1. Editor's Message
2. African Safety trails the rest of the world
3. Objects affecting navigable airspace
4. Hazard, Incident and Accident Statistics
6. Henley/Global Training
7. Airline Industry marks 100 years of Commercial Air Travel
8. Top 10 safest airlines
9. Aircraft safety - strike out!
10. News from the Jo'burg Airports
1. MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR
Every so often in our world of aviation a spate of unrelated incidents take place which are all of the same nature. Recently we have seen a number of Pilots landing large commercial aircraft into the wrong airport. All of the airports at which the aircraft landed are smaller, with shorter, narrower runways with less in the way of NAV Aids. Obviously a chain of events led to each of these incidents during which the industry has been lucky as no-one has been injured and the aircraft have not been majorly damaged.
The first incident took place in November when the largest Boeing 747 freighter ever built was supposed to deliver parts to McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kansas, USA., but in error landed 9 miles north at Col. James Jabara Airport. That plane was flown by a two-person crew and had no passengers. The website for M. Graham Clark Airport says its longest runway is 3,738 feet. Branson Airport's website says its runway is 7,140 feet long.
The second incident took place on the 18th December 2013 when a high-risk landing by a commercial Boeing 767 took place in Arusha, Tanzania which the Pilot mistook for Kilimanjaro International Airport. The aircraft made a safe landing at Arusha's runway 27 and stopped within the length of the runway. During an attempted 180 degrees turn, the nose and main landing gear wheels exited the runway and were stuck in soft soil. There was no damage to the aircraft. Arusha airport's elevation is 4,550 feet has one runway 09/27 which is 1,640 metres long and 30 metres wide. Kilimanjaro International Airport, elevation 2,930 feet has one runway 09/27 which is 3,600 metres long and 46 metres wide.
And this month Federal Officials are investigating why a flight was scheduled to go from Chicago's Midway International Airport to Branson Airport, in southwest Missouri, instead landed at another airport about 7 miles away that only had about half as much runway. The Boeing 737-700 landed at M. Graham Clark Downtown Airport/Taney County Airport whose
website says its longest runway is 3,738 feet. Branson Airport's website says its runway is 7,140 feet long.
So why do you think these errors of judgement are being made?
2. AFRICAN AIR SAFETY TRAILS REST OF WORLD
Africa once again reported the world's highest rate of fatal commercial aviation accidents in 2013, despite increased local and international efforts to improve air safety in the region. Africa has just 3% of global air traffic. But African crashes accounted for roughly 20% of the 29 accidents and 265 fatalities world-wide involving passenger and cargo planes designed to carry the equivalent of at least 14 passengers, according to an affiliate of the Flight Safety Foundation
There were six fatal crashes in Africa in 2013, compared with five the year before, according to the Aviation Safety Network, which released the year-end totals. The rolling four-year annual average of fatal crashes in the region remained at five, based on the ASN's latest data. Last year's tally includes crashes of three African passenger aircraft, the same number of passenger planes that went down in Russia or parts of the former Soviet Union combined-a region with twice as many departures as Africa.
The numbers disappointed some leading aviation experts, who had anticipated improvement in the region's performance. "It's unfortunate that a lot of the effort" expended over the years to enhance air safety throughout Africa, "hasn't yielded the kind of return we had hoped to see," said Kevin Hiatt, president and chief executive of the Flight Safety Foundation. Once outside experts and consultants help devise a strategic plan for the region, Mr Hiatt said on Sunday, "it doesn't seem like there is a lot of execution" by local governments or industry leaders. The next step may be to set up enhanced oversight to ensure "constant follow-ups and progress reports," said Mr Hiatt.
By contrast, the global accident statistics continue to improve. With a total of 265 deaths last year from airliner accidents world-wide, 2013 was by far the safest year ever in terms of commercial-aircraft fatalities.
Passenger counts have been climbing steadily in a number of African countries as some economies expand, resulting in more business travel and prompting some start-up carriers to launch new routes and attracting more first-time fliers. By some estimates, African airline traffic will increase nearly as quickly as that of the Middle East and fast-growing Asian regions over the next few years.
The safety tally follows a 2012 declaration by African political and air-safety officials to halve the rate of the most common categories of accidents and serious incidents by 2016. African carriers overall still have a long way to go to demonstrate significant improvement with the frequency of serious but nonfatal accidents and incidents across Africa basically staying flat since 2000. The latest numbers include a LAM Mozambique Airlines jet, which went down in November, killing all 33 aboard.
Last year, IATA chief Tony Tyler told a conference in Ethiopia that before African aviation can thrive, it has a safety problem that must be fixed. Even for Western-built jets, 2012 showed African crash rates running roughly 20 times higher than the global average. Such a poor regional safety record, results in reputation damage to all carriers in Africa. For all types of airliner models operating in Africa, IATA's data shows that the region's overall accident rate increased significantly between 2008 and 2012. IATA is expected to release its 2013 data in several weeks.
By ANDY PASZTOR CONNECT - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579302904075115882
3. OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE
As Pilots, Engineers, Ground Staff or Aerodrome Staff Members we all have a responsibility to report anything which affects the safety of a rotor or fixed wing aircraft and therefore need to know what to look for. The following should ensure that we all know what obstacles are and how they should be marked. The main reason for reporting is to control or prevent structures that could have a serious effect on aviation safety, especially in the vicinity of an aerodrome. (An aerodrome is a defined area on land or water intended for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft - ICAO definition). It also follows that the knowledge of where obstacles are, will add to aviation safety. A database of all obstacles is kept by the SA CAA and those above 60m above ground level are published in an Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) and indicated on aeronautical maps. This data is also made available for other purposes such as for use on the on-board computers of some aircraft, for environmental research purposes etc. As navigable airspace is any airspace where "heavier than air" craft can operate, it means that any obstacle, anywhere, needs to be evaluated.
An obstacle is defined as any communications structure, building or other structure, whether temporary or permanent, which has the potential to endanger aviation in navigable airspace, or has the potential to interfere with the operation of navigation or surveillance systems or Instrument Landing Systems, including meteorological systems for aeronautical purposes and therefore needs to have its details submitted to the Director for Civil Aviation for evaluation (refer SA-CAR Part 139.01.33). It should be remembered that "No person shall, through any act or omission endanger the safety of an aircraft or person therein, or cause or permit an aircraft to endanger the safety of any person or property" and anyone who is in non-compliance is guilty of an offence.
Does my structure require lights or any other markings? Obstacles are evaluated individually and markings (If any) are specified as requirements.
None:- There are no requirements as far as the marking of the structure is concerned and may be left as is, camouflaged as a pink elephant, a tree, signpost etc.
Night Markings:- Night markings are the addition of lights at the highest practical point of a structure to make such a structure more visible in darkness and poor light conditions. This will be found mostly on communications structures below 45m in height above ground where the need is identified to improve its visibility. The lights on top of these structures are ALWAYS used in pairs, for redundancy purposes, and shall be approved steady burning, red aeronautical obstruction lights of at least 10 candela, unless specified differently.
Night markings may also be applied to buildings or other substantial structures, which by its size and appearance cannot be overlooked in normal visibility conditions, such as a skyscraper, the cooling towers of a power station, mine headgear etc. but the need is identified to improve its visibility at night and poor visibility conditions. Such structures shall be illuminated by aeronautical obstruction lights, as above, clearly defining the outline of the structure in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 chapter 6, unless specified differently. Where this is not achievable due to practical considerations, different means of compliance may be specified or allowed, after investigation. This may be in the form of flood lighting, effect lighting (such as illuminated advertisements) etc.
Day and Night Markings:- Day and night markings apply to all structures exceeding 45m above the ground in South Africa by default (refer SA-CAR Part 139.01.33), or lower structures when specified. Such structures may include structures where the top of the structure exceeds 150m above the MEAN ground level, like on top of a hill, and the mean ground level considered to be the lowest point in a 3 Kilometre radius around such structure. Lower structures, which are otherwise considered as a danger to aviation, shall also be marked as such when specified.
Paint markings (Day markings) shall be in compliance with ICAO Annex 14 chapter 6 and shall consist of seven painted bands, each one seventh of the length of the structure, and shall consist of bands of International Orange (or Post Office red) alternated by brilliant white, starting and ending in orange/red, to a maximum length of 30 metres per band (i.e. a 210m mast). Thereafter it becomes 9 bands, each one ninth of the length of the mast up to 270m, 11 bands up to 330m etc.
Lights (Night marking) to be used shall consist of a pair of steady burning approved red aeronautical obstruction lights of at least 32 candela each at the highest practical point of the structure. This may be substituted by a medium intensity Type B flashing red light (20 - 60 flashes per minute), of 2000 candela (±25 %) intensity in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 table 6-3.
Intermediate lights shall be placed at a position midway between the top of the structure and the ground and shall consist of at least three steady burning red aeronautical obstruction lights of at least 32 candela each, on the same vertical plane and spaced not more than 120 degree horizontally. At least two lights shall be visible through any azimuth of 360 degree and no light shall be spaced more than 30m apart, on the horizontal plane of any structure. Multiple lights may be required to satisfy this requirement. The vertical spacing of lights shall be as far as practical be evenly spaced and shall not exceed 45m between vertical levels.
1. Structures of 45 to 90m heights shall have dual lights on top and not less than a set of three lights at the intermediate level. An additional set of lights shall be added when the structure exceeds 90m in height and for any multiple thereafter.
2. On structures of more than 90m,the top and every odd numbered light below may be substituted by a medium intensity Type B flashing red light (20 - 60 flashes per minute), of 2000 candela (±25 %) intensity in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 table 6-3.
3. These flashing lights shall be synchronised.
The Director may require more stringent markings in specific situations and may require that lights be powered from a no-break power source (UPS).
Power lines, overhead wires and cables are considered as obstacles and the detail shall be communicated to the Director at an early planning stage. The Director shall require the route of the power line, the co-ordinates (latitude and longitude in degree, minute, seconds and tenth of seconds format) of turning points in the line, the maximum height of the structures above ground level and the name of the power line. The Director shall evaluate the route and require those sections of the line (if any), which is considered a danger to aviation to be marked or rerouted.
Power lines shall be marked when crossing a river, valley or major highway with marker spheres of a diameter of not less than 60 cm. The spheres shall be of one colour and displayed alternately orange/red and white or a colour that is in sharp contrast to the background as seen from an airborne perspective. The spacing between the spheres and between the spheres and the supporting towers shall not exceed 30m. On lines with multiple cables, the spheres shall be fitted to the highest cable. The marker spheres shall be visible from at least 1000m from an airborne perspective and 300m from the ground.
Where power lines cross a river or valley, the co-ordinates (latitude and longitude in degree, minute, seconds and tenth of seconds format) and the height of the line above the valley or river, shall be communicated to the Director for publication in the appropriate media. The Director may require that supporting towers be marked and lighted.
Cranes: Where cranes are erected, prior permission shall be obtained from the Director. The co-ordinates (latitude and longitude in degree, minute, seconds and tenth of seconds format), the ground elevation of the site above sea level, the height of the crane, the dimensions of the jib as well as the erecting date and duration of the project must be communicated to the Director for evaluation and publication in the relevant media. The Director shall specify markings, if required.
When markings are required, the crane shall be painted in a conspicuous colour which in a sharp contrast to the background from an airborne perspective. Illumination shall clearly define the shape of the crane and the extremities of the structure shall be illuminated by medium intensity Type B flashing red light (20 - 60 flashes per minute), of 2000 candela (±25 %) intensity in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 table 6-3.
Where do I find the specifications on markings? Specification on the lighting and painting of structures can be found in ICAO Annex 14 chapter 6 and the specifics in Annex 14 Appendix 1. Colours for aeronautical ground lights, markings, signs and panels
4. HAZARD, INCIDENT AND ACCIDENT REPORTS
FIXED WING ACCIDENTS IN AFRICA - 2014
DATE TYPE FATALITIES LOCATION
04 Jan TBA 1 Breede River between Cape Infanta and Swellendam, WC, RSA
14 Jan FA52 SAB 2 Nr Kabanje, Bwiketo Village, Zambia
20 Jan Antonov 28 0 On the approach into Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
28 Jan KR2 (Homebuilt) 1 Wonderboom Airport, Pretoria, RSA
29 Jan Giles G-202 1 Alexandria, EC, RSA
03 Feb Beechcraft C90GTi 3 Lanseria International Airport, RSA
Source, amongst others, PlaneCrash info.com; News24, Aviation Herald, Flight Safety Information
ROTOR WING ACCIDENTS IN AFRICA - 2014
DATE TYPE FATALITIES LOCATION
07 Jan Eurocopter AS 350 (Squirrel) 0 Grand Central Airport, GP, RSA
12 Jan RH44 1 Nr Gwanda Town, Zimbabwe
FIXED WING INCIDENTS AND HAZARDS REPORT TO GAC JAN 2014
INC HAZ DATE A/C TYPE LOCATION FATAL ITIES CIRCUMSTANCES OP TYPE
INC 04 Jan Cessna 172 Rand Airport, RSA 0 A/C Burst a tyre on landing PVT
INC 06 Jan B737-800 London Gatwick Airport, UK 0 En-route from Marrakesh (Morocco) to London Gatwick, EN (UK), the a/c was on final approach to Gatwick's runway 26L still waiting for late landing clearance, while preceding landing traffic, a Boeing 737-700 from Erfurt (Germany) to London Gatwick was instructed to expedite vacating the runway. When the a/c descended through about 200 feet AGL tower began reporting winds in preparation for a landing clearance but stopped, instructed "disregard" and "go-around" as the aircraft was descending through about 150 feet AGL. The crew acknowledged and correctly read back the instruction to go around, however, continued the landing on runway 26L, rolled out safely and vacated the runway. COM
INC 11 Jan A320-200 Sharjah, United Arab Emirates On departure from Sharjah (United Arab Emirates) to Cairo (Egypt) the a/c was climbing out of Sharjah's runway 12 when the crew stopped the climb at 4000 feet reporting they blew a tyre on take-off. The aircraft returned to Sharjah for a safe landing on runway 12 about 45 minutes after departure and stopped disabled on the runway. COM
INC 12 Jan A340-300 Casablanca, Morocco 0 En-route from Istanbul (Turkey) to Sao Paulo Guarulhos (Brazil) was near Casablanca (Morocco) when the crew decided to divert there after a suspicious item had been found on board. The aircraft landed safely at Casablanca. COM
INC 20 Jan B767-300 Mombasa, Kenya 0 On departure from Mombasa (Kenya) to Zanzibar (Tanzania), the take-off was rejected at high speed (+/- 90 knots) after a heron was ingested into the left hand engine (PW4060). The aircraft slowed safely and returned to the apron. It was later determined that the engine was not damaged and the heron had not entered the engine core. COM
Inc 23 Jan B757-200 Khartoum, Sudan 0 A/C was en-route from Stockholm (Sweden) to Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) at FL390 when a loss of cabin pressure resulted in an emergency descent to FL100 and a diversion into Khartoum. COM
ROTOR WING INCIDENTS AND HAZARDS REPORTED TO GAC JAN 2014
INC HAZ DATE A/C TYPE LOCATION FATALITIES CIRCUMSTANCES OP TYPE
INC 16 Jan Bell 207 Rand Airport, GP, RSA 0 A/C Suffered radio failure. Landed safe PVT
INC 22 Jan RH44 Grand Central Airport, GP, RSA 0 Forced landing due low fuel indication H&F
DATE REPORTED AERODROME HAZARD
January Goma, DRC Construction Hazards - Aerodrome being fenced and runway is being rehabilitated
January Goma, DRC Unmanned aircraft
January Lubumbashi, DRC Construction Hazards - runway and taxiway re-habilitation taking place
5. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING
Blake Emergency Services is the International Crisis Management and Contingency Planning Consultancy who, although based in the UK, have serious experience in Africa having handled accidents, incidents, counselling, repatriation, DNA sampling and confirmation, in amongst others Lagos, Nigeria; Fez, Morocco; Pointe Noire, Congo; Moroni, Comores; Maputo, Mozambique. Please go to www.blakeemergency.com or contact email@example.com . The date for your diary for the next training day in Gauteng is 29th March 2014.
6. HENLEY/GLOBAL AVIATION TRAINING
Should you wish to make a booking for any of these courses please contact Candice on 011 024 5446 or by email to firstname.lastname@example.org
DATES COURSE LECTURER COST EXCL. VAT PER DELEGATE
3 Feb 2014 CRM - Recurrent Verity Wallace R 950=00
3 Feb 2014 Dangerous Goods - Recurrent Verity Wallace R 750=00
17-18 Feb 2014 Quality Assurance Auditor Course Dan Drew R 2,250=00
10 Mar CRM - Recurrent Verity Wallace R 950=00
10 Mar Dangerous Goods - Recurrent Verity Wallace R 750=00
17-18 Mar Quality Assurance Auditor Course Dan Drew R 2,250=00
Note: Cost per delegate includes all training materials, refreshments and lunch.
Note: Attendees paying in cash on the day are eligible for a 10% discount
Note: Both Recurrent CRM and Dangerous Goods Training Courses are available upon request - even at short notice.
First Aid and the Law, please contact email@example.com
Emergency Response, Incident Response, Operations Control, Emergency Response and Family Assistance training together with the writing of Emergency Response Plans and Procedures training is now offered by Blake Emergency Services. For more information, please contact Rethea on firstname.lastname@example.org
7. AIRLINE INDUSTRY MARKS 100 YEARS OF COMMERCIAL AIR TRAVEL
Millions of people step aboard airplanes each day, complaining about the lack of legroom and overhead space but almost taking for granted that they can travel thousands of miles in just a few hours. January marked the 100th anniversary of the first commercial flight: a 23-minute hop across Florida's Tampa Bay. The St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line was subsidized by St. Petersburg officials who wanted more winter tourists in their city. The alternative: an 11-hour train ride from Tampa.
That day, pilot Tony Jannus had room for just one passenger, the mayor of St. Petersburg, who sat next to him in the open cockpit. Three months later -- when tourism season ended -- so did the subsidy. The airline had carried 1,204 passengers but would never fly again. Air travel was a risky business back then, according to DePaul University transportation expert, Dr. Joseph Schwieterman. "Those early flights were akin to a roller-coaster ride today, but the risk was real." It took some time for the commercial airline industry to really get going. Back then, train travel ruled. "Most people viewed air travel as an expensive extravagance at the time," Schwieterman said. "But this new mode of travel also captured everyone's imagination. People knew that big things were coming and that air travel would be in the middle of it all." In the 1920's other regional, commercial airlines started to pop up, like the Detroit-Grand Rapids Airline, which charged $35 for a round-trip ticket.
With the 100th anniversary in mind, The Associated Press reached out to today's aviation leaders to see what they are predicting for the future of flying. In five years, Richard Anderson, CEO of Delta Air Lines thinks small jets will start to be a thing of the past. "Just over a decade ago airlines seemed to be buying every 50-seat aircraft they could get their hands on," he says. "But the real utility of those small jets has come and gone and in the next five years we'll see their numbers in the U.S. continue to dwindle." In that same time frame, Gary Kelly, CEO of Southwest Airlines, predicts, "We'll have fewer airlines, but they will be bigger, stronger and healthier."
Fast forward 25 years and Sir Richard Branson, president of Virgin Atlantic Airways said "I have no doubt that during my lifetime we will be able to fly from London to Sydney in under two hours, with minimal environmental impact. The awe-inspiring views of our beautiful planet below and zero-gravity passenger fun will bring a whole new meaning to in-flight entertainment."
Mark Dunkerley, CEO Hawaiian Airlines paints a less rosy picture. "Many of today's consumers will be priced out of the air," he said. "Failure to invest in aviation infrastructure and the insatiable appetite for regulation will not be offset by relatively modest further improvements in aircraft efficiency."
Doug Parker, CEO of American Airlines says in looking that far into the future, the sky's the limit. "I am quite certain that Tony Jannus (who piloted the first commercial flight) never could have imagined the size and importance of commercial aviation today, or the impact it had on changing our world. Similarly, I cannot imagine what commercial aviation will look like in 2114."
8. TOP 10 SAFEST AIRLINES
(CNN) -- Flight-phobics, relax -- a list of the world's safest airlines has just been released. Top of the ranking from AirlineRatings.com of the safest carriers in 2013 is the Australian airline Qantas. Awarding it a full seven stars, the website cites the airline's fatality-free flying record from the beginning of the jet era in the early 1950s.
Other airlines sharing the seven-star rating and winning a place among the top 10 safest airlines are, in alphabetical order, Air New Zealand, All Nippon Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Eva Air, Royal Jordanian, Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic.
9. AIRCRAFT SAFETY - STRIKE OUT!!
Radar stops aircraft colliding with each other. It should be used to stop them colliding with birds, too.
ONE of the scarier videos on YouTube (ow.ly/sBIOq) was recorded by the nose-cone camera of a fighter jet as it was taking off. Just after the plane leaves the runway a large bird comes hurtling towards it and vanishes into the aircraft's engine. The pilot spends an agonising 30 seconds or so trying to regain control, before issuing the order to eject, after which the viewer is treated to a shot of the onrushing ground before the screen goes blank.
Bird strikes are a problem-sometimes a fatal one-for military and civil aviation alike. America's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reports that there are about 10,000 such strikes a year to the country's non-military aircraft, costing more than $957m in damage and delays. The worldwide figure is estimated by the European Space Agency to be $1.2 billion.
Moreover, though relatively few people have been killed in accidents caused by bird strikes (research by John Thorpe, former chairman of the International Bird Strike Committee, recorded 242 deaths between 1912 and 2004), the potential for something horrible to happen is real-as was shown by one of the most famous strikes of recent years. In 2009 an Airbus with 155 people on board hit a flock of geese when it was taking off from LaGuardia airport in New York. The passengers were saved only by the skill of the pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, who managed to ditch the plane safely in the Hudson river.
At the moment, attempts to deal with the problem mostly involve efforts to cull flocks of the larger species-geese in particular-in the vicinity of airports, and also the use of bird scarers to try to drive off those actually sitting near runways. As the figures suggest, these approaches do not work well. There may, however, be a better way. For a decade or more the air forces of several countries have used radar to track birds which might threaten their aircraft. Now, similar systems are being considered for civilian airports. If they work, the old methods of trying to scare birds away, or cull them, can be abandoned.
The longest-running study of the use of radar to prevent bird strikes was started three decades ago, in Israel, by Yossi Leshem of Tel Aviv University. It has helped the Israeli air force reduce the number of strikes it suffers by two-thirds. Dr Leshem began his research using a mixture of powered gliders, drones, ground-based bird watchers and radar to build up data on the flocks that migrate over Israel in the spring and autumn. From these observations he has worked out the meanings of different sorts of radar blips, and can thus tell what is going on ornithologically from radar alone. The upshot is a system which can follow individual birds that weigh as little as ten grams and are as far away as 20km (12 miles). He can track birds the size of pelicans and geese at a distance of 90km. Moreover, knowledge of the weather, and of how birds have behaved in previous years, allows him to predict what they will do next, so aircraft can be routed above them.
Inspired by Dr Leshem, other air forces have taken up the idea of tracking birds by radar. A cottage industry manufacturing kit tweaked to do so has developed (mostly using naval X-band radars, whose wavelength is perfect for spotting birds). One such piece of equipment, the eBirdRad radar unit made by Accipiter Radar Technologies, a Canadian firm, can track more than 100 targets at the same time, at a range of at least 11km and up to an altitude of 1km, according to a study carried out in 2011 by the IVAR (Integration and Validation of Avian Radars) project, a consortium of government and academic researchers. Accipiter's radars are deployed at Naval Base Ventura County, in California, and Elmendorf Air Force Base, in Alaska. They are also being tested at John F. Kennedy airport in New York, O'Hare airport in Chicago and Seattle-Tacoma airport in Washington state, in an experiment run by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and sponsored by the FAA.
DeTect, an American firm, has its equipment (branded "Merlin") installed at numerous American air force bases, and also at bases in Latvia, Nigeria, Poland and South Africa. Robin Radar, a Dutch manufacturer, has created a system which lets the Dutch and Belgian air forces watch their collective airspace-and which has halved the number of bird strikes happening in its purview. Like Accipiter, Robin has also dipped a toe in the civil-aviation market. In April 2013 the authorities at Schiphol airport, near Amsterdam, started a year-long trial of its system, watching the approaches to one of Schiphol's six runways. Yet, given avian radar's success in the military arena, civil aviation seems surprisingly sceptical.
One worry seems to be that radar cannot distinguish between different species. At the moment that is generally true, though according to Dr Leshem the Swiss Ornithological Institute in Sempach has developed a Doppler radar that can identify blips by species. Michael Begier, national co-ordinator of the airport-wildlife-hazard programme run by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), who is a member of the IVAR, thinks species identification is essential. If a system cannot tell the difference between a flock of waterfowl and a flock of songbirds, he suggests, it is hard to issue meaningful warnings.
Dr Leshem disagrees. "You don't", he says, "need to identify the species by radar, but to identify an approaching flock, and this we see perfectly with radars used by the Israeli air force, and in air bases in the Netherlands, Germany and Gary Andrews, DeTect's general manager (and thus, admittedly, an interested party), puts it more bluntly. He believes the USDA sees radar as a threat, because the department is paid by local authorities to try to control birds by traditional methods.
Whatever the reason for reluctance in the past, a change of direction now seems sensible. In a report whose publication is pending, the USDA itself recommends that "new technologies such as the use of bird-detecting radar...should be pursued more vigorously." Perhaps, though, the last word should go to Captain Sullenberger, a strong supporter of avian radar since his unexpected ducking in the Hudson. Noting the slow-footedness of the authorities, he says, "I think many are hoping we can continue to be lucky."
9. NEWS FROM THE JOHANNESBURG AIRPORTS
FAGM - RAND AIRPORT, GERMISTON - www.randairport.co.za
The next Safety Meeting will be held at 09.00 on Tuesday 4th March 2014
FAGC - GRAND CENTRAL AIRPORT, MIDRAND - www.grandcentral.co.za
The next Safety Meeting is to be held at 12.00 on Tuesday 4th March 2014.
FALA - LANSERIA AIRPORT - www.lanseriaairport.co.za
The next Safety Meeting will be held at 12.00 on Tuesday, 11th February 2014
Part Time Consultant Air Safety Officers required who comply with the requirements of SA CARS Part 135, Part 121, Part 127, Part 140, Part 141 and Part 145 - must have had appropriate SMS training, previous experience and preferably been approved by the South African Air Services Licencing Council.
Part Time Quality Assurance Consultants required who are appropriately qualified and comply with the requirements of Part 135, Part 121, Part 127, Part 140, Part 141 and Part 145
If you are interested and qualified please send your CV to email@example.com
Global Aviation Consultants accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
GLOBAL AVIATION CONSULTANTS (PTY) LTD
Can we help you with your aviation safety
And / or quality requirements?
Under SA CAR 140.01.2 if you and your organisation hold one of the following
Q a category 4 or higher aerodrome licence;
Q an ATO approval;
Q an aircraft maintenance organisation approval;
Q a manufacturing organisation approval ;
Q an ATSU approval;
Q a design organisation approval;
Q an AOC issued in terms of Part 121, 127, 135, 141;
Q a procedure design organisation approval; and
Q an electronic services organisation approval,
then you shall establish a Safety Management System for the control and supervision of the services rendered or to be rendered by that organisation.
If you do not already have an approved Air Safety Officer and an approved Safety Management System then please contact us for assistance.
We, at global aviation consultants, deliver the following SA CAA Approved training courses for Air Safety Officers at Rand Airport;
Q Safety Management Systems
Q Integrated Safety Officer Course
Q Quality Assurance Auditor
Q Crew Resource Management (Initial and Recurrent)
Q Dangerous Goods
Q Human Factors for AME's
Should your operation be of a size whereby the full time employment of an Air Safety Officer and/or Quality Assurance Officer is not financially viable then we can provide you with Consultants who have previously held Air Services Licensing Council approval. We can also provide you with a tailor made SA CAA approved Safety Management System.
For further information on how we can help you please contact Rethea or Candice in Hanger 6, Rand Airport, Germiston on 011-024--5446/7 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Global Aviation Consultants, Hanger 6, Spitfire Avenue, Rand Airport, Johannesburg, RSA
Tel: 011 024 5446 e-mail email@example.com