Can the 737 be attacked by hackers? - The FAA wants your feedback

Last Friday (6 June 2014), the FAA published a proposal for additional requirements that would make it less likely that someone could hack into critical electronic systems on some 737 models. The language is a bit dense, but the implication is that several models of the 737 (the 737-700, -700C, -800, -900ER, -7, -8, and -9 series) have an unusual design feature that allows access to the airplane's critical systems and data network by way of the passengers service computer systems.

It is not at all clear that this is a current danger, or if a 737 has already been hacked. For more details, you can review the Federal Register item that discusses this issue (Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 109, pages 32642-3), and for further details you can find out more in the docket folder for Docket FAA-2014-0302

What's the problem?
According to the FAA, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards to prevent inappropriate access to critical information systems. The special conditions that the FAA wants to add to the regulations contain additional safety standards that would presumably establish a level of safety equivalent to existing airworthiness standards.

The FAA wants your comments
The FAA would like to hear what you have to say, and invites everyone to contribute to this rule making effort. You can send written comments, data, or or other information to the FAA. While the most helpful comments would reference a specific portion of the special conditions, the FAA will consider all comments. The closing date for comments is 21 July 2014.

The FAA accepts comments online, by, fax, by mail, or it in person:

• Online: Visit this link to the comment page, or if that does not work, visit http://www.regulations.gov and search for docket number FAA-2014-0302-0001

• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Common questions about the comment process

• Can anybody leave a comment?: Yes

• Do I have to be some kind of computer or aviation expert: No

• Will my comments make a difference?: Hard to say

Additional resources
Overview at regulations.gov
FAA docket folder

Photo of Boeing 737-8ZS cockpit: Wikipedia

Russian Airliner Makes Emergency Landing at Abandoned Airport

7 September 2010; Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise; Tu154M; RA-85684; flight 514, Izhma, Russia: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Udachny to Moscow, Russia. While en route at about FL347 near over Usinsk, Russia, the aircraft experienced a complete electrical failure that resulted in a loss of navigational equipment, fuel pumps, and flaps.

Effects of loss of electrical power
The Tupolev Tu154 uses the electric pumps that move the fuel from wing and center section fuel tanks into an engine feed tank. Inoperative fuel pumps left the crew with just the usable fuel in the engine feed tank, which provided about 30 minutes of flying time. Although the flaps are hydraulically driven, the switches that control the flaps are electrically driven, preventing the crew from using flaps during any landing attempt.

Successful emergency landingThe crew chose to land the airplane at an abandoned runway near the town of Izhma. The runway is about 4,000 feet (1,220 meters) long, and the aircraft overran the runway by about 150-200 meters, plowing through trees and other vegetation, and coming to rest in soft ground. According to a report in RT.com, one of the passengers described the aircraft as “cutting the tree tops like a lawnmower.” None of the nine crew members or 72 passengers were injured.

News report on emergency landing



Shorter news report on emergency landing

Additional Information
Accident information from Wikipedia
Russian plane crashes

Comic relief and plane crashes
When planes crash and everyone walks away to fly again, the world breaths a sigh of relief. When there is a happy ending like with this Alrosa accident, one of the ways that the average person responds is with a bit of humor. The following cartoon depicting Mother Nature's reaction to the impending emergency landing was published by the TV-Novosti site RT.com.

Guidelines on the Use of Child Restraint Systems

The use of child seats on aircraft has long been a concern of AirSafe.com. One area of concern are the variation in rules around the world. While seat belt use by adults is fairly standard, the use of child restraint systems (CRS) is not. In the US, the rule on child travel has been that children up to the age of two could ride either in a passenger's lap (without restraints), and children two and older must have their own seat. Child restraint systems are not required, and the FAA generally approves for flight any seat that is approved for use in automobiles.

An approved restraint device should have a tag, sticker, or other documentation that shows that it is approved for flight. Some devices, such as child restraint harnesses or booster seats, may be restricted from use during taxi, takeoff, and landing. Check the CRS documentation to be sure.

Child Restraint Systems in Europe
The EU requires that children under the age of two must be secured by an approved “child restraint device” on EU airlines. The most common method is the “loop belt” which is attached to the seat belt of adult holding the child on his or her lap (such belts are not used in the US or Canada). A number of airlines provide the option of using car child seats which are secured to an individual passenger seat.

The German Airline Association has published a list of child seats currently accepted by its member airlines (it helps if you can read German). The European Aviation Safety Agency has also certified a dedicated aircraft child seat for specific aircraft types.

Convenience Factors
In the US, child seats don't count against your carry on item or checked baggage limitations, and you can often get early boarding if you have small children. On the other hand, many of the approved child restraint systems were designed for car seats rather than airplane seats, and often the process of strapping and unstrapping the CRS in an airline seat can be inconvenient and somewhat difficult, especially on those flights where every seat is filled and everyone is trying to rush off the aircraft to make a connection.

Before You Fly with a Child
Wherever you fly, you may want to follow these suggestions when traveling with small children:

• Check with the airline to find their busiest days and times. By avoiding these times you are more likely to be on a flight with an empty seat next to a parent. In many cases airlines will allow you to seat your child under two years of age in a child restraint in the empty seat at no extra charge. Ask your airline for its policy regarding an empty seat.
  
  
• Ask the airline if they offer a discounted fare for a child traveling in a CRS. When you buy a ticket (discounted or full fare) for your child, you are guaranteed that they will have a seat and that you will be able to use the CRS.
  
  
• If you purchase a ticket for your child, reserve adjoining seats. A CRS should be placed in a window seat so it will not block the escape path in an emergency. A CRS may not be placed an exit row.
  
  
• Check the width of your CRS. While child seats vary in width, a CRS no wider than 16 inches (40.6 cm) should fit in most coach seats. A CRS wider than 16 inches (40.6 cm) is unlikely to fit. Even if the armrests are moved out of the way, a wide CRS will not fit properly into the frame of the aircraft seat.
  
  
• If you need to change planes to make a connecting flight, request that the airline arrange for assistance in your connecting city.

Other Resources
Top 10 Safety Tips for Traveling with Children
FAA Brochure on Child Restraints

Update to the Investigation into the 17 January 2008 Crash of a British Airways 777 in London

At SAE's recent 2009 AeroTech Congress and Exhibition, which was held in Seattle earlier this month, a Boeing fuels systems expert provided an update on the investigation of the January 2008 crash of a British Airways 777-200 (Flight 38, G-YMMM).

In the January 2008 crash, the flight from Beijing to London was routine until the the aircraft was on final approach, when both engines had an uncommanded power reduction, or engine rollback, which caused the plane to land short of the runway. Although the aircraft was seriously damaged, only one of the 136 passengers was seriously injured, and there were no serious injuries among the 16 crew members.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the UK is heading the investigation, and has released several interim reports, most recently in March 2009. In that report, a buildup of ice in the fuel system was identified as a likely cause of the uncommanded power reduction.

The most revealing insights provided by Boeing was that this kind of fuel icing problem was identified in the 1960s with the B-52, and the lessons learned from that experience led to changes in fuel system design that largely eliminated the problem. The January 2008 British Airways event, and a subsequent November 2008 rollback event involving a single engine on a Delta 777, led to a very thorough review of both the 777 fuel system and to the dynamics of fuel icing.

Among the more surprising findings from fuel system tests (which included system components from the accident airplane) was that in some situations, 777s flying with Rolls Royce engines can have ice form in the fuel system, and that ice could in turn block fuel flow at the fuel oil heat exchanger.

It was a difficult problem to study because ice formation was somewhat unpredictable in that tests similar environmental and fuel flow conditions may have produced significant amounts of ice in one test, and very little or no ice in another test.

In spite of the difficulty Boeing had in recreating the conditions that could cause icing, solving the problem was relatively easy. Changes in the fuel oil heat exchanger, plus changes in flight crew procedures, will be enough to prevent these kids of icing events in the future.

AAIB is still investigating this accident, and when the final report is released, AirSafe.com will review the report and summarize the findings in the AirSafe.com News.

For more details on this investigation, including videos summarizing previous Interim reports from the AAIB, visit 777.airsafe.org.

---

Report on March 2009 AAIB and NTSB Updates
Watch or listen to the report below, or read the transcript
Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV |  Google Video | YouTube

For more videos, visit the AirSafe.com YouTube channel.

Investigation Update #4 for the British Airways 777 Crash of 17 January 2008

This is the fourth update from AirSafe.com on the ongoing investigation into the accident at London's Heathrow Airport involving a British Airways 777. This update is based on information released by the AAIB the week of 11 May 2008.

This article is based on the AirSafe.com podcast published on 20 May 2008. The podcast, available at http:/podcast.airsafe.org, presents the highlights of the most recent update from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch concerning the status of the investigation. There is a brief review of the details of the accident, followed by a discussion of the new information provided by the AAIB report, and an analysis of the progress of the investigation.

The accident aircraft was a scheduled international flight from Beijing, China to London, England, and the flight was routine until about two miles from touchdown. The engines would not respond to commands to increase thrust, and as a result the aircraft touched down about 1000 feet short of the runway. There was a significant fuel leak, but no post-crash fire. All 136 passengers and 16 crew members were able to successfully evacuate the aircraft, and the most serious injury was a broken leg suffered by one passenger.

The three previous AAIB updates in January and February 2008 provided detailed information about the flight, including the state of the fuel and fuel systems, and the condition of the engines and their associated control systems. You'll find details about the previous updates, as well as links to previous podcasts describing the accident sequence, at http://777.airsafe.org.

For the last several months, the AAIB has focused on the fuel and fuel systems of the aircraft. Extensive examination of the aircraft and detailed analysis of information from the flight data recorder and other onboard recording systems have revealed no evidence of an aircraft or engine control system malfunction.

The fuel was extensively tested, and showed no evidence of contamination or excessive water content. Although the aircraft had experienced very cold temperatures, the fuel temperature remained well above freezing. Detailed examination of the fuel system revealed a loose connection in one of the fuel lines as well as the presence of small pieces of debris, but these conditions led to no unusual deterioration or physical blockages.

The ongoing investigation has also found no evidence that a wake vortex encounter, bird strike, engine icing, or electromagnetic interference played a role in the accident. The focus of the investigation continues to be the fuel system and the engines, with the goal of understanding why neither engine responded to demands for increased power even though all of the engine control functions operated normally.

Under the direction of the AAIB, the engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce and the aircraft manufacturer Boeing are conducting further tests on the engines and fuel system with the goal of replicating the fuel system performance seen in the accident flight. Additional work is being conducted to gain a more complete understanding of the dynamics of the fuel as it flows from the tank to the engine.

No individual parameter associated with the accident flight was outside of previous operating experience. However, the AAIB is using a data analysis team to review data from a large sample of flights on similar aircraft to see if there was a combination of parameters that was outside of previous experience.

Unlike the last AAIB interim report issued in February 2008, this report did not contain any recommended operational changes for the 777.

I'd like to take a moment to share my opinion about the progress of this investigation. This crash investigation has not yet come up with an explanation for what happened. This is in spite of having a largely intact aircraft, a large volume of data from the accident aircraft and comparison data from similar flights, and the combined resources the engine manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer, and the British government. This probably means that if the AAIB does come up with an explanation for why the accident happened, the explanation will include a combination of circumstances that had not been previously anticipated by aircraft designers or aircraft operators.

The suggestions made in previous AirSafe.com podcasts about how to evaluate what's being published about this investigation are still valid .

If you're interested in following the investigation online or in the news media, keep in mind that prior to the completion of the investigation by the AAIB, anyone outside of the investigation, including aviation safety experts and the largest news media organizations, will have access only to a fraction of the relevant information.

The AAIB will likely provide several more updates prior to publishing a final report, and these updates represent the most authoritative sources of information about the ongoing investigation.

Podcast Audio and Video
Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | Google Video | YouTube

Podcast Transcript
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show48.htm

Additional Accident Details and Related Podcasts
http://777.airsafe.org

Investigation Update #2 for the British Airways 777 Crash of 17 January 2008

This second update from AirSafe.com, first published on 25 January 2008, is based on information released by the AAIB on 23 January 2008. The links below will take you to the several audio and video versions of the podcast that summarizes the most recent interim findings. The link to the 777 page will take you to a written synopsis of this update.

Podcast Links
Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | Google Video | YouTube

These other links will take you to additional related resources.

Other Podcasts: http://podcast.airsafe.orgg
Other Accident Resources: http://777.airsafe.org
Post Accident Checklist: http://airsafe.com/analyze/checklst.htm