two-day conference in Washington, D.C., followed by two days of site visits to FAA and industry facilities in the Washington, D.C., area, and the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, N.J.

Topics To Be Covered

. Current State and Future Prospects of the India Aviation Industry
. Air Traffic Management Modernization in India: Opportunities and Challenges
. Airport Infrastructure Development/Financing
. Aircraft Maintenance and Certification
. Aviation Security
. Aviation Environmental Best Practices
. General Aviation Update (General Aviation Development in India and Helicopter Expansion)
. Aviation Training in India

Click here for more details

(Source: Rediff & Economictimes)

A pilot and the member of a cabin crew were injured when they scuffled with each other mid-air on Air India’s flight from Sharjah to Lucknow on Saturday morning.

“A pilot and a cabin crew of Air India’s IC-884 Sharjah-Lucknow-Delhi flight were injured after they had a scuffle over some issues mid-air,” an airline official told PTI.

The incident took place at around 0430 hours when the flight was over Pakistan, he said adding the flight with 106 passengers and seven crew member had left for Lucknow at 0035 hours Sharjah time.

The flight reached Lucknow at 0600 hours where the matter was reported. The airline management has de-rostered the pilot and the cabin crew member till the investigation into the incident was over.

Click here to read the entire article.

Funding of transportation-related infrastructure is at a crossroads. Traditional funding mechanisms, such as general and specific tax revenues, are proving to be insufficient to maintain existing facilities and fund expanded capacity. Infrastructure providers and operators are looking to users to make up for the shortfall. Transport-related infrastructure offers an exceptional opportunity for raising funds to establish and/or sustain such infrastructure while providing an attractive return on investment to both public and private investors. Key to achieving such returns are the prices charged to users. But how should user charges be set?

• Should every user pay the same fee?
• Is it practical, commercially worthwhile, and socially acceptable to charge differential prices?
• How should the price be set relative to the cost of alternatives modes or routings?
• How are these pricing principles changed when the facility is congested?
• Can pricing be used to reduce the problems of congestion?
• How does private operation of a facility change the pricing objectives?
• How might the public sector regulate prices?

These questions and more will be addressed in this two-and-half day course offered by the Transportation Center at Northwestern University.

Click Here for a Full-Brochure of the Program.

View Faculty

Facilities & Location

Registration & Fee*Registration

Program Fee (after 10.5.09) $2,700
Early Registration Fee (before 10.5.09) $2,160
Government & academic rate $2,160
Registration

Who Should Attend

The course is aimed at professionals who currently, or might in the future, set user charges; financial personnel; and engineers and project managers who oversee facility maintenance and new construction. It is also applicable to consultants to infrastructure providers, and those who finance infrastructure projects.

Course Format

Program content will be thoroughly integrated by the course faculty, so that participants will emerge with a comprehensive understanding and perspective of transportation infrastructure pricing strategies.  The focus of the course is on the economics of pricing. Some prior knowledge of economics, such as might be obtained from an introductory college level microeconomics course, will be useful.

Topics to be covered include:Full Program Schedule

For additional information please visit the Northwestern University Transportation Center website or contact: Ms. Diana Marek, Program Registrar – 847-491-2280; dmarek@northwestern.edu

(Source: New York Times & Associated Press)

Like most large international conferences, the United Nations climate summit meeting in New York this week generated a hefty dose of greenhouse gas emissions.

Hundreds of presidents, prime ministers and officials from across the globe this week took airplanes to the United Nations meeting, some accompanied by dozens of people. Limousines and motorcades ferried the dignitaries from airports to meetings to hotels and back, often getting stuck in Midtown Manhattan gridlock.

But since the goal of this meeting was to reduce the global emissions that have been linked to global warming, the United Nations decided to try to do something about all the carbon dioxide produced by the delegates: it bought carbon offsets.

Under a new and expanding program for offsetting emissions, United Nations administrators calculated that the meeting would generate the equivalent of 461 tons of carbon dioxide, with air travel being the single largest component. They offset those emissions by directing money to a power project in rural Andhra Pradesh, India, through which agricultural leftovers like rice husks and sunflower stalks are turned into electricity for the local grid.

The offsets are intended to cancel out the carbon dioxide emissions created by airline travel or driving by financing green projects that will eliminate as much CO2 as the polluting activities create.

The United Nations first tried its hand at large-scale offsets two years ago, shortly after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who called Tuesday’s conference, took office and declared that climate issues would be a central theme of his tenure.

“The secretary general started talking about greening the U.N. and that we needed to lead by example,” said Dan Shepard, a United Nations spokesman in New York.

• GIS-related airport tour of Manchester International Airport
• Diverse array of airport GIS-related presentations/demonstrations from airport GIS personnel, government officials, consultants and vendors
• Exhibit opportunities
• Sponsorship opportunities

All sessions, with the exception of the airport tour, will take place at the Renaissance Manchester Hotel. The conference will begin with registration and the welcome reception at 1830 on Tuesday, October 6. The general session will begin at 830 on Wednesday, October 7 and conclude at 1700 on Thursday, October 8. The registration fee includes all handout materials, the welcome reception, two luncheons and all coffee breaks. Dress is business attire. The Web site for the Renaissance Manchester Hotel is:www.renaissancemanchester.co.uk.

Click here for more details.

(Source: Time)

Time.com has featured the plight of an airline passenger, whose problems with the airline (Delta) started with a lost bag duringa  recent trip.  The efforts of the passenger and his multiple attempts to get reunited with his lost baggage are not so uncommon for many travelers.   Thousands of passenger go through similar ordeals and experience the agony of poor service and outdated operational systems, sucking up hours of their day(s), while waiting for airlines to do something to solve their problem. But what makes tihs Time.com story unique is the fact that the passenger in question happens to be a reporter and had a chance to air this miserable handling of the problem by Delta staff on a reputed platform.  It is appalling to see what a passenger has to endure,  that too when he is not the one who caused the problem in the first place.  What’s more pathetic is the fact that the Delta spokeswoman seems to be clueless about what reporting mechanisms are in place for her company to receive a customer’s complaint.  Shame on you, Delta!

Image Courtesy: Apture

Here are some excerpts from the Time.com article:

This is not a story about lost luggage. It’s a story about who to call at the airlines when you feel you’ve been mistreated. The answer, increasingly, is no one.

But it starts with a lost bag — the black duffel Delta Airlines lost on my recent trip from Kansas City to New York City after a nightmarish day of travel: a canceled flight on a perfectly clear morning; a cumbersome rerouting through Atlanta; arrival at LaGuardia after 6 p.m., more than five hours late. When my bag failed to show up, I faced yet another missed connection: to the bus I needed to catch for the two-hour ride to my final destination. So rather than wait in line at the lost-luggage counter, I took a phone number to call in the report later. Which I did — only to be told sternly that lost-baggage reports cannot be taken over the phone, only in person at the airport.

This seemed patently unreasonable. Delta had put me through a lot of trouble: canceling a flight, adding five hours of flying time to my day, losing my luggage. All I asked was the same courtesy accorded any passenger whose bag was lost by the airline: its return free of charge. But after three calls to the baggage folks, the best I could do was get the bag tracked (it eventually made it to LaGuardia). I was told that I had to either pick it up myself at the airport or pay a hefty delivery charge. Three times I asked for a supervisor to whom I could make an appeal. Three times I was told the person I was talking to was a supervisor. (Big labor news: at Delta Airlines, everyone is a boss!) Finally, I asked for a customer-service number so I could lodge a complaint. That’s when I found out how the airlines really feel about customer service: Delta no longer has such a number. An unhappy passenger’s only recourse is to go to the website and write an e-mail.

I spent half an hour filling out the online form, sent off an e-mail and got this response: “We are sorry but this service is unavailable at this time. Please try again later.” I managed to send the e-mail on a second try the next day. Still, I wanted a live human being to hear my case sooner. I called the main reservations line and wheedled a number at Delta’s corporate headquarters in Atlanta. But that only elicited a brusque gentleman who quickly swatted away my complaint. “That is Delta Airlines policy,” he said. “You just don’t like the policy.”Actually, airlines break their own policies all the time. Indeed, one of the few redeeming features of dealing with airlines is that, if you’re persistent and persuasive enough, you can usually find a representative willing to find you a seat on that sold-out flight, waive a change fee, ease your outrage by upgrading you to first class or give you a free meal voucher. When my flight was canceled, Delta waived the usual $15 fee on checked luggage. It’s actually smart business; even small gestures go a long way toward defusing consumer wrath.

At least, that’s the way it used to be. The major carriers have, quietly, made it steadily more difficult to air your complaints to a live human being. “The airlines don’t want to talk to their customers,” says John Tschohl, a consultant to businesses on customer service. American Airlines stopped taking customer complaints by phone several years ago, according to a spokesperson; putting the complaint in writing, he insisted, is more efficient. United used to have a customer-support number but dropped it “some months ago,” according to a reservations agent. (A corporate spokesperson didn’t return several phone calls asking for confirmation.) Even the few airlines that still have customer-service numbers, like Continental and Southwest, tuck them away deep within their websites, where only the truly obsessive can find them.

A Delta spokeswoman seemed perplexed by the whole question. First she said simply, “We direct customers to our e-mail.” After more checking, she reported that Delta does have a customer-care option on its toll-free number. When I couldn’t find it, she checked once more and clarified: the customer-care line is found on Delta’s main corporate phone number — but that number is not publicized and “it is not suggested” that customers call it. A representative at that number said they do not take customer complaints and directed me to the website.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Wired)

Image Courtesy: Evergreen via Wired

The deadly fires that have blackened more than 105,000 acres around Los Angeles prompted authorities to call in the world’s largest fire extinguisher — a Boeing 747 that can drop 20,000 gallons of retardant over a swath of land three miles long.

The plane made its first-ever drop in the continental United States when fire officials summoned it to the Oak Glen fire east of Los Angeles mid day on Monday. After the successful first drop, the Supertanker was called back into action Monday evening where it made further drops on the massive Station fire north of the city which grew to more than 164 square miles and threatened 10,000 homes. Nearly 2,600 firefighters from as far away as Montana are throwing everything they have at the blaze, and on Monday they called in the biggest tool in their inventory.

Supertanker, a 747-100 modified by Evergreen Aviation of Oregon, can deliver more than 20,000 gallons of fire retardant with considerable accuracy using its unique pressurized delivery system. Although Supertanker can’t snake through canyons like smaller aircraft, nothing can touch its payload or its ability to perform multiple controlled drops during a single flight. The Grumman S-2, a dedicated workhorse of California’s airtanker fleet, carries 1,200 gallons. That’s a thimbleful compared to the Supertanker.

Evergreen spent more than $50 million developing the Supertanker and hopes to sell it around the world as the premier aerial firefighting tool.

Besides being big, the Supertanker is persistent. The pressurized system can make several precision drops per flight. During the flight in Alaska, it dropped 17,000 gallons on its first pass over the fire, then returned to dump the rest of its payload. “If an incident commander says he wants a thousand gallons here, a thousand there and 15 thousand over there, we can do that,” Campfield says. “It’s like an aerosol can. You have much better control with a pressurized system.”

This kind of capability means Supertanker can fight several small fires, after a lightning storm for example, or cover a three-mile swath of property to protect a community. With a top speed in excess of 600 mph, Supertanker can get from its base to the fire line quickly. Currently the 747 is based at McClellan Airfield outside Sacramento. Once it’s over the fire, Supertanker can slow down to around 160 mph while making drops 300 feet above the ground. And unlike many other firefighting aircraft that are flying at or near their maximum weight, the 747 is flying well below its maximum providing an added safety margin for the pilots.

Click here to read the entire article.