Sunday, May 24, 2020

First PRC Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Councils Meeting via Zoom



The 1st Video Conference Meeting of the CPD Councils under the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) was conducted on May 22 via Zoom. The event was conducted in two time schedules: The Health & Technology Clusters meeting was held from 1:00 to 3:00 PM followed by the Business, Education, and Social (BES) & Engineering Clusters from 3:30 to 5:30 PM. The meeting was called by PRC Commissioner Ar. Yolanda D. Reyes, the Oversight for CPD.


Two major agenda were taken up and discussed. The first one was the granting or awarding of equivalent CPD credit units (CUs) to all professionals providing essential services during the state of public health emergency due to corona virus disease 2019. This is pursuant to PRC Resolution No. 1239 (s. 2020)


The discussion was moderated by Hon. Bernadette Reyes of the Board of Physical & Occupational Therapy. She laid out the pertinent provisions of PRC Res. No. 1239. First of all, this is one way of recognizing and appreciating the unselfish and brave efforts or heroism of the professionals in combating the disease. The frontliners will get a maximum of 45 CUs and the volunteers will be awarded a maximum of 25 CUs. There will be documentation to be submitted as part of the requirements, describing the activities of the professional. The organization or the company that a professional is working for should issue the certification and may no longer need notarization. The CUs earned by the frontliner or volunteer professionals may be used up to two renewals of their Professional Identification Card (PIC). In fact, a professional can earn the maximum of 70 CUs, if he started as a frontliner, then volunteered later. 


During the discussion, Hon. Lourdes David of the Board of Librarians presented their draft resolution to the participants. The draft resolution could be used as a template for the resolutions of other CPD Councils. The CPD Councils were given a liberal mandate to formulate and determine the activities to be covered by their  own resolutions pursuant to PRC Res. No. 1239.


The PRC and the CPD Councils would want to emphasize that the granting of equivalent CUs to frontliners and volunteers is only effective during the quarantine period.


The second agenda was on the granting or awarding equivalent CPD credit units (CUs) to professionals under Informal learning (IL) and Professional Work Experience (PWE) as other means to earn CUs during this quarantine period caused by the covid-19 disease. This is pursuant to PRC Res. No. 1240. The reason behind this is because mass gatherings are not allowed, as in holding of seminars, conventions, training or workshops. A professional can still earn CUs during the quarantine period even if he/she's not a frontliner or volunteer, even if she's just staying at home. PRC Res. No. 1240 also extends the acceptance of undertaking for the renewal of the PIC until December 31, 2021.



Hon. Lourdes David, chairperson of the Committee for Informal Learning & Professional Work Experience, discussed briefly what Informal Learning (IL) and Professional Work Experience (PWE) are. IL may or may not be related to the profession whereas PWE is work related. These are covered under PRC Res. No. 1208 (s. 2019).


Hon. Randolf Vicente of the Board of Geodetic Engineering presented their draft matrix of CUs for IL and PWE, based on their original operational guidelines (OG). Com. Reyes emphasized the need to formulate guidelines adapting to the 'new normal' situation. Hon. Vicente showed the various ways on how can a professional earn CUs during the new normal. One is through private study; a professional can read books, journals, articles, technical manuals, etc. He/she can also write articles or make research online. Another way is through interactive discussion online with experts, both local and international. In the matrix presented by Hon. Vicente, there should be a means of assessment of the learning outcomes. An applicant for the CPD CU should submit a kind of summary report of the activities undergone. This is for monitoring purposes to determine the kind of knowledge a professional has learned. And in doing so, to share the knowledge and information learned with other professionals. 


Com. Reyes also encouraged CPD providers, most of which are also the Accredited Integrated Professional Organizations (AIPOs) of the professions, to conduct CPD activities online, like webinars or online training/courses. If the providers are giving it for free to professionals, then they are exempt from paying the program accreditation fees.


Last topic discussed was the issue pending in Congress on the House Bills to repeal CPD law. The PRC has prepared its position paper on the issue, particularly why professionals need CPD and on what we lose if CPD is removed. Of the utmost concern is the contribution of professionals to public safety and welfare and they need CPD to maintain and be updated. Our commitments to international professional organizations will be affected and our global competitiveness will be compromised. We will be left behind and not be at par with international standards which are required for qualifications and professional alignment. Com. Reyes encouraged the attendees to help PRC disseminate its stand on the issue.


The CPD Council for Aeronautical Engineering was represented by its chairman, Hon. Ernesto Ferreras Jr. and its two council members, Dr. Jayjack Manzano and Engr. Jabel Jay Abella. Also present was Hon. Redentor Malia, PRB Member.


As per Zoom count, at one time, a total of 76 participants was recorded, may be even more, if not for the unstable signals experienced by some participants. Kudos to the CPD Division for hosting the event, particularly to Dr. Ma. Ellen Quinicio and staff.




-ooo-



Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Draft of the transitory Operational Guidelines for CPD of aero engineering

The long-awaited final draft of the Operational Guidelines (OG) during the transition period of the Continuing Professional Development for the aeronautical engineering profession was presented to the CPD Review Committee of the PRC by Professional Regulatory Board (PRB) Chairman Engr. Jun Ferreras with CPD 2nd Member Engr. Jabel Abella at the PRC Main Office on September 10, 2019. This was pursuant to Commission Resolution No. 2019-1146 (s.2019) entitled "Amending Relevant Provisions of Resolution No. 1032 (s.2017) otherwise known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Republic Act 1092, known as the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Act of 2016."
PRB Chairman Jun Ferreras presenting the aero engineering transitory Operational Guidelines: CPD needs transitory period for implementation
The final draft of the transitory OG has been thoroughly deliberated and consulted with stakeholders in various venues such as the General Assembly (April 13) and Aero Engineers' Summit (July 23).

Among other provisions, the new transitory OG will have the following features:

1. OFW aero engineers (all professional OFWs for that matter) are no longer required to earn credit units (CUs) to renew their PRC IDs.
2. Newly licensed aero engineers are exempted for renewal during the first three years.
3. Only 15 CUs are required for renewal.
4. The three (3) major areas of the aero engineering CPD are temporarily suspended. There are no more minimum CUs to be earned from any of the three (3) areas. Meaning, the 15 CUs required can be earned from any of the three (3) alone.
5. Excess CUs earned can still be used for the next renewal period.
6. SAEP can now apply for program accreditation not less than 15 days from date of event.
7. All applications for accreditation are automatically approved if there's no feedback from the CPD Council (after 10 days for CPD programs; after 15 days for self-directed learning).
8. There's now specifically mentioned requirements of online training programs for accreditation.
9.  Government agencies and private employers are encouraged to apply as CPD providers.
10. In-house training and capacity-building activities of government agencies & private companies can be accredited and considered as CPD compliance.
11. Those who have already executed an undertaking will be required to comply with only fifteen (15) CUs.

The CPD Council for Aeronautical Engineering consists of Engr. Ernesto Ferreras Jr. as the Chairman and representing the PRB, Dr. Jay Jack Manzano as 1st Member and Engr. Jabel Jay Abella as 2nd Member representing the academe. 

At the moment, SAEP is  the only accredited CPD Provider for the aeronautical engineering profession. Other aviation entities have expressed their interest in applying but no applications have been received from them yet. For this year, the CPD Council has approved applications of SAEP for credit unit accreditation for the following: SAEP Annual General Assembly (April 13) and Aero Engineers’ Professional Summit (July 23).

Aero Engineering CPD Council (Jun Ferreras & Jabel Jay Abella) and the PRC CPD Review Committee
The PRC CPD Review Committee is chaired by PRC Commissioner Yolanda D. Reyes and co-chaired by Ms. Bernadette M. Reyes of the PRB of Physical & Occupational Therapy, with 10 members coming from different PRBs.

-ooo-

Thursday, July 25, 2019

Mid Year Performance Assessment & Re-Planning Conference 2019

Excellence in all areas of professional practice...
The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) held its annual MidYear Performance Assessment & Re-Planning Conference (MYPA) at the Diamond Hotel on July 23-24, 2019. With the theme "Building a Culture of Excellence and Social Responsibility" resource persons talked about on various issues affecting the professional practices and regulations in the country and international arena.
Hon. Jun Ferreras during the MYPA 2019
The conference dealt on issues relevant to the professions today as they were presented and discussed by various resource persons. Welcome remarks and guidelines for presentors were delivered by PRC Commissioner Jose Cueto, Jr. PRC Commissioner Yolanda Reyes delivered her message to the participants and PRC Chairman Teofilo Pilando, Jr. set the direction of the conference discussion in his message.

Highlight of the conference was the awarding of certificates to persons who made significant contribution to the profession and society as a whole. Certificate of Recognition was awarded to Director Rodrigo Balaqui, Jr. of PRC Tuguegarao Regional Office for CSC Most Client-Friendly Award for Region II. 
Dir. Balaqui of PRC Tuguegarao receiving the Certificate of Recognition
Certificate of Appreciation was awarded to Mayor Joseph Evangelista of Kidapawan, Cotabato for offering facilities for OSC.
Mayor Evangelista of Kidapawan for the Certificate of Appreciation
Other persons were also awarded or recognized for their efforts and contributions to PRC and the professions.
Congratulations, MYPA 2019 awardees...
Various topics were presented and discussed by resource persons, such as: Highest Priority Issues and Concerns across the Four Clusters by Hon. Julita Toledo of the PRB of Respiratory Therapy; Dr. Lucila Tibigar, PRC Test Consultant, talked about TOS, Peer Review, Item Analysis & Quality of Exam Questions; Atty. Arnel Ramon, Chief of Legal Division-NCR dealt on Administrative Cases; Atty. Ma. Liza Hernandez, OIC-Director of Regulation Office, presented on Conduct of Inspection & Monitoring; Atty. Lovelika Bautista, Chief of PRB Secretariat Division, touched on Oath-Taking Ceremonies Issues. Mr. Lord Louis Valera, OIC-Director of International Affairs Office, talked about MRA & MRPQ: Problem of Mobility; Hon. Bernadette Reyes, Chairman of CPD Program Management Committee, presented Updates on CPD.
Hon. Den Malia (front), Hon. Jun Ferreras, & members of the Engineering Cluster
Fellowship night followed at the end of the session on the first day of the conference.

PRBs of Aero Engineering
PRC Commission Proper & PRBs of the Engineering Cluster

At the Diamond Hotel...
MYPA, one more time...

-ooo-

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

6th Aero Engineers' Summit 2019

2019 Aero Engineers' Summit at the PICC
The Professional Regulatory Board of Aeronautical Engineering (PRBAeE) and the Society of Aerospace Engineers of the Philippines (SAEP) jointly held the 6th Aero Engineers' Summit at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) on July 13. The annual event was an invitation-only affair and was participated by aero engineers holding key positions in aviation companies, government offices and schools. 
Participants from the industry, academe, government agencies...
Participants came from: FEATI University, PATTS College of Aeronautics, Air Force Research & Development Center (AFRDC), Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), PAL Express (PALEx), FAST Aviation Academy, Dornier Technology Philippines, SIA Engineering Philippines (SIAEP), Southeast Asian Airlines (SEAIR), Royal Air Philippines, Airbus Helicopters Philippines, University of Perpetual Help System Dalta (UPHSD), INAEC Aviation Corp. and of course from SAEP and PRBAeE.
Dr.-Engr. Jay Jack Manzano, SAEP President, on SAEP's strategic plans...
Dr.-Engr. Jay Jack Manzano, SAEP President, talked about SAEP's strategic plans during his term. He also presented a program on Career Progression for aeronautical engineers based on the Philippines Qualifications Framework. He revealed an aircraft project to be sponsored by SAEP and an aviation institution.

PRBAeE Chairman, Engr. Ernesto Ferreras Jr. talked about the Aero Engineering Bill, especially the comments made by Atty. Lovelika Bautista, Chief of PRC's PRB Secretariat Division. Points were clarified by the Summit body and it was decided to add more description to the aero engineering areas mentioned in the draft. The Chairman also presented details of the amended Operational Guidelines for the aero engineering CPD program. Moreover, he talked about the Career Progression and Specialization (CPS) Program for registered aero engineers under PRC. He asked for support and commitment from the participants by providing inputs through email.
PRB Member Engr. Den Malia on protocols during Ocular Inspections/Visits...
PRBAeE Member Engr. Redentor Malia presented the protocols or guidelines during Ocular Visits to aviation firms and schools. He explained the purpose and objectives of the visits and elaborated on the approach and methodology to be performed by the Inspection & Monitoring Team (IMT) during the visit. Further, Engineer Malia explained the main activities of the IMT and the eight areas that compose the scope of the inspection, based on the provisions of PD 1570 (the Philippine Aeronautical Engineering Decree), RA 10912 (the Continuing Professional Development Act) and RA 8981 (the PRC Modernization Law). Then he added the post-visit policies and procedures, including the issuance by the IMT of the Executive Summary report based on its findings and recommendations.
SAEP Director for Goverment Engr. Gilbert de Guzman on procedures for revision of PCARs...
Engr. Gilbert de Guzman, representative from the CAAP and SAEP Director for Government, announced CAAP's revision of the Philippine Civil Aviation Regulations (PCARs). He enjoined the participants to submit any proposals for inclusion in the PCARs. The Summit body decided to prepare a joint position paper by the PRBAeE and SAEP regarding proposals to include aero engineering practices in the PCARs.
SAEP Treasurer Engr. Jhune Naval, moderator, assisted by Engr. Joefreim Delicano of Feati U...
An open forum followed after all resource persons have delivered their presentations.
Engrs. Jun Ferreras, Jay Jack Manzano, Den Malia, & Gilbert de Guzman during the open forum...

Engr. Egz Aguilar II, emcee...
Engrs. Lem Banal (SAEP Secretary), Joefreim Delicano, & John Decena...from Feati University...
Engr. Jabel Jay Abella, SAEP Vice President, delivered the closing remarks. The event was emceed by Engr. Egz Aguilar, SAEP Auditor and moderated by Lorenzo Naval Jr., SAEP Treasurer. 
Engr. Jabel Abella, SAEP Vice President, delivered the closing remarks...

Engrs. Ferreras, Jun Fajardo (SAEP Director for Airlines), Gilbert de Guzman (SAEP Director for Government), Felix Jarmin Jr. (CAAP) & Rey Roca  (SAEP Director for Academe)
Engrs. Den Malia, Jay Jack Manzano & Jun Ferreras

Engrs. Janos Reyes (Dornier Tech), Tasha Palugod (Airbus Helicopters Phil.) & Jun Ferreras
Aero Engineers all geared up
1st row: Engrs. Jun Raras (PALEx), Ryan Cauntay (Royal Air Phil.), 2nd row: Janos Reyes (Dornier Tech), Benjie Simbulan (PALEx), & Tasha Palugod (Airbus Helicopters Phil.)

Engrs. Jhune Naval (PATTS), Jun Fajardo (PALEx), Constantine Cano (INAEC), & Robin Rabin (PALEx)...

Engrs. JC Amores, Hilbert Temporosa & Denis Desolo (PATTS)
Engrs. Janos Reyes (Dornier Tech), Benjie Simbulan (PALEx) & Tasha Palugod (Airbus Helicopters Phil.)
-ooo-

Sunday, June 2, 2019

AVIACOACH| Engineering the Aftermath Case #1: TWA Flight 800 — Boeing 747-131

TWA Flight 800 — Boeing 747-131

Center Wing Tank (CWT) Fuel-Air Explosion & Global Redesign of Fuel Tank Safety



1. Executive Summary

TWA Flight 800 suffered an in-flight explosion of its center wing fuel tank shortly after takeoff from New York’s JFK Airport on 17 July 1996, resulting in the loss of all 230 occupants. The NTSB investigation identified the ignition of fuel-air vapors inside the CWT—most likely due to electrical faults in the Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS)—as the initiating event.

The accident triggered one of the largest global redesign mandates in commercial aviation history, leading to SFAR 88, the Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction Rule, and mandatory installation of Nitrogen Generation Systems (NGS) or equivalent flammability reduction means on many large commercial aircraft. It permanently changed how engineers design, maintain, and certify fuel systems.


2. Basic Accident Information

Date: 17 July 1996
Location: Near East Moriches, Long Island, New York, USA
Aircraft Type: Boeing 747-131
Operator: Trans World Airlines (TWA)
Flight Number: TWA 800
Phase of Flight: Initial climb / climb-out
Persons on Board: 230
Casualties: 230 fatalities
Survivors: None


3. Operational Background

TWA 800 was a scheduled passenger flight from New York (JFK) to Paris (CDG). The aircraft had recently completed several short domestic segments with extended ground time in warm conditions, resulting in heated center wing tank fuel. The aircraft’s air-conditioning packs, located directly beneath the CWT, had been running for an extended period on the ground, further elevating tank temperature.

The airplane departed JFK normally at dusk under VMC conditions.


4. Sequence of Events

• Aircraft took off at 20:19 EDT.
• Approximately 12 minutes into the climb, radar and CVR data indicate a sudden, catastrophic breakup.
• Witnesses reported a bright fireball and debris falling into the Atlantic Ocean.
• Major fuselage sections, including the forward cabin and wings, separated almost immediately after the explosion.
• Loss of control occurred instantly, resulting in ocean impact.

No distress call was received.


5. Technical Failure Mode (Engineering Analysis)

The NTSB found that flammable fuel-air vapors accumulated inside the center wing tank (CWT) due to elevated temperatures. Jet-A can become flammable when heated sufficiently, even though it normally has low volatility.

The most probable ignition source was an electrical short involving FQIS wiring. A transient overvoltage or cross-circuit event may have introduced energy into the low-power FQIS probe wiring inside the tank. Once ignition occurred, internal overpressure ruptured the tank and surrounding structure.

Key engineering factors:
• High thermal input from air-conditioning packs below the tank.
• A partially empty CWT, leaving large vapor/air volume.
• Aging wiring, insulation degradation, and potential chafing.
• Non-fail-safe electrical design capable of transmitting ignition energy into a fuel tank.


6. Root Cause Findings (Investigation Summary)

The NTSB’s official probable cause:

  1. Explosion of the center wing tank due to ignition of flammable fuel/air vapors.
  2. Likely ignition source: a short-circuit producing excessive voltage in the FQIS wiring.

Contributing factors included:
• Lack of design requirements to eliminate ignition sources entirely inside fuel tanks.
• Limited regulatory understanding of fuel vapor flammability under real thermal conditions.
• Inadequate wiring segregation, insulation, and failure detection.
• Aging aircraft maintenance practices that did not capture wiring degradation.


7. Airworthiness Directives (ADs), Service Bulletins, and Regulatory Actions

Major Regulatory Actions

SFAR 88 (2001)
• Required OEMs and operators to conduct complete Fuel Tank System Safety Assessments (FTSSA).
• Forced a redesign of wiring, bonding, grounding, pump motor circuits, fuel quantity systems, and lightning protections.
• Created mandatory Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) for fuel system inspection/maintenance.

Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction Rule (2008)
• Required installation of Flammability Reduction Means (FRM)—primarily Nitrogen Generation Systems—for aircraft with high-flammability tanks (e.g., 747, 737, 757, 767, A320 families).
• Mandated design changes for future aircraft certification under FAR/CS-25.

Key FAA ADs

• Multiple ADs across fleets (Boeing/Airbus) mandating:

  • Fuel pump improvements
  • Bonding and shielding upgrades
  • FQIS wiring separation
  • Replacement of aged connectors
  • Addition of FRM/NGS systems
  • Revised maintenance and inspection programs
    • Type-specific ADs for 747, 737 Classic/NG, 757, 767, A300, A310, A320 families.

8. Major Engineering / Design Changes

Fuel System Redesign

• Installation of Nitrogen Generation Systems to keep oxygen levels below flammability.
• Redesign of FQIS so that no single failure can allow ignition energy into a tank.
• Robust wiring separation, shielding, and redundant grounding paths.
• Spark-safe or intrinsically safe electrical components inside tanks.

Thermal Management Changes

• Better insulation/ventilation around heat-generating components under tanks.
• New fuel-tank temperature monitoring and logic.

Certification Methodology Changes

• Adoption of flammability exposure modeling for tank design.
• Mandatory demonstration that no fuel tank can remain in a flammable state for extended periods in expected service profiles.
• Certification tests requiring ignition-source prevention under realistic wiring-fault conditions.


9. Maintenance Implications & Reliability Lessons

• Introduction of Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) as mandatory tasks.
• Strict NDT/NDI requirements for wiring bundles routed through hazardous zones.
• Detailed bonding/grounding inspections, surface-resistance checks, and connector replacement intervals.
• Fuel pump and valve component replacement based on reliability data, not simple on-condition use.
• Enhanced wire-chafing inspection and clamp/stand-off standards (ATA 28 / ATA 24 / ATA 33).
• Emphasis on aging electrical systems as fatigue-critical elements, not just structure.


10. Operational & Training Lessons (Pilots, Dispatch, ATC)

• Greater awareness of potential fuel tank thermal loading, especially during long ground delays with packs running.
• Enhanced pre-flight and maintenance logbook scrutiny related to electrical anomalies.
• System knowledge training on:

  • NGS operation
  • Fuel pump abnormal indications
  • Fuel temperature management
    • Improved crew/dispatch coordination when a tank is known to be near flammable temperature thresholds.

11. Certification & Airworthiness Philosophy Impact

TWA 800 reshaped global certification in three major ways:

  1. Shift from “ignition prevention alone” to dual strategy:
    • reduce flammability + eliminate ignition sources.
  2. Electrical wiring treated as a critical system:
    • leading to EWIS (Electrical Wiring Interconnection System) regulations.
  3. Life-cycle design philosophy:
    • Fuel systems must remain safe throughout decades of service, considering aging, corrosion, wiring degradation, and repeated maintenance actions.

This accident remains one of the defining forces behind today’s FAR/CS-25 fuel tank safety framework.


12. Industry Application: How Airlines, MROs, and Aviation Firms Benefit

Airlines, MROs, and training organizations gain from this case study by:

• Strengthening fuel-safety competencies in technicians and engineers.
• Designing MSG-3–aligned maintenance programs with clear electrical and fuel-tank AWLs.
• Elevating human factors awareness related to wiring damage and tank-entry procedures.
• Improving reliability engineering through FMEA, Zonal Safety Analysis (ZSA), and SFAR 88 design-review culture.
• Enhancing SMS hazard identification relating to electrical anomalies, tank heating, and maintenance-induced damage.
• Building better planning for modification campaigns involving NGS and wiring upgrades.


13. Concluding Engineering Insights

TWA 800 stands as one of aviation’s most consequential engineering lessons: fuel tanks in large transport aircraft cannot be assumed safe simply because Jet-A is “hard to ignite.” System aging, wiring faults, thermal conditions, and certification assumptions combined to create a lethal scenario. The resulting global redesign—NGS installation, SFAR 88 requirements, and EWIS rules—remains a cornerstone of modern airworthiness.

Understanding this accident is essential for today’s aeronautical engineers, MRO personnel, and regulators who manage aging fleets and evolving electrical architectures.


14. References

• NTSB Aircraft Accident Report: TWA Flight 800
• FAA SFAR 88 rulemaking documents
• FAA Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction Rule (2008)
• FAA ADs related to fuel tank ignition-prevention and FRM requirements
• Boeing 747 Fuel System & FQIS Technical Manuals
• EASA/FAA EWIS regulations and guidance materials