DOCSLIB.ORG

Aircrew Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aircrew Final EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 !" " " Results of the EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew December 2010 - January 2012 Final document - 7th February 2012 Written by: François Drouet and Marie Michelet Questions sent to the members of the Network: 1. Is there a regulation concerning radiation protection requirements for aircraft crew in your country? 2. If yes: - What are the main requirements? - What are the means and tools used to assess aircrew's exposure? - Is there a specific dose criteria defined for aircraft crew? 3. Could you provide data on the number of aircrew exposed, maximum annual level of exposure, average annual level of exposure, etc.? " EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 #" SYNTHESIS 1. Countries answering the request 14 countries answered the request about radiation protection of aircraft crew: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Slovenia, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. There is not a regulation concerning radiation protection requirements for aircraft crew in Norway. 2. Regulations The regulations on radiation protection of aircraft crew are national regulations for every country answering the survey except for Sweden, which has implemented the international recommendations JAR-OPS 1. For most regulations, the main requirements are the following, for exposure higher than 1 mSv a year: - Assess exposure of the crew - Take into account the assessed exposure when organizing flight schedules - Inform the workers on risk due to cosmic radiation - Limit the exposure of pregnant workers Some countries add several requirements such as monitoring (Finland, France), medical surveillance (France). Specific requirements (protection actions) are implemented for exposure higher than 6 mSv.y-1 in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia and Greece. In Slovenia a dose constraint of 2 mSv.y-1 is implemented. Furthermore, in Italy and in the Netherlands, aircrew flying regularly over 8 000 m (exposure higher than 1 mSv.y-1 are category B workers). 3. Data The Figure 1 below presents the data concerning the number of aircraft crew exposed and the $%&'()"# the associated annual effective dose (both average and maximum) when available. The number of aircrew exposed varies from 213 in Lithuania to about 40,000 in Germany and the UK. Concerning the maximum annual effective dose, the highest dose are about 6 to 8 mSv for Denmark, Germany and Finland and the lowest is about 1.7 mSv in Slovenia. The average annual effective dose varies from 1 mSv for Czech Republic to 2.5 mSv for both Finland and Sweden. " EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 *" " !"#$%&'()' *$+,&%'-.'/"%0%/.1'0%&2'&34-5&6' " " " !"#$%&'7)' 89&%/#&'/:6'+/3"+$+'/::$/;'&..&01"9&'6-5&'' " EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 !" Regulations Country Regulation Main requirements Assessment of exposure Dose criteria If exposure can be higher than 1 mSv in FANC guidance defines Dose assessment if the a year: 3 criteria to readily assess individual dose is higher - Assess exposure of the crew whether aircrews are unlikely to than 1 mSv/y. - Take into account the assessed receive more than 1 mSv/y. Royal Decree of July 20, 2001 exposure when organizing flight Belgium No other specific criteria § 4 and 9 schedules If these criteria does not apply, in theory. In practice - Inform the workers on risk due to assessment using one of the special requirement is the cosmic radiation following software: IASON- dose is higher than FREE, PCAIRE, CARI or - Limit the exposure of pregnant 6 mSv/y. workers. GLOBALOG If exposure can be higher than 1 mSv in a year: - Assess exposure of the crew - Take into account the assessed Regulation No. 307/2002 Coll. exposure when organizing flight Assessment with CARI-6 Czech Republic / on radiation protection schedules software - Inform the workers on risk due to cosmic radiation - Limit the exposure of pregnant workers. If exposure can be higher than 1 mSv in a year: - Assess exposure of the crew Guidelines on the Control of - Take into account the assessed Exposure to Cosmic Radiation exposure when organizing flight Assessment with computer Specific requirements if > Denmark of Aircrew in the Nordic schedules code: EPCARD, CARI-6, FREE 6 mSv/y Countries - Inform the workers on risk due to cosmic radiation - Limit the exposure of pregnant workers. " EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 !" " Country Regulation Main requirements Assessment of exposure Dose criteria If exposure can be higher than 1 mSv in a year: - Exposure must be monitored and assessed doses announced to the Dose Radiation Act 1991/592 - Register, Chapter 12 - Work shifts and flight routes must be planned to ensure that the worker’s Radiation Decree 1991/1512 - Assessment with computer Ai crew’s annual dose Finland annual effective dose does not exceed Chapter 7 code: all companies use CARI-6 should not exceed 6 mSv 6 mSv per year, Guide ST 12.4 - Radiation - The exposure of pregnant workers safety in aviation must be limited and the effective dose is not allowed to exceed 1 mSv during pregnancy, - The workers must be informed of the risk due to cosmic radiation. Evaluate if the dose can be higher than 1 mSv/y. If so, implement technical and Labour Code (article R.4451- administrative means to reduce the 140 to R.4451-144) dose. If not possible to reduce below Assessment with SIEVERT France 1 mSv, occupational RP provisions for / practices apply (assessment of exposure, (www.sievert-system.org) Order of 8 December 2003 medical surveillance, information, particular provision for pregnant women, etc.) - Manage the dose by appropriate crew Aircrews likely to receive more allocation and flight planning than 1 mSv/y (depending on - Inform the workers on risk due to annual block time hours and Radiation Protection cosmic radiation altitude) are subject to Specific requirements of Germany Ordinance - Official dose monitoring if dose > individual monitoring by route medical check up if > § 103 1 mSv/y dose calculation. 6 mSv/y (cat. A Worker) - If pregnancy is announced female air crew members are allocated for Approved codes: EPCARD, ground service. PCAIRE or FREE " EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 !" " Country Regulation Main requirements Assessment of exposure Dose criteria - Inform the workers on risk due to cosmic radiation - Assess exposure of the crew and Radiation Protection Limit exposure above Greece communicate information to GAEC if Assessment with computer code Regulation - § 1.2.5 6 mSv/y the dose is > 1 mSv, - Plan the route of the aircrew to reduce exposure of the most exposed persons If exposure can be higher than 1 mSv in a year: - Assess exposure of the crew - Take into account the assessed Ionising Radiation Order, SI exposure when organizing flight No. 125 of 2000 schedules Assessment with CARI-6 or Dose limit: 6 mSv/y (cat. Ireland - Inform the workers on risk due to EPCARD software B workers) Guidance note for air cosmic radiation operators - 2008 - Limit the exposure of pregnant workers. - Take additional protective measures if the dose can be higher than 6 mSv/y (cat. A workers) If regular flights over 8000 m (i.e. annual dose can be higher than 1 mSv): Legislative Decrees No. 230 - Assess exposure of the crew Action level: 1 mSv and 241/2000 - Rotate crew members to avoid big Assessment with CARI-6 (aircrew flying regularly Italy Chapter III bis - Article 10 differences between exposures software over 8000 m are octies - Inform the workers on risk due to category B workers) cosmic radiation, especially information in case of solar storm " " EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 !" " Country Regulation Main requirements Assessment of exposure Dose criteria If exposure can be higher than 1 mSv in a year: - Assess exposure of the members of air Dose assessment for air crew crew members flying - Take into account the assessed Assessment with CARI-6 above 8000 m (individual exposure when organizing flight software dose can exceed 1 mSv/y) Law on Radiation Protection schedules Direct measurements on flight Specific requirements if Lithuania Hygiene Standard HN 73:2001 - Inform the members of air crew on were made in 2000, 2005 and individual dose of air Hygiene Standard HN 85:2003 risk due to cosmic radiation 2007 (together with assessment crew > 6 mSv/y - Limit the exposure of pregnant using CARI-6) Public dose limit of 1 mSv members of aircrew for the unborn child of - Apply radiation protection measures aircrew member as set for A category workers if effective dose exceeds 6 mSv/y - Assess exposure of the crew - Take into account the assessed exposure when organizing flight No measurement Dose limit: 6 mSv/y (cat. RP and Nuclear Safety Act schedules Assessment with CARI-6 B workers) Slovenia § 45 and 46 - Inform the workers on risk due to software using collected data for Dose constraint: 2 mSv/y cosmic radiation each flight (in 2009, 3 mSv/y) - Limit the exposure of pregnant workers. Before July 2008 - international If the evaluated dose may recommendations JAR-OPS 1 In practice requirements of JAR-OPS 1 Assessment with CARI-6 be more than 6 mSv, Sweden Since Jult 2008 - Directive EEC still used software individual assessment is 3922/91 and subpart D, OPS required 1.390 " " EAN request on radiation protection of aircraft crew - Final - 7th February 2012 !" " Country Regulation Main requirements Assessment of exposure Dose criteria Aircrew flying at altitude higher than 8000 m must be classified as exposed Radiation Protection Decree of The workers (class B). Assessment with CARI-6 Dose limit: 6 mSv/y (cat.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Observing On-Demand Aircrew Transitioning from Paper to Electronic
    Wright State University CORE Scholar International Symposium on Aviation International Symposium on Aviation Psychology - 2021 Psychology 5-1-2021 Observing on-Demand Aircrew Transitioning From Paper to Electronic Charla L. Long Kevin M. Gildea Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2021 Part of the Other Psychiatry and Psychology Commons Repository Citation Long, C. L., & Gildea, K. M. (2021). Observing on-Demand Aircrew Transitioning From Paper to Electronic. 66th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 152-157. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2021/26 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the International Symposium on Aviation Psychology at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Symposium on Aviation Psychology - 2021 by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OBSERVING ON-DEMAND AIRCREW TRANSITIONING FROM PAPER TO ELECTRONIC FLIGHT BAGS: THE IMPACT ON WORKLOAD Charla L. Long, Ph.D. Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK Kevin M. Gildea, Ph.D. Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK The introduction of electronic flight bags (EFBs) for flight crew use has reduced the overall workload, except in some situations if not designed properly or employed effectively. Researchers from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) undertook an observational study combined with crew interviews to assess overall flight crew operations including flight demands, procedures, and the methods the crews used to integrate EFBs into all aspects of their flights from preflight planning to postflight debrief. The researchers also examined the EFB applications (apps) themselves for general usability and developed some recommendations for ways EFB use in operations could be improved.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-91-152 Meeting the Aviation Challenges of the 1990S
    144321I I Preface In the past, we have reported on a wide variety of complex and contro- versial aviation issues, including the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) modernization of the nation’s air traffic control system, the training needs of air traffic controllers and the staffing needs of that work force, FAA'S oversight of aviation safety, improvements in airport security, aircraft noise, and airline competition. Although the Congress, the Department of Transportation (nor), and FAA have taken positive actions on these issues, some will remain problematic. At the same time, new problems will develop to challenge the effectiveness of the nation’s aviation system. To better understand and deal with the long-standing aviation issues and to examine emerging issues, we convened a conference on November 29 and 30,199O. The conference brought together 23 leading aviation experts from the Congress, the administration, the aviation industry, and academia to provide their perspectives on the problems facing the aviation community. To help the speakers frame these issues, in advance of the conference we suggested general topics for them to discuss, including (1) FAA'S organization and management, (2) airspace management and air traffic control, (3) aviation safety, (4) airport capacity and security, and (5) airline competition and consumer protec- tion. The conference speakers not only brought new understanding to these subjects, but also raised major points for the Congress, DOI', and FAA to consider when addressing both long-standing and new problems facing the aviation system. Consequently, we are issuing this report to make the results of the conference and the speakers’ presentations available to a larger audience.
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing Aircrew Flight Equipment Personnel
    C O R P O R A T I O N CHAITRA M. HARDISON, LESLIE ADRIENNE PAYNE, RUSSELL H. WILLIAMS, DANIELLE BEAN, KENRIC SMITH, HANNAH ACHESON-FIELD, IVICA PAVISIC, ANTHONY LAWRENCE, BENJAMIN M. PANCOAST Increasing Aircrew Flight Equipment Personnel Proficiency Insights from Members of the Career Field For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA114-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0675-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © 2021 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Isaiah Miller. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect
    [Show full text]
  • Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Arrivals (Wtma)
    26TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES WAKE TURBULENCE MITIGATION FOR ARRIVALS (WTMA) Daniel Williams, Gary Lohr NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA Keywords: Wake, Vortex, Turbulence, CSPR, Arrivals Abstract Approach Procedures (IAPs). While instrument approaches are often used in visual conditions, The preliminary Wake Turbulence Mitigation an airport’s acceptance rate is degraded when for Arrivals (WTMA) concept of operations is the weather forces instrument-only conditions described in this paper. The WTMA concept for aircraft navigation and traffic separation, and provides further detail to work initiated by the ATC must control aircraft according to radar Wake Vortex Avoidance System Concept and wake separation standards. Evaluation Team and is an evolution of the This paper includes a background of the Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departure current or state-of-the-art of operational concept. Anticipated benefits about reducing procedures including applicable research, and wake turbulence separation standards in cross- then provides a description of the WTMA wind conditions, and candidate WTMA system concept and system architecture considerations considerations are discussed. to improve those procedures for NextGen traffic projections. Finally future research efforts and 1 Introduction/Background recommendations are described. The authors are passionate about supporting operators with The current air traffic system is not prepared for appropriate technology and procedures, so this the two- to three-fold increase in traffic paper includes that perspective. projected for the 2025 time-frame [1]. Current system limitations, procedures, and the absence of automation-based tools define a highly 1.1 CSPR Description constrained environment. To cope with future Closely Spaced Parallel Runways (CSPRs) are traffic demands, fundamental changes are defined as runways whose centerlines are required to effectively manage traffic and separated by less than 2500’ [3].
    [Show full text]
  • National Aviation Safety and Management Plan 2019–2020
    United States Department of Agriculture National Aviation Safety and Management Plan 2019–2020 Forest Service March 2019 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabin Safety Subject Index
    Cabin Safety Subject Index This document is prepared as part of the FAA Flight Standards Cabin Safety Inspector Program. For additional information about this document or the program contact: Donald Wecklein Pacific Certificate Management Office 7181 Amigo Street Las Vegas, NV 89119 [email protected] Jump to Table of Contents Rev. 43 Get familiar with the Cabin Safety Subject Index The Cabin Safety Subject Index (CSSI) is a reference guide to Federal Regulations, FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, Information for Operators (InFO), Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFO), legal interpretations, and other FAA related content related to cabin safety. Subscribe to updates If you would like to receive updates to the Cabin Safety Subject Index whenever it’s revised, click here: I want to subscribe and receive updates. This is a free service. You will receive an automated response acknowledging your request. You may unsubscribe at any time. Getting around within the CSSI The CSSI structure is arranged in alphabetical order by subject, and the document has direct links to the subject matter, as well as links within the document for ease of navigation. The Table of Contents contains a hyperlinked list of all subjects covered within the CSSI. • Clicking the topic brings you to the desired subject. • Clicking the subject brings you back to the Table of Contents. • Next to some subjects you will see (also see xxxxxxxx). These are related subjects. Click on the “also see” subject and it will bring you directly to that subject. • Clicking on hyperlinked content will bring you directly to the desired content.
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Safety Officer Qualification Standard Reference Guide MARCH 2010
    Aviation Safety Officer Qualification Standard Reference Guide MARCH 2010 This page is intentionally blank. i Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................iii ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... iv PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................... 1 PREFACE...................................................................................................................................... 1 TECHNICAL COMPETENCIES............................................................................................... 3 1. Aviation Safety Officers must demonstrate the ability to analyze and trend aviation safety performance data to ensure the safety of the field aviation program. ............................ 3 2. Aviation Safety Officers must demonstrate a working level knowledge of the Department’s philosophy and approach to implementing an Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS)...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 03/18/89 Evergreen International Airlines
    NextPage LivePublish Page 1 of 1 03/18/89 Evergreen International Airlines http://hfskyway.faa.gov/NTSB/lpext.dll/NTSB/1005?f=templates&fn=document-frame.... 2/6/2005 NextPage LivePublish Page 1 of 1 Official Accident Report Index Page Report Number NTSB/AAR-90/02 Access Number PB90-910402 Report Title Evergreen International Airlines, McDonnell Douglas DC-9-33F, N931F, Saginaw, Texas, March 18, 1989 Report Date April 23, 1990 Organization Name National Transportation Safety Board Office of Aviation Safety Washington, D.C. 20594 WUN 5094A Sponsor Name NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D.C. 20594 Report Type Aircraft Accident Report March 18, 1989 Distribution Status This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Report Class UNCLASSIFIED Pg Class UNCLASSIFIED Pages 85 Abstract This report explains the crash of an Evergreen International Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-09-33F, N931F, in Saginaw, Texas, on March 18, 1989. The safety issues discussed in the report include the cargo door closing procedures on DC-9 airplanes; the external cargo door markings on DC-9 airplanes; the door warning switch electrical wiring on DC-9 airplanes; and the actions of the carrier and the Federal Aviation Administration concerning these issues preceding the accident. Recommendations addressing these issues were made to the Federal Aviation Administration. http://hfskyway.faa.gov/NTSB/lpext.dll/NTSB/1005/1006?f=templates&fn=document-fr... 2/6/2005 NextPage LivePublish Page 1 of 2 Facts of the Accident Accident NTSB ID 90-02 Airline Evergreen International Airlines Model aircraft DC-9-33F, N931F Year shipped 1968 Aircraft manufacturer McDonnell Douglas Engine manuafacturer Pratt & Whitney Date 03/18/89 Time 0215 Location Saginaw, Texas Country USA IFR or VFR? IFR Fatalities 2 Fire during flight? N Fire on the ground? Y Probable cause Loss of control of the airplane for undetermined reasons following the inflight opening of the improperly latched cargo door.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA ASIAS Final Report
    FAA Has Made Progress in Implementing ASIAS, but Work Remains To Better Predict, Prioritize, and Communicate Safety Risks Report No. AV2021022 March 10, 2021 FAA Has Made Progress in Implementing ASIAS, but Work Remains To Better Predict, Prioritize, and Communicate Safety Risks Mandated by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 Federal Aviation Administration | AV2021022 | March 10, 2021 What We Looked At To enhance safety, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the aviation industry use data to proactively detect risks and implement mitigation strategies before accidents and incidents occur. Since 2007, FAA’s Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program has drawn together a wide variety of safety data and information across Government and industry to identify emerging, systemic safety issues. In 2013, we reported that FAA had made progress implementing ASIAS, but the system lacked advanced capabilities, and aviation safety inspectors’ access to ASIAS confidential data remained limited. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 directed our office to perform a follow-up review to assess FAA’s progress in improving ASIAS. Our objectives were to assess FAA’s (1) progress with implementing ASIAS and plans to improve the system, including its predictive capabilities, and (2) efforts to more widely disseminate results of ASIAS data analyses. What We Found FAA has made progress in implementing ASIAS since our 2013 review, but work remains to improve the program. For example, by September 2020, ASIAS grew to include data from 41 airlines, which according to FAA represents 99 percent of air carrier operations. However, FAA has not yet established a robust process for prioritizing analysis requests.
    [Show full text]
  • Countries Entry Instructions 1- MIDDLE EAST: No
    Countries entry instructions 1- MIDDLE EAST: No. Country Instructions & Restrictions 1 EGYPT Health Regulations to enter Egypt: Passengers should wear face masks during the flight. A Health Declaration form should be available on all the international flights and to be filled by the Passengers before boarding the flight (at the departure airport) and to be delivered to The Quarantine Authorities upon arrival. Airline must provide the Health Declaration form at the departure airports and insure that the passengers have filled and signed it before boarding the flight (on the international flights) Passengers travelling to Egypt should be screened at the airport of departure. Passengers who are suffering from a temperature (Equal / above) 38C or those who are suffering from one of the respiratory symptoms (cough / sneezing / shortness of breath …etc.) are not allowed to board the aircraft. Aircraft disinfection form should be delivered to The Quarantine Authorities upon arrival for the international flights. The disinfection of the Aircraft and the disinfection of aircraft air conditions filters should be done according to WHO guidelines and the aircraft manufacturer, Aircraft will not be allowed to take off again till obtaining a sanitary quarantine approval from the Egyptian Quarantine Authorities. In case of any of the respiratory symptoms appear on a passenger during the flight, all necessary precautions must be taken if possible by (separate the suspected passenger in an area far from the rest of the passengers / assign one of the cabin crew members to serve the sick passenger / provide a bathroom for the sick passenger only). Global Health insurance is no more mandatory.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcdonnell Douglas DC-10-30, G-NIUK, 11 May 1997 at 2334 Hrs (1934 Hrs Local)
    McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, G-NIUK, 11 May 1997 at 2334 hrs (1934 hrs local) AAIB Bulletin No: 4/99 Ref: EW/A97/5/1 Category: 1.1 Aircraft Type and Registration: McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, G-NIUK No & Type of Engines: 3 General Electric CF6-50C2 turbofan engines Year of Manufacture: 1974 Date & Time (UTC): 11 May 1997 at 2334 hrs (1934 hrs local time) Location: San Juan International Airport, Puerto Rico, USA Type of Flight: Public Transport Persons on Board: Crew - 14 - Passengers - 248+1 Injuries: Crew - None - Passengers - Multiple minor evacuation injuries Nature of Damage: Damage to No 3 engine fuel cooled oil cooler Commander's Licence: Airline Transport Pilot's Licence Commander's Age: 46 years Commander's Flying Experience: 11,000 hours (of which 250 were on type) Last 90 days - 200 hours Last 28 days - 100 hours Information Source: Field investigation by the AAIB (see below) The incident, which occurred within United States jurisdiction, was investigated by the NTSB with AAIB Inspectors' participation as accredited representatives. The NTSB issued a report on their investigation. Description of the incident The aircraft was operating a British Airways scheduled passenger service from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to London Gatwick Airport. The flight was being operated by Aircraft Management Ltd (AML), a joint venture company between British Airways PLC and Flying Colours Airlines Ltd. The flight deck crew was provided under contract from British Airways and the cabin crew from Flying Colours. The aircraft had previously arrived at the end of the outbound sector from London Gatwick with no reported defects, and was refuelled for the return sector to a total of 78,000 kg contents.
    [Show full text]
  • 224 Lives $11.6 Billion 186 Aircraft
    MILITARY AVIATION LOSSES FY2013–2020 4 22 Lives $11.6 billion 186 aircraft ON MIL ON ITA SI RY IS A V M I M A T O I O C N L National Commission on A S A N F O E I T T A Y N NCMAS Military Aviation Safety Report to the President and the Congress of the United States DECEMBER 1, 2020 ON MIL ON ITA SI RY IS A V M I M A T O I O C N L A S A N F O E I T T A Y N NCMAS National Commission on Military Aviation Safety Report to the President and the Congress of the United States DECEMBER 1, 2020 Cover image: U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors from the 199th Fighter Squadron Hawaii Air National Guard and the 19th Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Hickam perform the missing man formation in honor of fallen servicemembers during a Pearl Harbor Day remembrance ceremony. The missing man formation comprises four aircraft in a V-shape formation. The aircraft in the ring finger position pulls up and leaves the formation to signify a lost comrade in arms. (Department of Defense photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth.) ON MIL ON ITA SI RY IS A V M I M A T O I O C N L A S A N F O E I T T A Y N NCMAS The National Commission on Military Aviation Safety dedicates its work to the men and women who serve in the aviation units of the U.S.
    [Show full text]