Federal Transportation Agency Refuses To Exempt Airlines From New Tarmac-Delay Rule

0 comments

Posted on 23rd April 2010 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , ,

Five airlines are not getting a temporary pass to leave passengers stuck in planes on runways.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Thursday denied the airlines’ requests for a temporary exemption from a new rule limiting tarmac delays. As a result, all U.S. carrier flights covered by the rule will be subject to its terms effective April 29. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot7610.htm

“Passengers on flights delayed on the tarmac have a right to know they will not be held aboard a plane indefinitely,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. “This is an important consumer protection, and we believe it should take effect as planned.”

JetBlue Airways, Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, Continental Airlines and US Airways had all sought temporary exemption from the new rules, which go into effect April 29.

At that date, airlines who leave passengers stranded on a delayed plane for more than three hours can be fined up to $27,500 a passenger – a pretty stiff fine. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/04/feds-reject-request-to-exempt-airlines-from-delay-fines.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MoneyCompany+%28Money+%26+Company%29

The tarmac-delay provision was part of a new airline passenger protection rule, issued last December, that prohibits U.S. airlines operating domestic flights from permitting an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at large and medium-hub airports for more than three hours without deplaning passengers.

Exceptions were allowed only for safety or security reasons or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.

The carriers argued that, without the requested exemption, large numbers of flights will have to be canceled at the New York area airports and affected passengers will face significant inconveniences and delays before being accommodated.

JetBlue, American and Delta argued that they needed an exemption for delays at JFK International Airport because there is runway construction going on there that won’t be complete until December. Continental said it needed an extension for delays at New York’s LaGuardia Airport and Newark International Airport. US Airways requested an exemption for Philadelphia International Airport.

In denying the requests, the Transportation Department concluded that airlines could minimize tarmac delays by rerouting or rescheduling flights at JFK to allow the airport’s other three runways to absorb the extra traffic.

The Transportation Department also noted that it has the ability to take into account the impact of the runway closure and the harm to consumers when deciding whether to pursue enforcement action for failure to comply with the rule and the amount of a fine, if any, to seek as a result of non-compliance.


4 passengers sue Boeing in Denver crash

0 comments

Posted on 26th February 2009 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , ,

Date: 2/26/2009

By KATIE OYAN
Associated Press Writer

DENVER (AP) — Four passengers on a Continental Airlines jet that veered off a Denver runway in December have filed suit against the jet’s maker.

The lawsuits filed in federal court in Denver allege that Boeing Co. negligently designed and manufactured certain parts of the plane, including its “directional control mechanisms.”

The complaints contend the defective parts made it hard for the pilots to maintain runway heading while taking off in high crosswinds.

Boeing did not immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday night.

On Dec. 20, the Houston-bound Boeing 737 veered sharply off the Denver International Airport runway and into a ravine, where it caught fire. The flight was carrying 110 passengers and five crew members; 38 people were injured.

Gusts of up to 37 mph were reported at the airport on the day of the accident, and aviation safety experts have said strong crosswinds likely were a factor in the crash.

The four passengers say they suffered emotional and physical injuries and loss of personal property in the wreck. They’re seeking compensatory and other damages.

At least eight other passengers on flight 1404 are suing Continental. They claim the airline failed to properly operate or control the aircraft as it veered off the runway.

Continental has said it is prepared to defend the company’s actions and those of the plane’s crew.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Cyclical menace of ice revisits aviation

0 comments

Posted on 15th February 2009 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

Date: 2/14/2009

By LARRY NEUMEISTER and ADAM GOLDMAN
Associated Press Writers

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — Every time ice is suspected of bringing down a plane, the volume rises on how best to protect aircraft from the all-too-common and all-too-disastrous phenomenon. And each time, the conversation fades before significant changes are made.

Authorities caution that they’re still investigating why Continental Connection Flight 3407 dropped out of the sky onto a house Thursday night, killing 50 people. But recordings show the crew was concerned about ice buildup on the windshield and wings shortly before the crash.

With planes carefully designed for aerodynamics, a buildup of ice can affect their lift and handling. A crash blamed on ice killed 68 people in 1994 in Indiana, another killed 29 people in 1997 in Detroit.

Investigators know the Buffalo plane’s deicing system was turned on and say it appeared to be working. What they don’t know is when it was activated or how much time the pilot had to react.

Planes are deiced before takeoff to remove any ice that collects beforehand. Sometimes, they must be deiced in the air as they descend and encounter the necessary mix of temperature and precipitation for ice to form.

If a midair deicing system isn’t working, guidelines from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety Foundation say pilots can take a number of steps, including changing speed, pulling the nose up or down, or trying a 180-degree turn to rid the plane of ice.

It’s not known what steps the pilot in Thursday’s crash might have taken if he was experiencing ice buildup. But the plane had been approaching the airport, and investigators said Saturday that it apparently was pointing in the opposite direction when it crashed.

Pilots of turboprop planes like those in the Buffalo-area crash must turn on their deicing equipment when they notice buildup. The NTSB wants to go a step further and require them to turn the equipment on when conditions are right for icing.

Then there’s talk of an automated ice-detection system like those used in jetliners — but some automated systems can cost upward of $500,000, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The commuter plane that crashed near Buffalo, a Q400 Bombardier, was equipped with rubber bladders that can be inflated by the pilot to crack ice on the nose, wings and tail; the wind then sweeps away the cracked ice.

Many procedures and devices can help ensure icing is not dangerous, and pilots need to keep up on the latest developments, Chealander said.

“You can design everything in the world, but if the human being doesn’t use all those things constantly and focus on them constantly, then you can have tragic consequences,” he said.

“I’m not trying to draw any conclusions about this accident, I’m just saying in general, we can never let up our focus on all these types of things,” he added.

Once activated on the newer model that the Buffalo pilot flew, the bladders inflate and deflate every 24 seconds automatically, a system that NTSB Vice Chairman Steve Chealander called “very sophisticated” at a Saturday briefing.

Not mentioning the Federal Aviation Administration by name, Chealander said the NTSB’s recommendations to stiffen rules on deicing have gone unheeded for years.

“We don’t like the progress that’s taken place right now,” Chealander told The Associated Press on Saturday.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said her agency has not ignored the NTSB recommendations and has issued more than 100 airworthiness directives since 1994 that address icing.

“Their concern is this is not happening quickly enough,” Brown said. “As with any safety improvement that is significant, we have to go through rulemaking to get there. It takes time.”

In 2007, the FAA proposed requiring better ways to detect ice buildup or let pilots know about conditions that could cause ice buildup — in future airplane designs.

It also proposed methods that could help automatically detect ice or potentially icy weather and cue the pilot to turn on deicers. The rule is in the final stages of executive review.

In big jets, crews use heat from the engines to warm the wings and prevent ice buildup. But smaller commuter planes like the 74-seater that crashed Thursday had no such option.

“The big planes are using it off their jet engines,” said Justin T. Green, an aviation attorney in New York who has represented the families of victims of air disasters.

The threat of icing looms so commonly that Robert Benzon, the chief investigator of the January splashdown in the Hudson River of a US Airways jetliner, described it as a cyclical menace during an interview last month.

“You do a rash of wing icing accidents,” he said. “We rattle our sword. The industry gets its act together and then as time passes, things start to slip and 10 years down the road you get another rash of this type of accident. It’s a difficult thing to overcome.”

___

Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Adam Goldman in New York and Slobodan Lekic in Brussels, Belgium.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Flight crew to blame in 2006 “clipping” incident

0 comments

Posted on 30th September 2008 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , ,

Date: 9/30/2008 3:05 AM

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — The flight crew of a Lufthansa jet was to blame for clipping another plane while taxiing at Newark Liberty International Airport in October 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board said. Investigators said the crew was distracted by a plane it was taxiing behind. The Lufthansa jet clipped the right wing of a Continental plane that was being towed. No one was injured.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.