Category: Issue Highlights

More than one million employees in Great Britain experience noise levels that put them at great risk for hearing loss and tinnitus, a “ringing in the ears” that can plague sufferers for a lifetime. The Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates that the average number of cases of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) caused or made worse by work between 2009/10 and 2011/12 was 19,000. (http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/deafness/). While hearing loss is perhaps the more common and better understood condition, tinnitus can be equally, if not more debilitating, leading to stress, anxiety, depression or difficulty sleeping or concentrating.

According to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), a basic guideline to assess potentially injurious noise exposure is whether two workers having a conversation several meters apart must shout above background noise. A normal conversation measures around 60 decibels (dB). According to the Health & Safety Executive’s Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, employers must prevent or reduce risks of constant loud noise in the environment, provide training and enforce hearing protection for workplace noise exceeding 85 dB, the volume of a vacuum cleaner.

Similarly, in the U.S., where 30 million workers are exposed to occupational noise each year, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires implementation of hearing conservation programs for workers exposed to noise levels, also above 85 dB. Between 90 and 95 dB, hearing loss can occur if noise exposure is sustained. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/index.html

Aircraft workers are particularly susceptible to hearing loss and tinnitus. Individuals standing within 25 meters of a jet aircraft taking off experience noise levels above 160 dB. The sound is so jarring that over an extended period most people would find it unbearable. According to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the aviation environment is rife with sources of high volume noise beyond take-off, including aircraft equipment power plants, jet efflux, propellers, rotors, pressurization systems, and the aerodynamic interaction between ambient air and aircraft surfaces.

International law exempts aircraft from noise regulation during landing, takeoff or flying. Nearby residents are subjected to the noise, even though engines today are typically 75 percent quieter than jets flown in the 1960s. However, employers must also follow noise at work regulations to prevent hearing loss among aircraft maintenance workers.

Options for hearing protection include off-the-shelf foam ear plugs or custom-made silicone ear plugs. For custom plugs, an audiologist makes an ear impression and orders them from a manufacturer. These can be standard ear protectors that block as much sound as possible or ear plugs which typically contain a filter and are designed to block out all frequencies equally to provide protection while maintaining sound quality. A high-end option would be an electronic earplug that passes soft sounds unaltered, and compresses louder sounds into the safe range without distortion.

Hearing Protection Still No Guarantee Against Tinnitus
Even with regulatory safeguards and improvements in preventive technologies, workers may still suffer noise damage and develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus, typically described as a ringing, buzzing, whooshing, or other noise in the ears.

According to the British Tinnitus Association, about 10 percent of the UK population has tinnitus all the time, and up to one percent of adults experience tinnitus so severely they can’t relax or sleep; they are truly debilitated. In fact, they must come to terms with the fact that they may never enjoy silence again. And since tinnitus is an invisible condition, most people do not comprehend the extent of the suffering.
Each instance of short-term tinnitus due to noise exposure likely causes a small amount of permanent hearing damage. Repeated damage can accumulate and hearing loss, tinnitus or both can become noticeable. Fortunately, advances in sound therapy can provide relief. In some instances, treatment allows sufferers to reach a point where they are no longer bothered by the sound.

Tinnitus has many possible causes, but most cases are related to noise damage to the auditory system. Many people have experienced this for a short time after exposure to loud sound—for example after attending a rock concert. Usually this resolves on its own. But for those with chronic persistent tinnitus, productivity and the overall quality of life can be diminished.

Tinnitus Can Be Treated and Managed
The best way to prevent tinnitus and hearing loss is by protecting your hearing. Continuous exposure to loud noise or even intermittent exposure to excessively loud bursts of sound can still cause auditory damage.
Those who are experiencing tinnitus should see a qualified audiologist. While primary physicians may be the first point of contact for seeking treatment, audiologists are better equipped to test and prescribe more advanced treatments for tinnitus. An audiologist can conduct both hearing and tinnitus evaluations and recommend the best course of action. Those with only mild tinnitus may benefit from a hearing aid or a tabletop masker that plays soft relaxing or distracting sounds.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

Aviation maintenance software is now more important than ever and much more is being required of it. Aviation software applications are evolving with end users’ needs for more data analysis and forecasting capabilities being based on faster and easier access to greater quantities of maintenance information or FBO “events.” As a result, more information and maintenance “advice” can be delivered to the first responders and technicians performing maintenance activities. This includes remote access to maintenance manuals, diagrams, pictures and videos with the end result being quicker return of assets to an approved operational status.

What are present and future aviation software trends? Z Bar-ON, founder and CEO of Component Control, San Diego believes that trying to figure out what’s “next” is not hard to predict for aviation software. “More connectivity, better integration between systems, more mobile devices, more touch screens capability, more cloud capability, and RFID will eventually take off,” he says. “Different software products will attempt to lead simultaneously in these different areas. Ultimately it’s the customer or the end user of the software that will determine where these software products go. We have always let our customers lead us in terms of innovated technologies and how best practice is reflected in the functional processes the software supports.”

In addition to this customer information, leading aviation software providers also now have decades of product development built into their systems, offering a robust and stable software system on which to add next-generation features, modules or apps. The best providers consistently add functionality and features in direct response to the needs and experiences of their users.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

It came oh so close to happening again.

If not for some truly great piloting, yet another example of technician-error could have lead to a serious, if not fatal, aircraft accident. Because it’s still under “investigation”
I can’t share any of the details, but in a nutshell here’s what happened:

A technician was working on the elevator trim tab on a popular business jet, then for some reason, the technician was interrupted before he finished the job. Fast-forward to later that morning when the crew arrived to take delivery of the airplane. And after a pretty thorough inspection, (that unfortunately did not include climbing up on a ladder to look at the elevator), they fired-up and off they went. That’s when things literally came unglued.
Right after gear-up the aircraft started shaking and bucking. The crew then declared an emergency and was, according to the captain, “real lucky to wrestle it back to the runway…” After being escorted back to the maintenance center by the crash trucks, the crew and the DOM saw the problem.

The elevator trim tab was just hanging there. Obviously, technician had not finished attaching it to the elevator.

The unanswered question is why? Why did the technician get called away from the airplane at this critical time? Why was the work signed-off as completed? Was it a critical issue or just a lapse in judgment? (In all too many cases it’s proven to be the latter).

“I think to some the mindset is that it’s (being an aircraft technician) just a paycheck. It’s not. And you have to understand what you are doing and the importance of it,” explained Richard Komarniski, president, Grey Owl Aviation Consultants (www.greyowl.com). “It is easy for some people, in some situations, to lose sight of that fact.”

Just how serious is what technicians do on a daily basis? When you stop and look at it, it’s pretty darn serious. So much so that Komarniski likens it to being a surgeon. And rightfully so.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

As operators know, wheels and brakes need attention—and plenty of it. The wheels and tires take the brunt of a landing. And bringing a large aircraft to a stop requires the brakes to absorb enormous amounts of heat. But these lowly elements of sleek flying machines can wreak havoc with an aircraft if they are not properly looked after.

Life is hard for wheels and brakes at the best of times. But operational and environmental conditions can also take a toll. Additional wear or damage can result from extended taxiing, short field or hard landings, and exposure to extreme operational conditions and elements, such as rejected takeoffs, inadequate tire pressure, and overheated brakes, explains Steve Kelly, director of product repair services for Aviall, now a unit of Boeing.

Tire and brake wear can differ, depending on factors in a customer’s operation, such as climate and runway conditions and landing procedures, says Hilde Pilkuhn-Alizadeh, section manager in the Wheels & Brakes and Cabin Electronics business unit, with Lufthansa Technik (LHT) Aircraft Component Services. Oxidation of heat stacks is a problem, especially in cold winters, due to extensive use of runway deicing fluid, she adds.

Market Impressions
That’s why wheel and brake repair and overhaul (R&O) is a steady business. In Europe the commercial wheel and brake MRO market is estimated to be worth some $800 million, growing at two to four percent per year, according to LHT.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

Does current latch design continue to account for inspectability & maintainability? Is a new and safer approach needed to secure engine cowlings?
By Rus Sutaria – Avia Intelligence Ltd.

The recent incident involving British Airways adds another installment to that which is the occasional drama of disappearing engine cowlings on Airbus A320’s. There appear to be parallels with the JetBlue incident, and it is without reasonable doubt, that the debate regarding latching mechanisms will invoke the usual finger-pointing regarding design issues, not least an apparent inadequacy in terms of maintenance and operational practice.

A British Airways Airbus A320 suffered the total loss of cowlings for both No.1 and No. 2 engines (together with an apparent engine fire) whilst departing from London Heathrow Airport for Oslo on Friday May 24, 2013. The pilots immediately turned the aircraft back to the airport, where an emergency landing was expertly executed at 08:43 BST. The accident investigation is on-going, with a view to determining the probable cause of the incident.

This and previous incidents involving engine cowling latches, appear to have highlighted a potential human factors weakness, not only in terms of design, but also in terms of inspectability and maintainability. There are distinct differences to the design and functional approaches where correct engine cowl security is concerned, and an even wider variety of SOPs for both pilots and maintenance engineers to follow in the pursuit of safely secured engine cowlings.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

Insights, tips and products to help keep your aircraft clean and your boss happy.

Flying is a dirty business. Corrosives, pollutants, bugs, dirt, grease, acid rain – you name it and it’s stuck to the various parts of your aircraft’s exterior. It’s even worse inside the cabin. Crumbs, ink stains, wine spills and other stuff you don’t even want to think about are left behind in carpets, seats, galleys and lavatories after every flight.
The challenge is someone – usually the aircraft’s technician – has to clean up this mess. And done correctly, it’s a more labor-intensive task than you might imagine.

“For a typical mid-size aircraft like a Falcon 50, I’d estimate that you’re looking at 100-man hours to thoroughly clean the interior and wash and polish the exterior, do the bright work and the like,” explained Jim Garland, President/CEO, Sharp Details Inc., (www.sharpdetails.com). “We’d typically have five guys on a project like that for two and a half days. It’s a lot of work.”

Too true. In fact, in today’s world of doing more with fewer people, aircraft cleaning is falling farther and farther down an operation’s priority list. Garland also said that the exterior should be waxed every 300- to 400-hours of flight time and that the bright work should be done at least twice a year. Alas, even with the best of intentions, that’s a lot of extra work for the average flight department.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

Aircraft wiring is just as important as airframes, engines, and avionics. The consequence of aircraft wiring failure can literally be the death of all onboard.

Unfortunately, unlike an airplane’s single airframe or one to four engines, there is a lot of wiring to be inspected and maintained during an aircraft’s life span. A case in point: According to Boeing, there are about 42 miles of wire on its 737-600/700/800/-900ER (Extended Range) models. If you find this factoid daunting, take heart! That’s four miles less of wiring that can be found on Boeing 737-300/400/500 models.

The 737 isn’t the only aircraft that has miles of wire. This level of wiring is common on all modern aircraft, simply because so many airplane systems are either electrically controlled, or interact with electrical instruments to display sensor data in the cockpit.

Current aircraft wire bundles are generally protected in line with the exposure they receive to heat, vibration and other potentially damaging influences during flight.
The most rugged wiring is found in high heat areas such as the engines. “For the harshest environments, we manufacture a metal convoluted conduit design that provides the necessary protection from extreme heat,” said Sam Symonds. He is president and CEO of Co-Operative Industries Aerospace & Defense, a manufacturer and repair facility of aircraft wiring products. “This conduit or bent tube design, coupled with a compatible hermetic connector design, serve to protect against the most severe conditions,” Symonds continued. “For less extreme temperature, but still high vibration areas, a less rigid type design is utilized to react more fluidly with the environment. For forward turbine engine sections where chaffing and fluid intrusion is a concern, a double braided design is incorporated to protect from fluid wicking, EMI and abrasion.”

“Connector platings can greatly increase resistance to corrosion in harsh environments,” added Bob Gannon. He is a design engineer with Harco, a designer/manufacturer of electrical cable assemblies. For instance, “500 hour or 1000 hour salt spray resistance prolongs the flying hours of connectors,” Gannon said. “Inside the cable assembly, Harco has engaged in improvements such as the sealing of cable entry points into the connector and backshell. Thorough experimentation with epoxies to match thermal expansion of connectors has yielded improvements in prevention of movement of corrosive water and salt spray into the areas where cables are joined to connectors.”

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

Does current latch design continue to account for inspectability & maintainability? Is a new and safer approach needed to secure engine cowlings?
By Rus Sutaria – Avia Intelligence Ltd.

The recent incident involving British Airways adds another installment to that which is the occasional drama of disappearing engine cowlings on Airbus A320’s. There appear to be parallels with the JetBlue incident, and it is without reasonable doubt, that the debate regarding latching mechanisms will invoke the usual finger-pointing regarding design issues, not least an apparent inadequacy in terms of maintenance and operational practice.
A British Airways Airbus A320 suffered the total loss of cowlings for both No.1 and No. 2 engines (together with an apparent engine fire) whilst departing from London Heathrow Airport for Oslo on Friday May 24, 2013. The pilots immediately turned the aircraft back to the airport, where an emergency landing was expertly executed at 08:43 BST. The accident investigation is on-going, with a view to determining the probable cause of the incident.

This and previous incidents involving engine cowling latches, appear to have highlighted a potential human factors weakness, not only in terms of design, but also in terms of inspectability and maintainability. There are distinct differences to the design and functional approaches where correct engine cowl security is concerned, and an even wider variety of SOPs for both pilots and maintenance engineers to follow in the pursuit of safely secured engine cowlings.

It is interesting to note, that all of these instances occurred during either the take-off or climb-out phases of flight (most notable JetBlue A320 in 2010), and were the result of unlatched or incorrectly latched engine cowls, following complex tasks like borescope inspections and maintenance of the IDG.

Although duplication inspections exist where engine maintenance is concerned, the circumstances of when engine duplication inspection is required, is perhaps not as clear as it should be. From the maintenance human factors perspective, it would not be surprising if the confusion surrounding duplication inspection, may be one of the causes of a potential failing that seems to crop-up not only on A320s but also on other aircraft types as well.

Pilots have become increasingly wary of this issue, and indeed captains direct their first officers to pay particular attention to ensuring engine cowlings are securely closed and locked. Some captains have even been reported going as far as to instruct close inspection by kneeling-down and taking a proper look at the latches. In all truth however, you really would have to be on your knees to be able have a clear view of the latches on some of the aircraft. Let’s face it, which of us would want to do that on a wet ramp!
The problem here is two-fold, and revolves around redesign of latching mechanisms and the far more prevalent issue of inspectability of the same. Designing a foolproof system that completely eliminates the risk of incorrect or absent latching of engine cowlings is an unreasonable proposition. Any solutions will need to make an incorrectly secured or completely unsecure engine cowling far easier to spot by both maintenance personnel and pilots alike.

Previous experience suggests that there are other means by which these occurrences can be made apparent. An open cowling on the No. 3 engine of a B747-200B had been identified as a result of the flight-deck crew observing excessive vibration following the engine-start. A loose or insecure engine cowl has the tendency of magnifying natural engine vibrations, something that engine instrumentation should easily pick-up. In this instance, an alert flight-deck crew questioned the anomalous readings and decided to taxi the aircraft back onto stand so that an engineer could investigate and resolve the matter.
Ultimately an ounce of prevention is always better than a pound of cure. Hence a combination of improved inspectability through design and maintenance practices might just do the trick (Not least, closer attention to detail during the pilots’ walk-round). It may also be a simple matter of equipping our engineers and even pilots with a simple tool like an inspection mirror, thus facilitating a better view of the underside of the engine and its associated latches.

On the other end of the spectrum a complex and undoubtedly more costly solution may be necessary in the form of ECAM or EICAS display messages that highlight unsecured or incorrectly secured engine cowls, in much the same way as open passenger and emergency exit doors would be indicated.

There can be no real conclusion to this problem short of better design, operational and maintenance practice. The most worrying part of all this is the shortening odds with regard to a potential fatality. If safety is the prevention of that which we do not want to happen, then we need to stop tinkering with this problem, and start resolving it!

The rules for exporting aircraft parts from the United States are changing! This could be a tremendous benefit for US exporters and also for those outside the United States who need to obtain parts from the United States.
On April 16, the United States State Department and Commerce Department released sweeping new regulations that should make it easier for U.S. exporters to identify which regulatory regime applies to dual-use parts and other parts that have caused the aviation industry to be confused about compliance.

A problem that has been facing the industry is that there has been some ambiguity about the regulatory treatment of certain aircraft parts. The United States has two parallel regulatory systems for export: the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs) which generally apply to defense related articles, and the Commerce Department’s Export Administration Regulations (EARs) which generally apply to everything else. While many aircraft parts clearly fit into one regime or the other, some aircraft parts fall into a grey area where it is difficult (or even impossible) for an exporter to identify the correct regulatory regime. Determining the correct regulatory regime for compliance is important because if you comply with the wrong standards when you export, you could be in violation of the other standards!
Clear identification of the correct export standards is also an economic issue. Compliance with the ITARs is often much more onerous than compliance with the EARs. So correctly identifying a part as being subject to the EARs can mean the difference between being able to service an AOG in a timely fashion, and leaving your customer unable to make use of the aircraft. The company that can correctly identify proper compliance mechanisms often will enjoy a significant competitive advantage over competitors that flounder with this sort of issue.

There are a number of sources of ambiguities that have caused problems for exporters, but a primary one is that the ITARs apply to parts that are designed, manufactured or modified for use on defense related aircraft. If a part was designed for use on defense related aircraft, but then was subsequently used on a civilian aircraft, then it may be subject to the ITARs. In some cases this applies to parts that may have been originally designed for use on defense related aircraft, but the manufacturer was unsuccessful in the bid for the contract, so the part may never have been manufactured for a defense purpose. Other exporters would have no way of knowing that these parts were ITAR-controlled, because the original defense design purpose was not obvious to a third party!

Another class of problem parts is parts that are dual-use (the part fits on both civilian and defense related aircraft). If the part was produced for the military corollary aircraft or engine and then removed from it, it would clearly be a part that was “produced for defense purposes.” If the part was produced for the civilian version of the aircraft or engine and then removed from it, it would clearly be a part that was NOT produced for defense purposes (assume for purposes of this hypothetical that the original design purpose was non-defense). But what if this same part is produced as a replacement part? If it is produced with no specific installation intent at the time of production (e.g. defense vs. non-defense), then is this dual-use part a defense part (subject to the ITARs) or not (and thus subject to the EARs)?

Problems like this have been a longstanding issue for the aviation community. This has been a priority for the industry—changing the regulations to provide clearer guidance about which regulations control the export of any given aircraft part. For a number of years, the aviation community has been working with the United States government to achieve a solution.

The April 16th regulations reflect that solution.
The essence of the new regulations will be that parts that only have a defense mission will remain subject to the State Department’s jurisdiction (subject to the ITARs). But parts with a civilian mission (including dual-use parts) will be clearly identified as being subject to the EARs. In order to facilitate this identification, the government has published a “positive list” which more precisely describes the types of aircraft parts that will remain subject to the ITARs.

[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]

By Megan Browning

Employees at Stratus Flight in Spartanburg, S.C., found themselves constantly seeking comfortable temperatures in the 18,200-sq. ft. maintenance hangar. During the summer, a lack of air movement created a sticky, stagnant environment, while in the winter the hangar lost heat through the ceiling.

Pedestal fans were brought in for air movement, but the noisy, ineffective fans only provided localized breezes, and the drop cords posed a safety hazard to employees. Stratus Flight needed to circulate air throughout the facility, under and around aircraft, to reach technicians throughout the hangar.

Out with the old, in with the new
Underpowered, outdated pedestal fans did not effectively provide adequate air movement for the large space of their hangar. Besides posing safety hazards with cords, these small fans are also very inefficient. High volume, low speed (HVLS) fan technology provides a one-stop solution for a hangar’s air movement and comfort needs. Unlike small fans that struggle to send air to the floor and only create insignificant pockets of air movement, HVLS fans gently mix air to stabilize air movement without creating a draft. These fans use patented airfoils and winglets to allow maximum air movement with minimal energy use.
Stratus Flight say they turned to Big Ass Fans to solve their air movement problem. After installing one 24-foot diameter Powerfoil Plus fan, employees noticed an immediate difference in the hangar. One Big Ass Fan replaced all the pedestal fans, reducing noise and eliminating cord dangers. “The main benefit is the consistency of breeze throughout the hangar without the noise and hassle of area fans,” explained Casey Childers, Stratus Flight’s director maintenance. “It is a much cleaner, quieter, more efficient way to create air movement in a large area.”

Salvaging the summer
Hot working conditions affect worker morale, absenteeism, turnover, quality of workmanship and the frequency of both absences and grievances. HVLS fans improve occupant comfort through increased air movement, which creates a cooling sensation as a breeze passes over occupants’ skin. Although ceiling fans do not lower the air temperature in a space, this perceived cooling effect can make a person feel up to 10 F cooler. Employees at Stratus Flight say they are now able to focus on the tasks at hand, instead of the hot summer heat. “Now, there is almost no place in the hangar where you don’t feel a breeze at some level in the summer,” said Childers.

Winter woes
Stratification occurs because air from a heater is approximately 5-7 percent lighter than cool air in a space and tends to rise to the ceiling. This can result in a significant temperature difference from floor to ceiling. Businesses waste dollars trying to reach a comfortable temperature for employees at the floor level while all the heated air is stuck at the ceiling. Big Ass Fans can be used to destratify heat by moving large volumes of air down from the ceiling without creating a draft. Even though the thermostat setpoint remains the same, the heating system does not have to work as hard to maintain that temperature. The energy savings achieved from reducing the amount of heat escaping through the roof is similar to turning the thermostat down three to five degrees, which can also translate to a serious reduction in operating costs. Childers noted, “The fan saves us money in the winter and it has been a very beneficial investment.”

A Solution for Every Need
Big Ass Fans says it has a solution for every space so if a 24-ft. diameter overhead fan doesn’t fit your need, don’t fret. Ranging in size from 5- to 24-feet in diameter, Big Ass Fans use efficient low-horsepower motors to move massive amounts of air slowly and gently. The company also has several new innovations including the portable 8-ft. vertical AirGo and 44-inch Yellow Jacket, a rugged, portable, mountable fan.
Both the AirGo and Yellow Jacket are available with optional misting packages with a fine atomized mist that leaves people feeling cool—not wet.
Whether a hangar needs to improve its heating efficiency, cool the workforce or a combination of both, HVLS fans are a proven solution.
[s2If is_user_logged_in()]
READ FULL STORY >>>
[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_not_logged_in()]
[message_box title=”To READ the full article in our digital edition you need to be a registered subscriber to the magazine – If you are NOT then goto the SUBSCRIBE section of the site first before you can login” color=”green”]

[/message_box]
[/s2If]