Accident: Argentinas B738 near Porto Alegre on Nov 24th 2018, turbulence injures two
An Aerolineas Argentinas Boeing 737-800, registration LV-GGQ performing flight AR-1293 from Rio de Janeiro Galeao,RJ (Brazil) to Buenos Aires Ezeiza,BA (Argentina), was enroute at FL380 about 110nm northnortheast of Porto Alegre,RS (Brazil) when the aircraft encountered turbulence causing an altitude deviation of about +100 feet. The aircraft continued to Buenos Aires for a landing without further incident about 1:45 hours later.
Argentina’s JIAAC reported one passenger and a flight attendant received minor injuries in the turbulence encounter.
Infrared Satellite Image GOES-East Nov 24th 2018 16:30Z 6 minutes prior to occurrence (Graphics: AVH/NASA):
Incident: Allegiant A320 at Austin on Nov 25th 2018, possible bird strike
An Allegiant Airbus A320-200, registration N217NV performing flight G4-1819 from Austin,TX to Indianapolis,IN (USA) with 183 people on board, was in the initial climb out of Austin’s runway 35L when the crew reported they obviously had hit something on departure, the right hand engine (CFM56) is developing vibrations, is still running though. The aircraft returned for a safe landing on runway 35L about 35 minutes after departure.
The FAA reported the A320, registration unknown, struck an unidentified object on departure, possibly a bird strike. The highest level of injury was unknown, the damage was unknown (the FAA reported the occurrence happened on Nov 25th 2018 01:29Z instead of Nov 26th 2018 01:29Z, which translates to Nov 25th 2018 19:29L).
Incident: Canada A320 near Montreal on Nov 15th 2018, spoiled spoilers
An Air Canada Airbus A320-200, registration C-FPWD performing flight AC-318 from Calgary,AB to Montreal,QC (Canada) with 130 passengers and 7 crew, was enroute when the crew received an ECAM message indicating a fault with spoiler #4. The crew continued the flight and was descending towards Montreal, when the crew received indications of faults with spoilers #3 and #4, in addition ECAM displayed a “SPD BRK DISAGREE” message. The crew worked the related checklists, declared emergency and continued for a safe landing at Montreal about 30 minutes after declaring emergency.
The Canadian TSB reported there were no injuries and no damage.
Incident: Garuda B738 at Yogyakarta on Nov 25th 2018, overran runway on landing
A Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-800, registration PK-GFY performing flight GA-210 from Jakarta to Yogyakarta (Indonesia) with 153 people on board, landed on Yogyakarta’s runway 09 at 14:00L (07:00Z) but overran the end of the runway and came to a stop with the nose gear about 3 meters past the runway on the paved surface of the runway end safety area, the main gear still on the runway. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft.
The aircraft was pushed back onto the runway and subsequently taxied to the apron.
No weather data are available. The runway was described wet at the time of the occurrence.
PK-GFY just before being pushed back onto the runway:
The Citation M2 jet, registration PP-OEG, crashed during an attempted landing at a farm. On board were two passengers and two crew members. No survivors.
The farm has a single 1200 m long asphalt runway (02/20).
We make a number of assumptions about automation, the good, the bad and the problems. I believe that it is time to put some of these to rest if we are to actually prevent future accidents. It is time for a new paradigm in how we think about automation and the types of problems that result from it. In this article I will challenge a number of assumptions that have been stated so often they are now accepted as fact. Software design has absolutely led to accidents, just perhaps not in the way most people think. Many (most?) have been missed entirely even after accidents. This article will highlight one such designed-in risk factor and offer a solution to that issue.
While the October 29 Lion Air 610 accident investigation runs its course, the release of the FAA Emergency AD immediately following the crash has opened up valuable new discussions on the role of automation. The industry is being forced to recognize that when modern airplanes crash the problem is not necessarily lack of airmanship, commonly referred to as “automation dependency,” but rather the opaqueness of the actions and logic of the automation itself. Perhaps it is time to revisit commonly held assumptions such as “automation dependency,” which essentially blames the pilot and implies pilots are complacent and, instead look at the assumptions underlying the automatic systems themselves.
The AD issued in the aftermath of the Lion Air 610 accident highlighted how the loss of a sensor for an advanced system can create very difficult scenarios. Consider the 2008 case of Qantas 72 (an Airbus A330). Here a faulty angle of attack (AoA) sensor led to the aircraft envelope protection (limit) feature attempting to prevent what the computer’s process model saw as a stall condition by rapidly lowering the aircraft pitch. Similarly, on November 5th, 2014, a Lufthansa A321 experienced a wild ride following a physical problem with the AoA probes. In another event, a Boeing 777 experienced some extreme pitch gyrations on August 1st, 2005, as a result of an erroneous angle of attack sensor, as reported by the Australian Transport Safety Board (ATSB)[i]. None of these were related to pilot competency in hand-flying. In fact, all three would have been much worse if pilots were not on board to save the day.
The focus on “stick and rudder” skills and worrying about automation dependency has been repeated so often that we accept it at face value. We emphasize the need to hand-fly more. Now, don’t get me wrong. I love to hand-fly, and will often hand-fly the airplane below RVSM (reduced vertical separation minimum) airspace if the workload permits. The regulations limit my ability to hand-fly above RVSM (flight level 290) in general. As I don’t want to overload my first officer, I will couple it up when it’s busy, which is generally IMC, or operating in complex environments (ATC procedures, metric altimetry, etc.). However, as much as I enjoy hand-flying, is it really helping me to handle things when they go wrong? I am not so sure.
First of all, I am flying the airplane in a normal state. The B-777, like other fly-by-wire (FBW) airplanes, has very consistent handling qualities. The pilot does not have to adjust for differences due to changes in CG, gross weight, flap settings, density altitude, q-factor, and a multitude of other factors that affect the way an airplane responds. FBW takes care of all that. It makes the airplane really easy to fly – as long as it’s working. Problems, such as an erroneous AoA signal can unexpectedly put the airplane in a degraded state. The handling qualities are going to be different, and, depending on the mode, the system may no longer be compensating for all those differences previously discussed. The pilot will have to do it, but is the pilot equipped to handle that, PLUS now having to hand-fly in a “complex environment”? What about those newer pilots that have little, or no experience hand-flying at the higher altitudes?
The issue here is that arguing about pilots lacking the skills to handle the aircraft when the automation fails misses the point. Accidents are not occurring due to lack of pilot skill, or certainly not at any greater rate than they ever have. At the same time we have an argument rooted in a similar set of misconceptions, but this time from some pilots. These pilots argue that they need to exceed airplane limits to “save the day”. This debate about envelope limiting vs. protection is mostly an “Airbus vs. Boeing” debate. Both sides are wrong.
As most pilots know, airplanes such as the Airbus FBW utilize “envelope limiting” while Boeing FBW utilizes “envelope protection”. Many anti-Airbus pilots will argue that they want to be able to exceed a limit in an emergency. I am not going to enter the debate on that directly, except to point out that in 30 years of operations with FBW Airbus with hard limits I know of no accident that could have been avoided if the limits were allowed to be exceeded. There are several known cases where the hard limits prevented an accident, however.
Some will point to events such as the June 26, 1988, Habsheim, Air France A320 accident. A careful analysis of that event shows that allowing the pilots to exceed the pitch right into a stall (it was on the edge of a stall being limited from going further) would only have resulted in a very momentary “bump” in altitude, to be followed rapidly by a steep sink at a higher pitch attitude and rate into the trees. Not a great outcome, and it certainly would not have prevented the crash that actually took place. The story is similar on other events.
Of course, on the other side, there have been problems as a result of envelope limiting, the Qantas 72 example previously mentioned is a good example of one, as was the Lufthansa A321 and there have been others! So the problem with “hard limits” on flight controls is not so much that they prevent pilots from exceeding them, but that they can take an action due to erroneous data or a missed assumption that the pilot cannot override without taking unusual steps. However, going back to the “hard limit” debate, we know that some pilots have been quick to want to exceed g-load, bank, pitch or angle of attack limits even though there is no evidence to support the need to do so. It is interesting to consider, then, that as far as I know, nobody ever has expressed concern about the digital electronic controls we use for all modern jet engines. Here is another example of conventional wisdom missing a larger potential issue.
Whether we refer to it as FADEC (Full Authority Digital Electronic Control), EEC (Engine Electronic Control) or any other name, these systems limit the engines to maximum rated thrust. Apply firewall power (throttle against the stops) and the system will automatically limit it to maximum thrust, with some small exceptions. In the older engines with mechanical fuel control units we had to watch the throttle advancement to ensure we did not exceed any limitation, but it was also possible, in most circumstances, to shove the throttles forward to obtain 15% more thrust than the engine was rated for, or even more. Sure, that meant the engines might need to be inspected, or even trashed, but that thrust was available. Given the choice between hitting the ground or burning up the engines, I think all pilots would take the latter! Why has this issue not been raised?
How many accidents could have been prevented had the engine’s controller allowed the pilot to exceed the limitation? I must add a caveat that many factors are in play here, including spool up time. If the engines were not able to reach the maximum rated thrust in the time prior to the accident, they would not be able to reach a higher thrust level either. With that said, examples that come to mind to investigate are:
Habsheim. While the issue was not the pitch limit, as I discussed, 15% more thrust might well have saved the day.
Asiana at San Francisco (2013). Adding 15% more thrust there may have been just enough to miss that 13 foot sea well. That’s right, just 13 feet, and in actual fact they probably just needed less than half that.
American Airlines going into Cali (1995). The report stated that retracting the speed brakes would likely have prevented the accident. Would more thrust have been available at that altitude? Was there adequate spool-up time?
You may be able to think many more examples that are better than these, but it is possible that quite a few accidents were the result of a design decision to create software that was more focused on extending engine life than saving an airplane in an extreme situation. To reiterate, I have not done any performance analysis on any of these. Those that worked performance for these accidents should have the data on a spreadsheet and it would not be hard to calculate. It might turn out that these three accidents would still have occurred regardless of the availability of extra thrust. Focusing on that would miss the point. Rather, the point is that there clearly are times when extra thrust would be a good thing, even at the cost of an engine. Examples are EGPWS escape, windshear escape, late recognition of impending CFIT, and many more cases.
How might we design this? I would suggest looking at the MD-11, with its “FADEC bar”. It is a mechanical stop that, with an intentional extra forceful push, allows the throttles to move a bit more, a higher “throttle resolver angle” is fed into the electronic controller. The engineers were thinking correctly when they designed it. Unfortunately, the most it can do is revert the FADEC to an “alternate” mode, which essentially means that it is not relying on actual temperature and pressure, but a “default” setting.
Pushing through the FADEC bar will never result in a decrease in thrust, but could potentially increase thrust up to as much as 10%. The key word here is “could”, because depending on the actual conditions, it may already be as high as it will get. I am proposing a system like the “FADEC bar” that allows us to truly increase thrust, beyond the engine design limits. An extra 15% or more, perhaps much more. I want the ability to intentionally (and only with conscious action) push the engines well above the design limits, risking catastrophic damage – as not doing so will likely destroy the engines along with the rest of the airplane anyway. What about the engine acceleration (spool-up) profile? Could that also be modified to allow for more rapid possible acceleration under dire circumstances? While my inclination is that the spool-up time is probably a physical limitation, it does not hurt to ask the question.
There has never been a better time to start thinking about improvements to design that would afford pilots more control when they actually need it. Operating right up to the limit on angle of attack and stopping it there is an excellent use of automation where a human is just not going to be able to gain more performance, but adding in a limit that only protects the design limits is a different story. I’d also like to hear from pilots that do not like “hard limits.” Are you satisfied with engine systems that limit you artificially?
Shem Malmquist, a 777 pilot who flies worldwide is also a veteran accident investigator who coauthored Angle of Attack, a book copublished by Flight Safety Information. This ground breaking article on hard limits on jet engines is a story destined to trigger an important conversation in our industry. I urge you to share this article and let us know your thoughts which we intend to publish in a future issue. You can write directly to Shem at firstname.lastname@example.org
JAL headquarters raided following pilot’s heavy drinking before flight from London
Transport ministry officials enter a Japan Airlines Co. office at Tokyo’s Haneda airport for an on-site inspection Tuesday, following recent alcohol scandals involving pilots. | KYODO
The transport ministry on Tuesday conducted an on-site inspection of Japan Airlines Co. after one of its pilots was arrested in Britain for heavy drinking before a flight from London to Tokyo late last month.
Through the inspection at the company’s Tokyo headquarters and other offices through Thursday, the ministry is expected to confirm measures JAL outlined in a report submitted earlier to prevent a similar incident, as well as details of the misconduct.
“We will sort out and analyze information to be obtained in the inspection to strictly instruct and supervise the company. Then we will consider necessary steps including administrative punishment,” transport minister Keiichi Ishii said at a news conference.
JAL co-pilot Katsutoshi Jitsukawa was arrested by British police for being around 10 times over the country’s legal limit after drinking the night before the flight on Oct. 28.
He cheated a preflight alcohol test administered at the airline’s office and briefly boarded the plane.
Jitsukawa drank two bottles of wine and more than 1.8 liters of beer over six hours from 6 p.m. that night, his actions delaying the flight by 69 minutes and leaving the airline to operate the flight with two pilots rather than the normal three.
The company said one of the two pilots who were scheduled to fly with him did not properly monitor the test. The ministry is expected to interview the two about the incident.
“We will cooperate fully (in the inspection) and sincerely deal with the matter. We want to apologize once again for causing trouble and worries,” JAL said in a statement.
Following instructions by the Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Ministry, JAL submitted a report on Nov. 16 detailing measures to prevent a recurrence, such as expanding a drinking ban to within 24 hours of a flight instead of 12 hours.
The arrest of the JAL pilot is among a spate of similar alcohol scandals, involving pilots at All Nippon Airways Co. and Skymark Airlines Inc. The ministry is also expected to search ANA from Wednesday and Skymark sometime soon.
An ANA unit’s pilot called in sick after drinking the night before his early morning flight, in the process causing delays to five flights on Oct. 25 in Okinawa, while a Skymark flight was delayed after alcohol was detected on the breath of the plane’s pilot on Nov. 14.
The drinking scandals by pilots have prompted the government to start discussing tighter alcohol consumption rules for flight crew, with an eye on compiling them by year-end.
Under current Japanese law, aviation crew members are prohibited from drinking within eight hours of starting work, but there is no regulation that sets a legal limit on their blood alcohol level and breath tests are not required.
Airlines have their own rules and take voluntary steps to detect alcohol problems, in contrast with the United States and Europe, where legal frameworks exist, according to the transport ministry.
PILOT FALLS ASLEEP AND FLIES PLANE PAST DESTINATION
An investigation has been launched after a pilot missed his landing by more than 28 miles (46 kilometers) after falling asleep during a chartered flight.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said they are investigating an alleged “pilot incapacitation” which occurred on a flight from Devonport, Tasmania, to neighboring King Island.
It is alleged that the Piper PA-31, VH-TWU flight, operated by Vortex Air, flew straight passed its intended destination of King Island Airport for several miles, before turning around and landing safely on November 8.
It is not clear if there were any passengers on board the flight at the time.
“The trip was the first of seven flown that day by the Piper PA-31 Navajo, which can carry up to nine passengers,” reports The Australian.
“The ATSB is investigating a pilot incapacitation involving a Piper PA-31, VH-TWU, operated by Vortex Air, near King Island Airport, Tasmania on 8 November 2018,” the agency said in a statement.
“During the cruise, the pilot fell asleep resulting in the aircraft overflying King Island by 46km. As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the pilot and review operational procedures.”
The investigation into what the ATSB described as a “serious operational incident” is expected to finish in March 2019, by which point a full report into the findings will be made public, reports MEAWW.
Vortex Air did not immediately return a request for comment.
According to a 2013 by the British Airline Pilots’ Association, more than half of pilots have admitted to falling asleep while in control of a plane. The poll found that that 56 percent admitted to falling asleep while on the flight deck, while 29 percent said they awoke to find the other pilot also asleep, the BBC reported at the time.
The poll of 500 pilots also found that 84 percent said tiredness and fatigue had affected their work at some stage during the past six months.
In 2009, the National Transportation Safety Board said that a GoAir flight from Honolulu flew past its intended destination of Hilo International Airport by 30 miles after both pilots fell asleep while the plane was on autopilot.
An investigation into the incident revealed that one of the pilot’s previously undiagnosed severe obstructive sleep apnea and the work schedules of both pilots contributed to them falling asleep, the Associated Press reported.
The day of the incident “was the third consecutive day that both pilots started duty at 05:40 a.m.” the incident report said. “This likely caused the pilots to receive less daily sleep than is needed to sustain optimal alertness and resulted in an accumulation of sleep debt and increased levels of daytime fatigue.”
Southwest Airlines suddenly grounds 34 planes in its fleet
Southwest Airlines suddenly grounded 34 planes on one of the busiest travel days of the year.
Southwest Airlines had to abruptly ground 34 Boeing 737-700 aircraft on Thanksgiving Eve when the low-fare behemoth discovered that the maintenance paperwork related to the grounded planes was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety directives.
Per an FAA mandate, Southwest was required to do immediate detailed visual inspections of the 34 grounded aircraft. A Southwest spokesperson said the carrier voluntarily followed the FAA mandate.
According to a source in Southwest’s maintenance department close to developments, the detailed visual inspections performed on the grounded planes focused on damaged fuselage areas of the aircraft that had been previously repaired.
All – or most – of the grounded aircraft requiring the additional inspections were planes previously owned by other airlines. Sources say most of them likely entered the Southwest fleet when the carrier made a decision to get rid of its remaining older Boeing (NYSE: BA) 737-300 aircraft faster than originally planned. That move required the carrier to quickly add a number of previously-owned aircraft to a fleet that now totals around 750 planes.
The grounding of the planes on Thanksgiving Eve and the immediate inspections come as Southwest is in the middle of an investigation by the Inspector General in the United States Department of Transportation of FAAs’ oversight of the Southwest safety and maintenance culture.
That investigation was launched in the wake of a fan blade detachment and engine explosion on a Southwest flight last April. That April incident resulted in the first-ever fatality on board a Southwest Airlines flight. The fan blade detachment that caused the incident was the second such occurrence on a Southwest flight.
A Southwest spokesperson insisted on Monday that last week’s plane groundings were not related to the work of the Inspector General.
Last week’s groundings also come as Southwest is awaiting approval from the FAA to begin service to Hawaii from the mainland United States. Southwest has yet to announce when that service would begin.
Southwest had to ground the 34 planes on one of the busiest travel days of the year as millions of people were rushing to get to their various destinations for the Thanksgiving holiday.
Still Southwest said it completed 4,100 flights on the day the planes were grounded. The groundings and inspections “had minimal effect on our operation,” a Southwest spokesperson added today.
Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) has its largest hub at Chicago’s Midway International Airport.
EAA is warning its members, and other aircraft owners, to think twice before signing up for aircraft-renewal services that charge hefty fees. “These businesses essentially duplicate the same process that the FAA directly administers for a mere $5,” EAA said in a post on its website. The FAA’s online registration portal is easy to use and provides a link to the two-page registration form (PDF) required.
“Unless a business is known to be reputable and offers a tangible service above and beyond a simple registration renewal, such as expedited processing or automatic renewal, EAA members [and other aircraft owners] should use the FAA’s online registration portal,” EAA said. Owners must register their aircraft every three years. “Renewal of registration every third year, along with other new tools, enables the registry to keep aircraft registration information current,” says the FAA. “This data is essential for safety, regulatory enforcement and all levels of law enforcement.”
The FAA’s flight standards division has issued an Information for Operators (InFO) bulletin regarding master minimum equipment list (MMEL) relief for items installed under a supplemental type certificate (STC). The agency’s guidance requires that components, systems, or appliances installed on aircraft under an STC be included in the MMEL before approval for inclusion on the operator’s minimum equipment list (MEL) is allowed. Before inclusion, the flight operations evaluation board (FOEB) must evaluate an STC.
The FAA recently discovered that operators had been exercising MEL relief for STC components not yet evaluated through the FOEB process. To rectify this problem, the agency issued a policy deviation to all safety assurance offices effective through April 30, 2019, requesting that all operators provide within 60 days a complete listing of all STCs already installed that have not been evaluated for MMEL relief in accordance with MMEL policy letter 109.
In light of the accruing STCs requiring FOEB evaluation, the FAA also developed an interim solution whereby if the FOEB chair evaluates the proposed MMEL relief and determines it can be utilized without modification, the respective aircraft evaluation group (AEG) office will issue an authorization letter to the operator, allowing immediate relief for the STC item without further amendment of their existing MEL. Should the request require specialized relief, the FOEB will revise the MMEL.
Boeing Announces Nearly a Quarter-Billion Dollars in Corporate Giving in 2018
Includes more than $55 million in new grants to support charitable partners
Grant dollars will fund programs in 2019 and beyond
CHICAGO, Nov. 19, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing [NYSE: BA] corporate giving will exceed $230 million in 2018, driven by $55 million in new charitable grants, as well as increases in business and employee contributions.
The new $55 million charitable grants package will support 443 nonprofit organizations in 47 countries, funding programs through 2019 and beyond. Included in the package is $13 million for veterans’ recovery and rehabilitation programs and workforce transition services – representing an increase in charitable giving of more than 70 percent over 2017.
Also included is a $1.1 million investment in the National Archives Foundation to underwrite the annual display of the Emancipation Proclamation. The ten year commitment will also fund education programs related to the history of the Proclamation and efforts to preserve the important historical document for future generations.
Boeing’s corporate giving is amplified by its employee gift match programs. Earlier this year, the company increased gift match levels following the enactment of U.S. tax reform. Over the past five years, employee gifts matched by the company have increased 30 percent.
“Our people have unique skills and an unwavering passion for making a difference in the world, both through our products and services and the ways we give back to our communities,” said Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer. “When that’s combined with our professional networks, partnerships and financial resources, we have the potential to drive positive, lasting change across the globe in important areas such as STEM learning and veterans’ support.”
Anchored by local and regional employee engagement activities, Boeing corporate giving is focused on increasing access to globally competitive STEM learning in underserved and underrepresented communities; improving technical workforce skills; and supporting military families and veterans. Boeing investments also address unique local challenges critical to communities where the company operates.
U.S. grants will support a range of nonprofits, including FUSE, which focuses on science, technology, engineering, arts and math learning programs for Chicago-area K-12 students; Homes for Our Troops, which provides housing and support for severely injured, post-9/11 veterans and their families; and FamilyForward, which works to improve the health, development and overall well-being of youth living in St. Louis.
Boeing also will support several international nonprofits, including the Nettur Technical Training Foundation, which encourages disadvantaged youth and young adults to pursue aviation maintenance careers in India; The Air League, which provides aviation and flight school scholarships for wounded veterans in the United Kingdom; and OISCA International, which assists with coastal forest restoration efforts in the Tohoku region of Japan.
A full list of Boeing’s grant partners can be found here.
About The Boeing Company
Through purposeful investments, employee engagement and thoughtful advocacy efforts, Boeing and its employees support innovative partnerships and programs that align with the company’s strategic objectives, create value and help build better communities worldwide.
Chicago-based Boeing is the world’s largest aerospace company and leading manufacturer of commercial jetliners and defense, space and security systems. A top U.S. exporter, the company supports airlines and U.S. and allied government customers in more than 150 countries.
See how Boeing is making a difference for Our Future, Our Heroes and Our Homes by visiting the 2018 Boeing Global Engagement Portfolio at Boeing.com/community.
Engage with us on social @Boeing with #BoeingInspires.
Business Aviation Audit Programs Manager Position Available
ARGUS PROS, A division of ARGUS International,is your one-stop source for creating a superior operation within your air transportation business. We are an experienced quality and safety assurance provider and are accredited by IATA as an IOSA Audit and Training Organization. Ours is a flexible organization, committed to true team auditing for multiple standards at the domestic, regional, and international levels, as well as tailoring all the other resources and services we offer to your specific needs.
ARGUS PROS is currently seeking a Full Time BA Audit Programs Manager to join our team. This position will work at our Denver, CO location. ARGUS is an established company with an unparalleled client list and reputation. The perfect candidate will have the proven ability to work with the listed technologies in a team setting.
Responsibilities for the position will include, but not be limited to, the following:
Develops and maintains database of audit report quality issues.
Assists in development of BA forms, checklists and manuals.
Assists in managing various audit standards.
Assists Sales Department with proposals.
Coordinates with Audit Production the closure of Business Aviation audits.
Ensures current BA forms, checklists and manuals are posted on the proper web-based portal for auditor access.
Communicates additional resource needs to the Director Audit Program BA.
Supports accounting department through preparation of Reimbursable Expense Reports and training course registration payment processing.
Supports document management and control system through development, maintenance, and distribution of manuals, templates and documents used directly in the conduct and support of operations.
Monitors Flight Safety Foundation, International Business Aviation Council (IBAC), Air Charter Safety Foundation for audit program related changes.
Responsible for maintaining personal Lead Auditor currency.
Maintains auditor training and personnel records.
Assists with on-boarding process for new auditors.
Provides technical support and training to auditors in the use of various methods to include web-based applications used by the company
Conduct Historical Safety Reports (HSR) and Desktop Audits when required.
4-year college degree, or equivalent work experience as determined by employer
Five years of airline or business aviation operations or related work experience
Aviation Auditing experience
Advanced knowledge of MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Proficient in the use databases of Adobe Acrobat program
Excellent and professional written and verbal skills
Excellent phone and organizational skills
Foreign Language proficiency a plus
Knowledge of Safety Management Systems a plus
Why Chose ARGUS? ARGUS is an equal opportunity employer. Full time benefits will include; 401K Match, Medical/Dental/Vision Insurance, Paid Vacation and Holidays, Flexible Schedules, Competitive Salary with casual atmosphere.
Please register to submit your cover letter and resume at: