Federal Aviation Administration Knowledge Base
What kind of drug test does federal administration aviation take? I wanted to know what kind or what type of drug test does the federal administration of aviation take to become an air traffic controller? Example: urine, blood, hair?
Is the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) part of the government? Would it be correct to say, "He works for the FAA Government?"
What is the difference between a govt agency, an administration, and a commission? By an agency I mean a department (e.g. Department of Energy). An example of an administration is the Federal Aviation Administration. An example of a commission is The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
HYDRAULICS hardest question Aviation Mechanics? i need help with this project anyone i will award 100 points if answered correctly by posting multiple questions and choosing whoever gets the right answer. i have a hydraulics test to make in which my teacher has asked this question several times but no one has ever passed it in the last five years the question is what would happen if u as an aircraft Mechanic make a repair on a tube line in an aircraft and suddenly the airplane happens to crash. The federal Aviation Administration A.k.a (FAA) has to blame on someone and they will come searching for u and You will have to explain to them with written paperwork that ur Repair was not the cause of the crash what will u writte down as an explanation? This question is for anyone with aircraft knowledge however anyone that puts some kind of resource as a website will be awaded. THanks to anyone that tries tough this question has never been answered before on the last five years. this question happens to be the whole test.
Was the Reagan Administration the most corrupt ever? Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration: "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever." James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf. In testifying before a House committee Watt said: "That's what they offered and it sounded like a lot of money to me, and we settled on it." Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service. Although not convicted, Edwin Meese III, resigned as Reagan's Attorney General after having been the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions (Wedtech and Iran-Contra), during the 3 short years he was in office. E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Attorney General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal. Lyn Nofziger--Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal. Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House. The Iran-Contra scandal. In June, 1984, at a National Security Council meeting, CIA Director Casey urged President Reagan to seek third-party aid for the Nicaraguan contras. Secretary of State Schultz warned that it would be an "impeachable offense" if the U.S. government acted as conduit for such secret funding. But that didn't stop them. That same day, Oliver North was seeking third-party aid for the contras. But Reagan, the "teflon President" avoided serious charges or impeachment. Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra. In June 1992 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing from congressional investigators and prosecutors thousands of pages of his handwritten notes. The personal memoirs taken during high level meetings, detailed events in 1985 and 1986 involving the Iran-Contra affair. Weinberger claimed he was being unfairly prosecuted because he would not provide information incriminating Ronald Reagan. Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial January 5, 1993, where the contents of his notes would have come to light and may have implicated other, unindicted conspirators. While Weinberger was never directly linked to the covert operations phase of the Iran-Contra affair, he is believed to have been involved in the cover-up of the ensuing scandal. According to Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, Weinberger's notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to congress and the American public. Some of the notes are believed to have evidence against then Vice-President George Bush who pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial. Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4. million. { Republicans will point out that Donovan was acquitted. And that really matters in Donovan's case, because he was a Republican. But it didn't matter for Clinton or any of his cabinet, most all of whom were acquitted, because they were Democrats!} Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department's Latin American Bureau. He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North's covert movement to aid the Contras. Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors. Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush. Robert C. McFarlane was appointed Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor in October 1983 and become well-known as a champion of the MX missile program in his role as White House liaison to congress. In 1984, Mc Farlane initiated the review of U.S. policy towards Iran that led directly to the arms for hostages deal. He also supervised early National Security Council efforts to support the Contras. Shortly after the Iran-Contra scandal was revealed in early 1987, McFarlane took an overdose of the tranquilizer Valium in an attempt to end his life. In his own words: "What really drove me to despair was a sense of having failed the country." McFarlane pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service. He was also fined $20,000. He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush. Oliver North--Convicted of falsifying and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting the obstruction of Congress. Conviction overturned on appeal due to legal technicalities. John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor, --guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Central American Task Force. Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North's activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras. He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Fiers agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for having his felonies reduced to misdemeanors and his testimony gave a boost to the long standing criminal investigation of Lawrence Walsh, Special Prosecutor. Fiers testified that he and three CIA colleagues knew by mid-1986 that profits from the TOW and HAWK missile sales to Iran were being diverted to the Contras months before it became public knowledge. Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush. Clair George was Chief of the CIA's Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan. In August 1992 a hung jury led U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to declare a mistrial in the case of Clair George who was accused of concealing from Congress his knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair. George had been named by Alan Fiers when Fiers turned state's evidence for Lawrence Walsh's investigation. In a second trial on charges of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice, George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986. George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions. Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury. Those charges would have carried a mandatory 10 months in prison upon conviction. Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush. Duane R. (Dewey) Clarridge was head of the CIA's Western European Division under President Reagan. He was indicted on November 29, 1991 for lying to congress and to the Tower Commission that investigated Iran- Contra. Clarridge was charged with five counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements for covering up his knowledge of a November 25, 1985 shipment of HAWK missiles to Iran. Clarridge was also suspected of diverting to the Contras weapons that were originally intended for the Afghan mujahaddeen guerrillas. Clarridge received a blanket pardon for his crimes on Christmas Eve 1992 from President George Bush. Environmental Protection Agency's favoritism toward polluters. Assistant administrator unduly influenced by chemical industry lobbyists. Another administrator resigned after pressuring employees to tone down a critical report on a chemical company accused of illegal pollution in Michigan. The deputy chief of federal activities was accused of compiling an interagency "hit" or "enemies" list, like those kept in the Nixon Watergate period, singling out career employees to be hired, fired or promoted according to political beliefs. Anne Gorscuh Burford resigned amid accusations she politically manipulated the Superfund money. Rita Lavelle was fired after accusing a senior EPA official of "systematically alienating the business community." She was later indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence. After an extensive investigation, in August 1984, a House of Representatives subcommittee concluded that top-level EPA appointees by Reagan for three years "violated their public trust by disregarding the public health and the environment, manipulating the Superfund program for political purposes, engaging in unethical conduct and participating in other abuses.". Neglected nuclear safety. A critical situation involving nuclear safety had been allowed to develop during the Reagan era. Immense sums, estimated at 200 billion or more, would be required in the 1990s to replace and make safe America's neglected, aging, deteriorating, and dangerous nuclear facilities. Savings & Loan Bail-out. Hundreds of billions of dollars were needed to bail out savings and loan institutions that either had failed during the deregulation frenzy of the eighties or were in danger of bankruptcy. Reckless airline deregulation. Deregulation of airline industry took too broad a sweep, endangering public safety. Additionally: Richard Allen, National Security adviser resigned amid controversy over an honorarium he received for arranging an interview with Nancy Reagan. Richard Beggs, chief administrator at NASA was indicted for defrauding the government while an executive at General Dynamics. Guy Flake, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, resigned after allegations of a conflict of interest in contract negotiations. Louis Glutfrida, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency resigned amid allegations of misuses of government property. Edwin Gray, Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank was charged with illegally repaying himself and his wife $26,000 in travel costs. Max Hugel, CIA chief of covert operations who resigned after allegations of fraudulent financial dealings. Carlos Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce resigned over charges of awarding federal grants to his personal friends' firms. John Fedders, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission resigned over charges of beating his wife. Arthur Hayes, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration resigned over illegal travel reimbursements. J. Lynn Helms, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration resigned over a grand jury investigation of illegal business activities. Marjory Mecklenburg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources resigned over irregularities on her travel vouchers. Robert Nimmo, head of the Veterans Administration resigned when a report criticized him for improper use of government funds. J. William Petro, U.S. Attorney fired and fined for tipping off an acquaintance about a forthcoming Grand Jury investigation. Thomas C. Reed, White House counselor and National Security Council adviser resigned and paid a $427,000 fine for stock market insider trading. Emanuel Savas, Assistant Secretary of HUD resigned over assigning staff members to work on government time on a book that guilty to expense account fraud and accepting kickbacks on government contracts. Charles Wick, Director of the U.S. Information Agency investigated for taping conversations with public officials without their approval.
Do we really need more commercial pilots? Source: IATA 29 November 2007 Aviation Industry Needs to Tackle Looming Pilot Shortage Washington - The International Air Transport Association (IATA) warned the world’s airlines of a severe pilot shortage unless industry and government work together to change training and qualification practices. IATA issued a new estimate that the industry may need 17,000 new pilots annually due to expected industry growth and retirements. "Increasing the retirement age to 65 will help but it can’t be the only solution. It’s time to ring the warning bell. We must re-think pilot training and qualification to further improve safety and increase training capacity,” said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA Director General and CEO. He told the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) International Safety Forum, "the industry is concerned that there are no global standards for training concepts or regulation. Pilot training has not changed in 60 years - we are still ticking boxes with an emphasis on flight hours.” I welcome any pilot's comments. In the business myself.
How much do you think that someone with my experience should request? Enterprise Information Services Federal Aviation Administration (Contractor) Administrative Assistant December 2006-Present Starting Salary: $27,500 plus benefits The Centech Group, Inc. Administrative Assistant July 2006-Present Starting Salary: $24,500 plus benefits Ending: $25,000 Coca Cola Enterprises Receptionist February 2005 thru March 2006 Starting Salary: $21,120 plus benefits Ending Salary: $22,080 plus benefits US Army National Guard Automated Logistician April 2004 thru January 2005 Starting Salary: $18,913 plus benefits Ending Salary: $22,565 plus benefits Peaches N Cream Child Development Center Receptionist June 2001 thru March 2002 Starting Salary: $19,200 plus benefits Ending Salary: $19,776 plus benefits I have knowledge and experience in more than 16 Software and government database programs, I have two certificates (Automated Logisitcs and Medical Assistance), and am currently enrolled at American Intercontinental for Business oops, The Centech one I resigned on November 30 and started working for EIS on December 1 (Due to pay and relocation of residency) but this position I am in now is only for 120 days and I will hopefully be picked up on a new contract or maybe they extend the contract I am on! Opps I forgot to fix the typo I was in the military from 2002 to January of 2005
I was on aircraft G-BDXL in Feb. 2000. Can anyone explain what this means? From the NTSB report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X20563&ntsbno=NYC00LA085&akey=1 In an interview with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspector, the flight crew reported that the fasten seat belt sign was "off," and the airplane's electrical system was configured for a Category III (CAT III) landing, when they began a descent from "flight level 350." At the same time, the flight engineer began to reconfigure the airplane's electrical system for a Category I (CAT I) landing, due to an improvement in landing visibility. When the flight engineer closed the "number one bus-tie-breaker," the airplane's pitch changed from 2-degrees nose-down, to about 5-degrees nose-up. The airplane was utilizing the "A" autopilot system, which remained engaged. The pilot disconnected the autopilot, leveled the airplane, re-engaged the autopilot, and then continued a normal descent.... Can someone explain what actually happened in some more basic terms? Yes, I was on the flight whose incident report is attached. I'm not worried, I'm just curious. I'm a big fan of planes and want to understand them more.
Why interior aircraft lights are turned on/off for landing and take off---this is not a question; however, it? The FAA certifies each aircraft built in the USA/Foriegn. Part 119 covers both small and large aircraft (Parts135 and 121). Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) e-CFR Data is current as of July 12, 2007 TITLE 14--Aeronautics and Space CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBCHAPTER G--AIR CARRIERS AND OPERATORS FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE: CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS Quick Navigation: Resources by Topic Business & Economy Education Environment Food & Drugs Grants & Awards Health & Safety Military & Security Science & Technology Social Programs Transportation Site Search: advanced • Browse • Simple Search • Advanced Search * Boolean * Proximity • Search History • Search Tips • Corrections • Latest Updates • User Info • FAQs • Agency List • e-CFR Main Page • Code of Federal Regulations • Federal Register • List of CFR
Should The Police Be Allowed to Use Un-manned Aerial Vehicles? FLORIDA TODAY http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/NEWS01/702040341/1006 PALM BAY -Police Chief William Berger vows to deploy an unmanned aerial vehicle despite contentions from the Federal Aviation Administration and a national pilots' association that his department must first get federal approval before doing so. Berger said the $30,000, 8-pound aircraft -- which he likens to a model plane and would use to aid police on the ground -- does not fall under FAA regulations. And he said he is prepared to seek assistance from Brevard County's congressional representatives, if necessary. The "Cyberbug" aircraft is packed with onboard cameras and will be delivered to Palm Bay police department next month.
Economics related, multiple choice, PLease respond if you know it, otherwise just leave it alone.? For each of the following public policies, identify whether it is a command-and-control policy (regulation), a corrective tax, a corrective subsidy, or a tradable permit system. 3.2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adds a surcharge to each leg of an airline journey to help relieve airspace congestion. A. Corrective subsidy B. Command-and-control policy (regulation) C. Corrective tax D. Tradable permit system Second question is 1. Goods are rival in consumption if: A. It is possible to prevent an individual from using the good. B. The quantity of the good is affected by the price a consumer pays for the good. C. Consumption of a good by one person decreases consumption by another person. D. It is NOT possible to prevent an individual from using the good.
A question about law for class. Law people HELP!? I am working on a media law problem and here is my question. A woman is trying to sue for libel and she wants documents from the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Congressional Budget Office to help in her law suit. She is trying to prove that air traffic controllers were at fault for a plane crash. Can she obtain documents from these agencies? Can she obtain any or all through the FOIA?
Why would scientist recommend destroying the Ozone? Read this...? http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070907/sc_livescience/inflightillstiedtoskinoil "For instance, releasing chemical compounds that destroy ozone in airplane ventilation systems could help remove most of the ozone from incoming air and bring levels down closer to what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends." Uh, anyone ever hear about the Green House Effect? Stratospheric Ozone The stratosphere, or "good" ozone layer extends upward from about 6 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. This natural shield has been gradually depleted by man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A depleted ozone shield allows more UV from the sun to reach the ground, leading to more cases of skin cancer, cataracts, and other health problems. So planes never fly above 6 miles you're saying... I know the differance and they are not referring to ground-level Ozone. In the troposphere, the air closest to the Earth's surface, ground-level or "bad" ozone is a pollutant that is a significant health risk, especially for children with asthma. It also damages crops, trees and other vegetation. It is a main ingredient of urban smog. AKA.. NOx "Don't blame the airplane's ventilation system... It's the interaction between your oily body and ozone in the upper atmosphere... Do better research... The problem isn't that I misread the article. It is that you misread the article and came guns blazing... I hope I have clearified any misunderstandings... It clearly mentions the problem comes from our interaction with ozone found in the upper atmosphere, where most commercial airplanes fly. While not all planes make this mark... a lot of planes break the approx. 6 mile barrier approx. 30,000 ft. Back to the subject... why destroy "good ozone"? W.W.A.G.D. (What Would Al Gore Do?)
Does the F.A.A. have air police? Does the Federal Aviation Administration have "air police" that patrol the air, and watch out for illegal planes?
Aircraft emergency evacuation. Problems with overwing exits. Is it time for FAA/airlines to fix the problem? NTSB; CONCLUSIONS 1. On average, an evacuation for the study cases occurred every 11 days. An average of 336,328 departures occurred every 11 days in 1998 by scheduled aircraft operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. 2. In the 46 study cases, 92 percent (2,614) of the 2,846 occupants on board were uninjured, and 8 percent (232) were injured. 3. The Federal Aviation Administration does not evaluate the emergency evacuation capabilities of transport-category airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats or the emergency evacuation capabilities of air carriers operating commuter-category and transport-category airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats. In the interest of providing one level of safety, all passenger-carrying commercial airplanes and air carriers should be required to demonstrate emergency evacuation capabilities. 4. Adequate research has not been conducted to determine the appropriate exit row width on commercial airplanes. 5. In general, passengers in the Safety Board's study cases were able to access airplane exits without difficulty, except for the Little Rock, Arkansas, accident that occurred on June 1, 1999, in which interior cabin furnishings became dislodged and were obstacles to some passengers' access to exits. 6. Emergency lighting systems functioned as intended in the 30 evacuation cases investigated in detail. 7. In 43 of the 46 evacuation cases in the Safety Board's study, floor level exit doors were opened without difficulty. 8. Passengers continue to have problems opening overwing exits and stowing the hatch. The manner in which the exit is opened and the hatch is stowed is not intuitively obvious to passengers nor is it easily depicted graphically. 9. Most passengers seated in exit rows do not read the safety information provided to assist them in understanding the tasks they may need to perform in the event of an emergency evacuation, and they do not receive personal briefings from flight attendants even though personal briefings can aid passengers in their understanding of the tasks that they may be called upon to perform. 10. On some Fokker airplanes, flight attendants are seated too far from their assigned primary exit to provide immediate assistance to passengers who attempt to evacuate through the exit. 11. Overall, in 37 percent (7 of 19) of the evacuations with slide deployments in the Safety Board's study cases, there were problems with at least one slide. A slide problem in 37 percent of the evacuations in which slides were deployed is unacceptable for a safety system. 12. The majority of serious evacuation-related injuries in the Safety Board's study cases, excluding the Little Rock, Arkansas, accident, occurred at airplane door and overwing exits without slides. 13. Pilots are not receiving consistent guidance, particularly in flight operations and safety manuals, on when to evacuate an airplane. 14. Passengers benefit from precautionary safety briefings just prior to emergency occurrences. 15. Limiting exit use during evacuations in the Safety Board's study was not in accordance with the respective air carrier's existing evacuation procedures. At a minimum, all available floor level exits that are not blocked by a hazard should be used during an evacuation. 16. Evacuations involving slide use could be delayed if passengers sit at exits before boarding a slide or if crew commands do not direct passengers how to get onto a slide. 17. Without hands-on training specific to the airplane types that frequent their airports, aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel may be hindered in their ability to quickly and efficiently assist during evacuations. 18. Communication and coordination problems continue to exist between flight crews and flight attendants during airplane evacuations. Joint exercises for flight crews and flight attendants on evacuation have proven effective in resolving these problems. 19. Despite efforts and various techniques over the years to improve passenger attention to safety briefings, a large percentage of passengers continue to ignore preflight safety briefings. Also, despite guidance in the form of Federal Aviation Administration advisory circulars, many air carrier safety briefing cards do not clearly communicate safety information to passengers. 20. Passengers' efforts to evacuate an airplane with their carry-on baggage continue to pose a problem for flight attendants and are a serious risk to a successful evacuation of an airplane. Techniques on how to handle passengers who do not listen to flight attendants' instructions need to be addressed. 21. Unwarranted evacuations following Boeing 727 auxiliary power unit (APU) torching continue to exist despite past efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration to address this issue. 22. Evacuations continue to occur that are hampered by inefficient communication. Current evacuation communication would be significantly enhanced by the installation of independently powered evacuation alarms on all newly manufactured transport-category airplanes. 23. The frequency of false indications on the two regional airplanes in the Safety Board's study cases-the Saab 340 and the Canadair Regional Jet-is too high. There are insufficient data, however, to determine if the frequency of false smoke indications is peculiar to the two regional airplanes in the Safety Board's study or if the problem is more widespread. 24. Air carriers do not always make reports to the FAA SDR system, or reports are inadequate, to identify the extent of component problems or failures. SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board made the following safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration: 1.a Require all newly certificated commercial airplanes to meet the evacuation demonstration requirements prescribed in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 25, regardless of the number of passenger seats on the airplane. 1.b Require all commercial operators to meet the partial evacuation demonstration requirements prescribed in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121, regardless of the number of passenger seats on the airplane. 2. Conduct additional research that examines the effects of different exit row widths, including 13 inches and 20 inches, on exit hatch removal and egress at Type III exits. The research should use an experimental design that reliably reflects actual evacuations through Type III (self help) exits on commercial airplanes. 3. Issue a final rule on exit row width at Type III (self help) exits based on the research described in Safety Recommendation (forthcoming). 4. Require Type III overwing (self help) exits on newly manufactured aircraft to be easy and intuitive to open and have automatic hatch stowage out of the egress path. 5. Require air carriers to provide all passengers seated in exit rows in which a qualified crewmember is not seated a preflight personal briefing on what to do in the event the exit may be needed. 6. Require flight attendants on Fokker 28 and Fokker 100 airplanes to be seated adjacent to their assigned primary exit. (This recommendation may be revised) 7. Review the 6-foot height requirement for exit assist means to determine if 6 feet continues to be the appropriate height below which an assist means is not needed. This review should include, at a minimum, an examination of injuries sustained during evacuations. 8. Require flight operations manuals and safety manuals to include on abnormal and emergency procedures checklists a checklist item that directs flight crews to initiate or consider emergency evacuation in all emergencies that could reasonably require an airplane evacuation (for example, cabin fire or engine fire). 9. Review air carriers' procedures to ensure that for those situations in which crews anticipate an eventual evacuation, adequate guidance is given both to pilots and flight attendants on providing passengers with precautionary safety briefings. 10. Review air carrier training programs to ensure that evacuation procedures call, at a minimum, for evacuation through all available floor level exits that are not blocked by a hazard. 11. Review air carrier procedures and training programs to ensure that the commands used for slide evacuations are consistent with the commands used for slide evacuations during certification. 12. Establish a task force to address the issue of providing periodic hands-on familiarization training, or the equivalent, for aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel at all 14 CFR Part 139 certified airports on each airplane type that serves the airport on a scheduled basis. 13. Require air carriers to conduct periodic joint evacuation exercises involving flight crews and flight attendants. 14. Conduct research and explore creative and effective methods that use state-of-the-art technology to convey safety information to passengers. The presented information should include a demonstration of all emergency evacuation procedures, such as how to open the emergency exits and exit the aircraft, including how to use the slides. 15. Require minimum comprehension testing for safety briefing cards. 16. Develop advisory material to address ways to minimize the problems associated with carry-on luggage during evacuations. 17. Require air carriers that operate Boeing 727s to include in the auxiliary power unit (APU) procedures instructions, when passengers are on board, that the flight crew will make a public address announcement about APU starts immediately prior to starting the APU. (This recommendation may be revised) 18. Require all newly manufactured transport-category airplanes operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 to be equipped with independently powered evacuation alarm systems operable from each crewmember station, and establish procedures and provide training to flight crews and flight attendants regarding the use of such systems. 19. Document the extent of false indications for cargo smoke detectors on all airplanes and improve the reliability of the detectors.
Will my English friends here laugh lol? It seems the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has a unique device for testing the strength of windshields on airplanes. The device is a gun that launches a dead chicken at a plane's windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies. The theory is that if the windshield doesn't crack from the carcass impact, it'll survive a real collision with a bird during flight. It seems the British were very interested in this and wanted to test a windshield on a brand new, speedy locomotive they're developing. They borrowed the FAA's chicken launcher, loaded the chicken and fired. The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield, went through the engineer's chair, broke an instrument panel and embedded itself in the back wall of the engine cab. The British were stunned and asked the FAA to recheck the test to see if everything was done correctly. The FAA reviewed the test thoroughly and had one recommendation: "Use a thawed chicken." I guess StaceX does not have a sense of humor, if you want to lady, you can post something nasty about the Americans, and no I am not ashamed, I find that most normal people can laugh at themselves, and I noticed that you have not an e-mail on here, another coward lol....
Will this change your view/habits & confidence in Air Travel ? "A cozy relationship between Southwest Airlines officials and the manager of a Federal Aviation Administration office put passengers in danger of catastrophe, an FAA whistle-blower told Congress on Thursday." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/airline.safety/index.html#cnnSTCText
Batteries on aircraft are a serious hazard. Should FAA wait until there is a fire/crash before acting? USA today; WASHINGTON — A rash of fires on planes has spurred the government to plan new restrictions on how airline passengers may carry lithium batteries used to power laptop computers and cellphones. The Department of Transportation, which already bars bulk shipments of some lithium batteries on passenger planes, expects to propose more restrictions later this year, said Bob Richard of the DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. While the agency has no immediate plans to ban the batteries from carry-on luggage, he said, the risks of batteries in airplane cabins are being studied. Restrictions on carrying the batteries in checked items are possible, Richard said. "We recognize that the American public wants to be able to carry their batteries and electronic equipment aboard aircraft, but we have to weigh the safety issues," he said. "Any fire aboard an aircraft is unacceptable." Fire safety officials, airline pilots and consumer groups are pushing for new rules on the batteries. At least nine fires involving lithium batteries have happened on airplanes or in cargo destined for planes since 2005, according to federal safety records reviewed by USA TODAY. None of the fires caused serious injuries. Until new rules are in place, Richard said, his agency and the Federal Aviation Administration are asking companies that make and ship the batteries to take voluntary steps to ease fire risks. The agencies also will launch a safety awareness campaign for passengers. FIND MORE STORIES IN: National Transportation Safety Board | Safety | UPS | Philadelphia International Airport | Batteries Lithium batteries come in two types: lithium metal, which are single-use, and lithium-ion, which can be recharged. Both store energy that generates intense heat during a short circuit. A short can occur if metal touches both terminals or if internal seals fail. Some low-cost or counterfeit batteries lack safeguards against short circuits, and manufacturing defects have rendered such protections useless in others. In the last year, more than 4 million lithium batteries have been recalled for such problems. Battery industry representatives acknowledge that new cargo restrictions may be needed. They also have agreed to set voluntary standards on packaging and labeling shipments. But they see no need to bar laptops or other devices on planes. "Bringing these onto an aircraft doesn't present any additional danger, provided you take care of your batteries," said George Kerchner, head of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association. Bulk shipments of lithium metal batteries were banned on passenger flights in 2004, in part because fires in those batteries are especially hard to put out. But the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest pilots union, wants cargo flights included in the ban, too. The National Association of State Fire Marshals says bulk transport of lithium-ion batteries also should be restricted, particularly on passenger flights. But Maine State Fire Marshal John Dean, president of the association, said the question of whether to ban the rechargeable batteries in carry-on items needs more study. A battery fire in a carry-on bag would be more easily detected and controlled by crew, Dean said. And, given the popularity of laptops and cellphones, banning them in carry-ons would be difficult. Regulators "are caught in the middle," Dean said. "But if you think about being on a passenger plane and one of these catches fire — even if the crew can control it, that's a bad situation with all the smoke." Plane is bad place for bad battery Smoke began wafting from a passenger's laptop about 15 minutes before a United Airlines jet was to depart from Los Angeles last September. Passengers on a Lufthansa jet about to leave Chicago in May noticed smoke coming from an overhead bin in first class. Last November, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent in Los Angeles pulled some cellphone batteries out of a cargo flight from China for inspection. One of the batteries burst into flames on a desk, spewing fire, sparks and smoke. In each incident, documented in a list kept by the Federal Aviation Administration, fires erupted in lithium batteries. No planes crashed, and injuries were minor, but the fires are prompting a new look at safety standards for the batteries and whether they should be allowed on flights. According to government and industry officials, the world's insatiable demand for more power is clashing with safety needs on aircraft.
How Many Times Has BUSH LIED ? Bush & Al Qaeda – By The Numbers 0 – Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001) 0 – References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities 0 – References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities 0 – References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001 0 – Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the very first meeting) 1 – Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11. This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton. 1 – Number of hours President Bush and Vice President Cheney agreed to allow in their joint meeting with the 9-11 panel. 2 – Number of National Security Council meetings Facts From Fiction STICK AROUND FOR MORE BUSH FACTS, NOT FOX NEWS FICTION
we have won YAHOO/MSN LOTTERY they asked to contact global courier comp. information given below all right? Unit 6, Marino Way, Hogwood Lane, Industrial Estate Finchampstead Berkshire RG40 4RF. London United Kingdom. Dear Esteem Customer, " Naval Kishor Sharma" Greetings to you,from Global Courier Service, We are proud to inform you that,we are in possession of a certified parcel,with identification number {CPEL/OWN/9877},which is to be delivered to you,as instructed by our affiliate(Yahoo/Msn & Microsoft Lottery Board).You are to please confirm the below data's,if they are correct about the receiver of the parcel,to enable us input it into our computer delivery system. Receiver's Name: Naval Kishor Sharma Receiver's:Sex: Male Receiver's Address: F-57/D, G.T.B ENCLAVE,DELHI-110093 INDIA Receiver's State:: Delhi Receiver's Country: Indian Who will sign to collect the parcel upon delivery? include a phone number of this person to enable us call him/her when we gets close to your area.With this information, we would be able to dispatch your parcel immediately. We will only deliver the parcel to the address you have given us and we will only hand over the parcel to the person you will assign to sign for its collection. This individual must have a valid identification of him/herself as proof. Description of parcel to be delivered : Weight of parcel ........................0.13kg Color of parcel............................Brown Lenght of Days.........................Pending on your choice of delivery. Parcel Status............................Metallic Sealed Global Courier Service has gone through a transformation from a mere quoting method to becoming an essential tool for shippers, entities who perform projections and inspections, and the general public We make it simple. By standardizing the Global Service of rates, hence Global Courier Service has put the world in your fingertips. We are not a broker, we are licensed by the Federal Maritime Commission as a non-vessel operating common carrier (N.V.O.C.C.) to produce original shipping documents, and we are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration under the TSA as an indirect air carrier (I.A.C.) to engage in air Global worldwide, therefore we can leverage our technology with our experience to save your money and serve you on a global basis. The Global delivery Service items are priced according to the tariff zone of the destination country, weight or volumetric weight (1m³ = 250kg) of the item and additional services selected. The price includes export and import forwarding. For your designation,below are the mandatory charges that you are required to pay to enable us courier your certified parcel to you. You are allowed to choose one of our three specified shipment options for your location(Indian); Please find below our charges: __________________________ Normal class delivery: in 120 hours __________________________ (cost of delivery) Courier Charges: £100.00 pounds Insurance: £200.00 pounds Administrative: £100.00 pounds Total: £400pounds ____________________________ Premium class delivery:72 hours _____________________________ (cost of delivery) Courier Charges: £180.00 pounds Insurance £200.00 pounds Administrative: £100.00 pounds Total: £480.00 pounds ________________________ First class delivery:48 hours ________________________ (cost of delivery) Courier Charges: £200.00 pounds Insurance: £200.00 pounds Administrative: £130.00 pounds Total: £530.00 pounds. Note:The charges are a little high because of the insurance cover we have undertaken incase of loss,damage or theft of your highly sensitive consignment content. We assume all responsibilities incase of any eventualities.Global Company do not allow Cash on delivery(C.O.D) as all payment must be made in this office before shipment can commence. Do confirm the delivery address and indicate your specified shipment option and send it to this office via, email. All orders not delivered within seven (7) working days from this communication, will lead to the return of the parcel. Your satisfaction is our priority and we look forward to providing you the best of our quality service.Do have a wonderful day in anticipation to hearing from you ASAP. Yours Sincerely, Mr. Andrew Donald. GLOBAL COURIER SERVICE COMPANY {G.C.S.C}.
spy drones in demand for Florida by police dept.? MIAMI: The Miami police could soon use cutting-edge flying drones to help fight crime. A small pilotless vehicle manufactured by Honeywell International, capable of hovering and "staring" using electro-optic or infrared sensors, is expected to be introduced soon in the skies over the Florida Everglades. If use of the drone wins U.S. Federal Aviation Administration approval after tests, the Miami-Dade Police Department will start flying the 14 pound, or 6.35 kilogram, drone over urban areas with an eye toward full-fledged employment in crime fighting. (read more) http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/27/business/drone.php
aviation shirt question? maybe im just a little slow today....but please tell me what this quote means that i found at a website on a t-shirt. FAA (federal viation administration. mission statement: "We're not happy Till your not happy." Please explain (lol) soo if this shirt is making fun of the FAA....do PILOTS like this shirt ?
Which team would win? If the following groups formed, and tried to take out the other group in a battle, who would be victorious? (Note that each group contains 20 members of each organization, so that's 60 members per group) Group A: Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marine Corps, Los Angeles S.W.A.T. team. Group B: United States Marshalls, United States Army, United States Coast Guard Group C: Drug Enforcement Agency, United States Navy, Federal Aviation Administration.
Business files deeIs this business JetAway going out of business? Are the owners selling? What does this mean MONTROSE — JetAway Aviation has placed a lien, amount unknown, against property it claims to own in Montrose. If JetAway Aviation defaults on repaying its lender, the public trustee of Montrose County can be directed to sell the property — meaning members of the Girdner family could be first in line for any of those benefits, a deed of trust filed Dec. 20 indicated. JetAway, a limited liability company, along with another LLC, One Creative Place, executed a deed of trust that identified its lenders as Paul and Michael Girdner of Boise, Idaho. Michael Girdner also signed as the borrower, on behalf of both LLCs, which is not unheard of, a local escrow agent told the Daily Press. The notarized document certifies that Girdner is a “manager or managing member of JetAway Aviation, LLC,” and he would therefore have the power to act on behalf of the company. Advertisement JetAway CEO Stephen Stuhmer did respond to a request for comment. JetAway, located at 1 Creative Place adjacent to the Montrose Regional Airport, is locked in a heated and expensive legal battle over Montrose County’s decision to award a competitive bid for fixed-base operations at the airport to another company. The county and JetAway will head to court in May after Federal Aviation Administration-sponsored mediation terminated. The successful FBO bidder, Black Canyon Jet Center, also succeeded in having JetAway held in contempt over the advertising of fuel sales, which court orders barred JetAway from doing. Paul Girdner testified at the November contempt hearing that he pays the company’s bills. Testimony indicated he was a financial backer. The Daily Press showed the deed of trust to its attorney, who explained how such deeds operate. David Masters said a deed of trust, similar to a mortgage, uses property as collateral to secure financing. In a deed of trust, the borrower transfers the property to the public trustee to be held in trust, subject to the terms of the deed. The Dec. 20 deed places its property in trust with Montrose County Treasurer Rosemary Murphy, who can be called upon to sell it if terms are not met and a demand for sale is made
Response to the US Vs UK military questions? Just read this article. It came out of the most anti-American newspaper in the world. The Guardian... That being said, even these idiots can not deny the scope of American power. Oh yeah...There is no way Britain could even begin to dream about winning a (hypothetical) war against America. Read up on the US Military - no one even comes close. This isn't opinion...its fact. -------- American power -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Armed to the teeth Is Bush's awesome increase in military spending a reasonable response to the afermath of September 11, or is he creating a force almost too powerful for its own good? Peter Beaumont and Ed Vulliamy report Is America too powerful for its own good? You can have your say online here. Observer Worldview Sunday February 10, 2002 The Observer There is a United States special forces dog-handler who meets journalists, diplomats and aid workers off the UN flight to Kabul. His job is to search luggage and ensure the security of US troops in Afghanistan. He is short, gingery and aggressive. His skills at persuasion are limited to shouting at the milling crowd: 'Stand back! Stand back! My dog will bite!' Last week that phrase had become the defining motto and operating credo for the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration. Already President George W. Bush has put Iran, Iraq and North Korea on notice as terrorist-sponsoring nations at the centre of an international 'axis of evil', despite the CIA's recent evidence that none of them was in the business of threatening the United States at present. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last Monday, to back that explicit threat, he announced an increase in US military spending of 15 per cent, the biggest in 20 years, more than double the military spending in all of the European Union. The rise will be $36 billion (£26.5bn) this year, $48 billion next year and $120 billion over the next five years, rising to a staggering two trillion over the next five years. Even this is not enough for General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They want the US defence budget to increase at an even faster rate. What all this means is clear. Troubled by the 11 September attacks and buoyed by the ease of the war against Afghanistan, Bush's message to the 'evil doers' of the world is that he has a dog; that it is very big, getting bigger, and certainly it will bite. The puzzle about the latest rise in defence spending is that America at the beginning of the 21st century is already not so much a superpower as a behemoth on the world stage. Economically dominant, it enjoys military and cultural power unrivalled since the days of the Roman emperors, as the American author Robert D. Kaplan reminds us in his new book, Warrior Politics. Typically, it has been left to the French, traditionally suspicious of US global hegemony, to find the best words to describe it. Gigantisme militaire they call it, in a phrase that describes both the scale of America's ambitions and also a pathological condition: an organism grown so large it is sick. The question the rest of the world is asking itself is: Who is the enemy America is arming itself so against? And why? 'Ostensibly,' says one European diplomat, 'this is about security. But quite how a massive increase in defence spending is supposed to prevent another terrorist attack remains unclear. Instead this seems to be about repairing the bruised American psyche after 11 September. America's powerlessness in the face of this attack requires big gestures and reassurances, even if they are counter-productive and meaningless.' Indeed, some analysts say, if it is security that America seeks it is better sought in dialogue with potentially threatening states, rather than in reinforcing the idea already held by many anti-US groups that it is an evil empire bent on world domination. Cynics have identified more overtly self-serving strands in the Republican obsession with America's defence. The 'war' rhetoric, as some US liberal commentators have pointed out, serves a purely domestic Republican agenda in the post-11 September mood of national paranoia: to win Bush a second presidential term and, in the shorter term, regain Congress. The reality - even before the latest proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the rest of the world at war with one hand tied behind its back. The requirement that US armed forces be able to fight two fully fledged wars with two separate adversaries simultaneously may recently have been dropped, but only because it would be hard pushed to find two such equal foes to fight. A single US nuclear-powered carrier group - which forms around the USS Enterprise, for example, with a flight deck almost a mile in length and a superstructure 20 storeys high - concentrates more military power in one naval group than most states can manage with all their armed forces. America has seven of these battle groups. It is not just the scale and power of these weapons systems. The reach of US arms, too, is awesome. When the USS Kitty Hawk was sent with its accompanying warships from Yokohama to the Gulf for the war against Afghanistan, it covered 6,000 miles in just 12 days to be transformed into a vast floating forward attack station for thousands of US special forces. Its B-52 bombers can fly and refuel across the world armed with cruise missiles that can be fired hundreds of miles away from hostile skies, the missiles themselves directed to their targets by satellites in orbit. And America's supremacy in bombs, planes, satellites, tanks and real-time intelligence have made the prospect of US casualties remote, except in the event of cock-up or disaster. And, significantly, as the world's only economic hyper-power, it can afford this level of militarisation. But against all this even the manufacturers of America's arms - like the aviation giant Lockheed-Martin - have been struggling for a decade or so to define the threat its top-shelf jets will be battling in the skies, being forced in one memorable presentation to show the European Eurofighter as a potential adversary. So why the need for more and better military power? Even military analysts are baffled. 'The rise in US military spending,' says Dan Plesch, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, 'ought to be compared to the decision in the First World War to order up more cavalry when the first wave had been mown down by machine-guns. 'The US has no competitor in high-tech military equipment. And what it is spending its money on is mostly irrelevant against the knives used to carry out 11 September. The bombing of Afghanistan has created the illusion of victory.' Professor Paul Kennedy at Yale University calculates that the US now spends more each year than the next nine largest national defence budgets combined. Indeed America is responsible for about 40 per cent of the world's military spending. The new defence expenditure will be paid for by a freshly dug deficit and cuts to every other federal spending programme - including social security, Medicare and urban renewal - apart from tax breaks loaded heavily in favour of the upper-income brackets. Amid all this, military might has emerged as the central tenet of America's new power, the defining feature of the Bush administration. Already it is causing alarm, even among America's closest allies in Nato, where Lord Robertson, the usually unflappable secretary-general, has been moved to warn some members that unless the declining European defence expenditure is reversed then Europe - and the Europeans in Nato - are in danger of becoming military pygmies. It is not a prospect likely to worry the military hawks in the Bush administration, who favour unilateralism over alliance. Indeed the Nato alliance, built to counter the rival superpower conflict of the Cold War, is already almost redundant, some diplomats claim. 'Will the Americans ever fight a war through Nato again?' asks Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister. 'It's doubtful. The United States reserves the right to itself to wage war, and dumps on others the messy, expensive business of nation-building and peace keeping'. And the Afghan war has not only put the US in sole command of the world, but fundamentally reshaped the architecture of international alliances. Central Asia is splattered with new American fortresses; the Pacific and Indian oceans are patrolled by aircraft carriers and accompanying fleets of awesome size.
What should be done to reduce commercial airline pilot fatigue? Are pilots work hours too long? USA today; The NTSB has for two decades called on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to tighten restrictions on how many hours pilots can work each day. Airline crews can work up to 16 hours a day, possibly more if a flight is delayed. Research by the NTSB and others shows sharply higher risks of pilot mistakes and accidents after long shifts or periods without normal sleep. The FAA has tried several times to revise pilot work rules since the 1990s, but the efforts failed each time under opposition from airlines and pilot unions. Airlines recognize that tired pilots are not effective and have devoted considerable resources to the issue, said Basil Barimo, vice president of operations and safety at the Air Transport Association, the carriers' Washington trade group. In recent years, most carriers have boosted fatigue training and strengthened policies allowing pilots to decline to fly if they feel tired, Barimo said. Frontier Airlines acknowledged Wednesday that two of its pilots fell asleep on a 2004 red-eye flight from Baltimore to Denver. One pilot awoke to "frantic calls" from a controller, according to a report on the incident in the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System. The NASA system contains 750 incidents since 2003 in which aviation workers cited fatigue-related incidents. Pilots were involved in 650 of those cases. USA TODAY also found four additional cases in which pilots reported falling asleep. None caused an accident.
Can this be a test? It seems the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has a unique device for testing the strength of windshields on airplanes. The device is a gun that launches a dead chicken at a plane's windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies. The theory is that if the windshield doesn't crack from the carcass impact, it'll survive a real collision with a bird during flight. It seems the British were very interested in this and wanted to test a windshield on a brand new, speedy locomotive they're developing. They borrowed the FAA's chicken launcher, loaded the chicken and fired. The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield, went through the engineer's chair, broke an instrument panel and embedded itself in the back wall of the engine cab. The British were stunned and asked the FAA to recheck the test to see if everything was done correctly. The FAA reviewed the test thoroughly and had one recommendation: "Use a thawed chicken."
The Chicken Launcher...? In a recent issue of "Meat & Poultry" magazine, editors quoted from "Feathers," the publication of the California Poultry Industry Federation, reporting the following story: The US Federal Aviation Administration has a unique device for testing the strength of windshields on airplanes. The device is an air cannon that launches a dead chicken at a plane's windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies. The theory is that if the windshield doesn't crack from the carcass impact, it'll survive a real collision with a bird during flight. It seems that British Rail was very interested in this and wanted to test a windshield on a brand new, ultra high speed locomotive they're developing. They borrowed the FAA's chicken launcher, loaded the chicken and fired. The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield, went through the engineer's chair, broke an instrument panel and embedded itself in the back wall of the engine cab. The British engineers were stunned and asked the FAA to review the test to see if everything was done correctly. The FAA checked the test thoroughly and had one recommendation: "Try thawing the chicken next time."
Pax aircraft fuel tank explosions. Are they more likely to occur on the ground than in the air? NTSB to investigate apparent 727 fuel tank explosion By JAMES WALLACE P-I REPORTER The National Transportation Safety Board said today it is sending a team of investigators to Bangalore, India, after the apparent explosion of a wing fuel tank on a Boeing 727. Although the jet was on the ground and there were no passengers aboard, the incident raised fresh questions and concerns about a safety issue that has been at the forefront of the commercial aviation industry since the center fuel tank exploded on a TWA 747 shortly after it took off from Kennedy airport in New York on July 17, 1996. All 230 people on the jumbo jet died. "The tragic TWA 800 accident in 1996 highlighted the vulnerability of transport aircraft fuel tanks," NTSB Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker said in a statement about the 727 incident. "A decade later, the issue remains a major concern of the safety board and is on our most wanted list of safety improvements. I am hopeful what is learned in this investigation may provide added impetus for a resolution of this problem without further delay." The incident occurred May 4 and involved a Transmile Airlines 727-200. The plane was being repositioned on the ground when the fuel tank in the left wing apparently exploded, the NTSB said. No one was injured. A Boeing spokeswoman said today that the airplane maker only learned about the incident last week and notified the Federal Aviation Administration and the safety board. Boeing has investigators en route to India to assist in the investigation, said spokeswoman Liz Verdier. The 727 is one of Boeing's oldest jets and few are still carrying passengers in the United States. But there are many 727s in service overseas. In 1999, the FAA ordered emergency inspections of U.S.-registered 727s because of concerns about a possible fuel-tank explosion. Airlines were told to check aluminum tubes that carry electrical wires through the fuel tanks after mechanics found severe wearing of wires and holes in the tubing on two 727s. There were signs of electrical sparking around the holes. A similar FAA directive had been issued a year earlier for Boeing's 737 when the same kind of wiring problem was found on that plane. The FAA also ordered checks of 747s and 767s. The danger of fuel-tank vapors exploding on commercial jetliners has been in the spotlight since TWA Flight 800. After the longest investigation in U.S. history, the NTSB ruled that a spark of unknown origin likely ignited fuel vapors in the center fuel tank of the 747. Since then, there have been other fuel-tank explosions on commercial jetliners. In 2001, a Thai Airways 737-400 exploded at the gate at the Bangkok airport. A similar explosion had destroyed a Philippine Airlines 737 on the ground in 1999. The FAA issued a proposed rule last year that would require operators and manufacturers of transport-category aircraft to take steps to reduce the likelihood of fuel-tank vapors exploding. This would be accomplished by using a fuel inerting system. An inert gas would be pumped into fuel tanks as they empty. Boeing is designing its 787 Dreamliner for such a system should it be required. But the industry has resisted this move because of the high costs. Earlier this year, a study by a government-owned research group found that most efforts in this country to reduce the risk of a fuel-tank explosion on commercial jets since the TWA incident have been ineffective. "Unsafe conditions remain," said the study by Sandia National Laboratories. It examined 18 fuel-tank safety directives for Boeing 737s and nine for Airbus A320 jets. Only two or three reduced the probability of an explosion, the report said. While eliminating fuel-tank vapors remains one of the NTSB's "most wanted" safety improvements, cash-strapped airlines say the risks of such explosions are low and their costs to modify huge fleets of jets would be too great under the FAA's proposed rule. It is not clear what the FAA will do next, but industry resistance could stall or kill implementation of the proposed rule.
Who would win out of these groups? If the following groups formed, and tried to take out the other group in a battle, who would be victorious? (Note that each group contains 20 members of each organization, so that's 60 members per group) Here's how it takes place. Each organization meets up with all of their group members, and have a private meeting with the President. The president tells them about the rules- They each have 30 days to prepare to take out the other team. The only rule is that they can not use nuclear weapons. What they CAN use is their own arsenal, tactical experience and their intelligence to plan and coordinate an attack. Group A: Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marine Corps, Los Angeles S.W.A.T. team. Group B: United States Marshalls, United States Army, United States Coast Guard Group C: Drug Enforcement Agency, United States Navy SEALS, Federal Aviation Administration.
quick economic questions? For each of the following public policies, identify whether it is a command-and-control policy (regulation), a corrective tax, a corrective subsidy, or a tradable permit system. 1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adds a surcharge to each leg of an airline journey to help relieve airspace congestion. A. Command-and-control policy (regulation) B. Tradable permit system C. Corrective subsidy D. Corrective tax For each of the following activities, decide whether there is likely to be a positive externality, a negative externality, both, or neither. 2. A grocer sells a pound of flour to a family that uses it to bake bread. A. This will not generate any externality. B. This will generate a negative externality. C. This will generate a positive externality. D. This will generate both positive and negative externalities. question #1 and question #2 ARE UNRELATED TO EACH OTHERS!!
Why are airline safety mechanics outsourced? Outsourcing Becomes Focal Point In Aircraft-Safety Debate Snip The growing percentage of maintenance work that has been outsourced by U.S. airlines has become a focal point in the debate over whether proper procedures are in place to ensure aircraft safety. In what has become a hot-button issue in recent weeks, the Federal Aviation Administration is taking a closer look at how it regulates aircraft maintenance at U.S. airlines. Congress on Thursday will hold hearings to review issues around the safety and security of outsourcing. Many U.S. airlines have increased outsourcing over the past several years to cut maintenance costs. But concerns are mounting that monitoring of that work isn't sufficient, particularly when work is done outside the U.S.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
