Flight Safety Information April 18, 2018 - No. 078 In This Issue Accident: Southwest B737 near Philadelphia on Apr 17th 2018, uncontained engine failure Safety Authorities Say Southwest Jet's Blown Engine Showed 'Metal Fatigue' Incident: Expressjet CRJ7 at New York on Apr 17th 2018, dropped wheel on departure Incident: Thai B744 at Tokyo on Apr 11th 2018, GPWS alert on short final Airbus A330-243 Strikes Light Pole While Taxiing at CHS Airport 'Flight Deck LIBIK - Lithium-Ion Battery Incident Kit FAA officials defend oversight of Allegiant Air Air India instructor threatens trainee pilots with axe Air Line Pilots' Association calls for total ban of high-powered laser pointers (New Zealand) Jet Airways allowing unauthorised persons to travel masquerading as crew (India) Russia agrees to extend overflight approvals for U.S. airlines Nepal seeks Chinese help for gainful aircraft operation Armed forces 'lacking 800 pilots and 2,400 engineers'(U.K.) Boeing Provided Pilots To Replace Avianca Pilots Who Were Fired For Striking, ALPA Says Inmarsat introduces SB-S into commercial service Fearing Collisions, Airlines Support Global Drone Registry INFLIGHT FIRE...By Captain Shem Malmquist Safety Operating Systems RESEARCH SURVEY - I RESEARCH SURVEY - II GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 1 GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 2 Accident: Southwest B737 near Philadelphia on Apr 17th 2018, uncontained engine failure takes out passenger window A Southwest Boeing 737-700, registration N772SW performing flight WN-1380 from New York La Guardia,NY to Dallas Love,TX (USA) with 143 passengers and 5 crew, was climbing through FL320 out of New York when the left hand engine (CFM56) was damaged causing inlet and parts of the cowl to separate from the airframe, debris impacted the side of the fuselage shattering a passenger window causing the loss of cabin pressure. The crew donned their oxygen masks, reported they had an engine failure and engine fire and were to initiate an emergency descent, shut the engine down and diverted to Philadelphia,PA (USA). The crew requested a 20nm final, reported part of the aircraft was missing, they needed to slow down, they did have an engine fire indication, the crew requested medical services to meet the aircraft, they had injured passengers. ATC understood a passenger might have been sucked out of the aircraft but stopped that discussion "we'll work it out" once the aircraft was on the ground. ATC cleared the flight down to 3000 feet, airspeed on pilot's discretion and instructed the crew to report as soon as they wanted to turn base. While the aircraft was on short final tower advised emergency services there was a hole in the aircraft's side. The aircraft landed safely on runway 27L, vacated the runway and stopped on the adjacent taxiway. The crew advised emergency services their left hand side was damaged, they had injuries inside the cabin. Emergency services foamed the left hand engine, the passengers disembarked via stairs onto the taxiway and were taken to the terminal. One passenger was taken to a hospital with serious injuries. The NTSB later reported one passenger has died (presumably the one taken to the hospital). Passengers reported a woman was nearly sucked out of the aircraft and was pulled back into the cabin by fellow passengers. Philadelphia emergency services reported one of the passengers was taken to a hospital with serious injuries in critical condition, 7 other passengers were treated at the airport for minor injuries, none of them was taken to a hospital. The NTSB reported they have dispatched a go team on site and opened an investigation. In a press briefing the NTSB reported one passenger has died without providing further detail. As of current the occurrence is treated as an engine failure, it might subsequently be rated an uncontained engine failure depending on investigation results. The airline stated they are deeply saddened to confirm there is one fatality resulting from this accident, the entire Southwest Family is devastated. "This is a sad day and our hearts go out to the family and the loved ones of the deceased customer", the chairman said. This has been the first inflight fatality ever on a Southwest Airlines Aircraft. In a second media briefing in the late evening the NTSB reported one fan blade, #13 of 24, was broken right at the hub and had separated, the preliminary examination revealed there is evidence of metal fatigue right where the blade separated. There had been no engine fire, there is no evidence of an engine fire, however, it is known there was an engine fire warning, it is possible and even likely the fire wire activated when the fan blade separated. The Captain was a female, the first officer a male, they did an excellent job. The crew elected to land with the flaps at 5 degrees over controllability concerns. A piece of the engine cowling was found on the ground about 60nm northwest of Philadelphia. A similiar occurrence had happened in 2016, see Accident: Southwest B737 near Pensacola on Aug 27th 2016, uncontained engine failure. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA1380/history/20180417/1430Z/KLGA/KDAL Walk around including various views of the engine (Video: NTSB): Walk Around of Aircraft Media Briefing http://avherald.com/h?article=4b7725fb&opt=256 Back to Top Safety Authorities Say Southwest Jet's Blown Engine Showed 'Metal Fatigue' (PHILADELPHIA) - A preliminary examination of the blown jet engine of the Southwest Airlines plane that set off a terrifying chain of events and left a businesswoman hanging half outside a shattered window showed evidence of "metal fatigue," according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Passengers scrambled to save the woman from getting sucked out the window that had been smashed by debris. She later died, and seven others were injured. The pilots of the twin-engine Boeing 737 bound from New York to Dallas with 149 people aboard took it into a rapid descent Tuesday and made an emergency landing in Philadelphia. Oxygen masks dropped from the ceiling and passengers said their prayers and braced for impact. "I just remember holding my husband's hand, and we just prayed and prayed and prayed," said passenger Amanda Bourman, of New York. The dead woman was identified as Jennifer Riordan, a Wells Fargo bank executive and mother of two from Albuquerque, New Mexico. The seven other victims suffered minor injuries. The National Transportation Safety Board sent a team of investigators to Philadelphia. In a late night news conference, NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt said one of the engine's fan blades was separated and missing. The blade was separated at the point where it would come into the hub and there was evidence of metal fatigue, Sumwalt said. The engine will be examined further to understand what caused the failure. The investigation is expected to take 12 to 15 months. Photos of the plane on the tarmac showed a missing window and a chunk gone from the left engine, including part of its cover. A piece of the engine covering was later found in Bernville, Pennsylvania, about 70 miles (112 kilometers) west of Philadelphia, Sumwalt said. As a precaution, Southwest said Tuesday night that it would inspect similar engines in its fleet over the next 30 days. Passengers praised one of the pilots, Tammie Jo Shults, for her cool-headed handling of the emergency. The former Navy pilot was at the controls when the plane made the emergency landing. She walked through the aisle and talked with passengers to make sure they were OK after the aircraft touched down. "She has nerves of steel. That lady, I applaud her," said Alfred Tumlinson, of Corpus Christi, Texas. "I'm going to send her a Christmas card, I'm going to tell you that, with a gift certificate for getting me on the ground. She was awesome." In a recording of conversations between the cockpit and air traffic controllers, an unidentified crew member reported that there was a hole in the plane and "someone went out." Tumlinson said a man in a cowboy hat rushed forward a few rows to grab the woman and pull her back in. "She was out of the plane. He couldn't do it by himself, so another gentleman came over and helped to get her back in the plane, and they got her," he said. Passengers struggled to somehow plug the hole while giving the badly injured woman CPR. As the plane came in for a landing, everyone started yelling to brace for impact, then clapped after the aircraft touched down safely, Bourman said. Southwest CEO Gary Kelly said there were no problems with the plane or its engine when it was inspected on Sunday. The jet's CFM56-7B engines were made by CFM International, jointly owned by General Electric and Safran Aircraft Engines of France. CFM said in a statement that the CFM56-7B has had "an outstanding safety and reliability record" since its debut in 1997. Last year, the engine maker and the Federal Aviation Administration instructed airlines to make ultrasonic inspections of the fan blades of engines like those on the Southwest jet. The FAA said the move was prompted by a report of a fan blade failing and hurling debris. A Southwest spokeswoman said the engine that failed Tuesday was not covered by that directive, but the airline announced it would speed up ultrasonic inspections of fan blades of its CFM56-series engines anyway. "There's a ring around the engine that is meant to contain the engine pieces when this happens," said John Goglia, a former NTSB member. "In this case it didn't. That's going to be a big focal point for the NTSB - why didn't (the ring) do its job?" In 2016, a Southwest Boeing 737-700 blew an engine as it flew from New Orleans to Orlando, Florida, and shrapnel tore a 5-by-16-inch hole just above the wing. The plane landed safely. The NTSB said a fan blade had broken off, apparently because of metal fatigue. http://time.com/5244463/southwest-jet-blown-engine-metal-fatigue/ Back to Top Incident: Expressjet CRJ7 at New York on Apr 17th 2018, dropped wheel on departure An Expressjet Canadair CRJ-700 on behalf of Delta Airlines, registration N710EV performing flight DL-5507 from New York La Guardia,NY to Richmond,VA (USA), departed La Guardia's runway 31 when tower reported it appears they had lost a tyre on departure. The next arrival to runway 22 was instructed to go around. The CRJ crew stopped the climb at 10000 feet and assessed their options, then decided to divert to Washington Dulles where the aircraft landed without further incident about 80 minutes after departure. A post flight inspection revealed the outboard left hand main wheel was missing from the axle. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL5507/history/20180417/1440Z/KLGA/KRIC The aircraft seen after landing (Photo: Brad Freitas): http://avherald.com/h?article=4b7744a1&opt=256 Back to Top Incident: Thai B744 at Tokyo on Apr 11th 2018, GPWS alert on short final A Thai International Airlines Boeing 747-400, registration HS-TGX performing flight TG-660 from Bangkok (Thailand) to Tokyo Haneda (Japan), was on a VOR/DME approach to Haneda's runway 16L when the GPWS activated at about 550 feet AGL while the aircraft was still tracking the VOR radial. The crew initiated an evasive maneouver in compliance with the GPWS alert, repositioned for another approach and landed safely on Haneda's runway 22 about 12 minutes after the GPWS alert. Japan's TSB opened an investigation into the occurrence rated a serious incident. http://avherald.com/h?article=4b771e84&opt=256 Back to Top Airbus A330-243 Strikes Light Pole While Taxiing at CHS Airport Date: 16-APR-2018 Time: 18:30 LT Type: Airbus A330-243 Owner/operator: TAME Registration: HC-COH C/n / msn: 348 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 281 Other fatalities: 0 Airplane damage: Unknown Location: Charleston International Airport, SC (CHS/KCHS) - United States of America Phase: Taxi Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Charleston International Airport, SC (CHS/KCHS) Destination airport: New York-John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (JFK/KJFK) Narrative: TAME flight EQ550 was en route from Quito, Ecuador to New York-JFK Airport, New York, USA, when it diverted to Charleston International Airport, South Carolina due to inclement weather at the destination. The aircraft, an Airbus A330-300, struck a light pole with the right wing as it was taxiing to refuel. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=209468 Back to Top Back to Top FAA officials defend oversight of Allegiant Air Robert Kane, left, and Sean Jenks of Port City Air refuel an Allegiant Air passenger jet during a turnaround at Portsmouth International Airport PORTSMOUTH - Federal Aviation Administration officials defended the agency in the wake of a "60 Minutes" report about Allegiant Air that relied on public government documents. The CBS news show aired its investigative story Sunday night. On Monday, three senators who oversee airlines demanded more information about safety concerns related to Allegiant. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the public needs to know whether the FAA is properly overseeing the airline. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., also expressed concern and asked for an explanation from FAA officials. CBS reported Allegiant had more than 100 flight problems between January 2016 and October 2017, including serious mechanical incidents, aborted takeoffs, cabin pressure loss, emergency descents and unscheduled landings. FAA officials said Monday that since 2015, they have engaged in 48 compliance actions with Allegiant in which they investigated violations and ensured the carrier took corrective action. Under the agency's Compliance Philosophy, if FAA officials encounter intentionally reckless behavior, flagrant violations, or refusal to cooperate in corrective action by carriers, it undertakes legal enforcement actions. If an air carrier is unwilling to comply the agency revokes the company's ability to operate, which was not necessary in Allegiant's case, they said. Officials also said a 2016 review of Allegiant did not find any systemic safety or regulatory problems. The review did identify a number of less serious issues, which were addressed by the company, they said. FAA officials apparently tried to explain their position to Michael Karzis and Vanessa Fica of CBS News before the story aired Sunday. In an April 11 letter sent by Ali Bahrami, an FAA aviation safety associate administrator, further background on the FAA's oversight of Allegiant was included. "The FAA's oversight of Allegiant has produced results. The rate of incidents reported by Allegiant to the FAA's Air Traffic Organization has trended downward in recent years. These incidents include diversions and emergency landings, as well as other events such as passenger disturbances and medical events," Bahrami said. Bahrami explained that in the 2015 fiscal year, Allegiant reported 0.003225 events per 1,000 departures. In 2016, that number was 0.002075 and 0.002875 in 2017. In the first two quarters of Fiscal Year 2018, Allegiant reported 0.0015 events per 1,000 departures, Bahrami said. Even before "60 Minutes" aired, stock prices for Allegiant took a hit when investors heard of the report. At noon Tuesday, shares stood at 144.88. According to its website, Allegiant Air has almost 130 flights to and from destinations in the United States and Puerto Rico. There are flights offered from Pease International Tradeport in Portsmouth to Myrtle Beach in South Carolina, as well as Daytona Beach, Orlando and Fort Myers in Florida. http://www.newhampshire.com/business/faa-officials-defend-oversight-of-allegiant-air-20180417 Back to Top Air India instructor threatens trainee pilots with axe • AI received a complaint from a trainee pilot on January 26, 2018 which alleged the instructor was rude and had once "hit him on the head" soon after taking off • This trainee complained that the trainer, on another flight, took out the crash axe and kept it on the central panel while threatening to hit him. NEW DELHI:Air India has acted against one of its senior commanders for allegedly threatening to hit trainee pilots with a "crash axe" on more than one occasion while flying. The airline received complaints from two trainee pilots, one claiming that the trainer took out the axe - kept on board to break open the cockpit door in case the aircraft meets with a mishap and the exits are jammed - and kept it on the controls while threatening to hit him. Another trainee pilot also complained of being threatened with an axe. An AI spokesman said: "The captain (is) not to exercise the privileges of type rated instructor (Airbus) with effect from February 28, 2018 until further notice." The captain was recently given a limited release pending the outcome of the investigation. According to sources, AI received a complaint from a trainee pilot on January 26, 2018 which alleged the instructor was rude and had once "hit him on the head" soon after taking off from Mumbai for Kolkata when the Airbus A-320 was at 5,000 feet. This trainee complained that the trainer, on another flight, took out the crash axe and kept it on the central panel while threatening to hit him. This trainee alleged the instructor's bad behaviour, like verbal assault and threats, had started in August 2017. Incident happened in Jan 26th reported in media on 17th April. The very next day, on January 27, another co-pilot complained against the same instructor, asking AI not to put her on flights with him as his behaviour endangered flight safety. She, too, reportedly complained of being threatened with an axe. AI swung into action. "AI's flight safety department asked the training department to immediately stop using him as an instructor and investigate the complaints. Verbal abuse itself is sufficient to remove him," said an official. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/air-india-instructor-threatens-trainee-pilots-with-axe/articleshow/63807272.cms Back to Top Air Line Pilots' Association calls for total ban of high-powered laser pointers (New Zealand) Pilots describe laser strikes as Pilots describe laser strikes as "the most terrifying thing they've ever gone through". Photo / File The New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association (NZALPA) is calling for a total ban on high-powered laser pointers after recent laser attacks which pilots described as "the most terrifying thing they've ever gone through". The call for prohibition follows two recent reported incidences of flight crew and passenger lives being put in danger through reckless use of the devices. On April 12 an Air New Zealand plane was hit by a laser strike near Kerikeri Airport at about 6.10am, just after taking off. Three days later there was a laser attack on a Mount Cook Airline plane flying over the Canterbury town of Rolleston. NZALPA President Tim Robinson said on average, aircraft approaching and departing New Zealand airports experience laser attacks every month. "I've talked with pilots who have experienced similar laser strikes when trying to land a plane, often with many passengers and crew on board. They describe the confusion, temporary blindness and the resulting headaches as one of the most terrifying things they've ever gone through," he said. Robinson said laser strikes are an issue that other countries have dealt with through complete prohibition of possession of these devices. "We continue to press Parliament and regulators for laser attacks to be taken seriously - raising their status as an offence equivalent to such acts as highjacking and bomb threats, collectively known as 'Acts of illegal interference'," he said. "What makes it worse is that it is likely the perpetrators will never be found. This is a constant source of frustration for ourselves and law enforcement agencies." In New Zealand perpetrators can be prosecuted under the Summary Offences (possession of high-power laser pointers), Crimes Act 1961 (endangering transport) and the Civil Aviation Act 1990. Under the Summary Offences Act sentences can include up to three months in prison or a fine of up to $2000. Under the most punitive of the three acts, the Crimes Act, a perpetrator could face up to 14 years in jail. "Of course, for this to be possible, the laser pointer and the person who used it needs to be actually found - often hiding under the cover of darkness and having already fled the scene," Robinson said. "How many times do we have to remind those in power that lasers are not toys and pilots and air traffic controllers have been very concerned that it would only be a matter of time before a serious accident would result from such dangerous and irresponsible use?" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12035139 Back to Top Jet Airways allowing unauthorised persons to travel masquerading as crew (India) The Delhi High Court today sought the responses of the Centre, aviation regulator DGCA and Jet Airways on a PIL alleging that the airline was flouting national and international flight safety regulations by allowing unauthorised persons to travel overseas by "masquerading" as its crew on a "general declaration". The Delhi High Court today sought the responses of the Centre, aviation regulator DGCA and Jet Airways on a PIL alleging that the airline was flouting national and international flight safety regulations. Image source: Reuters The petition by one Rajneesh Kapur, who claims to be a journalist, submits that General Declaration (GD) is a declaration of the passengers, air crew and cargo, being ferried in an international flight by the flight operator. In support of his allegation, the petitioner has cited the January 2018 incident of a Jet Airways cabin crew member being arrested by the Department of Revenue Intelligence for being in possession of contraband foreign currency worth over Rs three crore. "In practice, most countries accept the furnishing of a General Declaration, duly authorised by the operator, along with a valid passport and a crew identity card by crew members, in place of a visa for short-duration stays in order to facilitate the streamlining of international flight operations," the plea, filed through advocate Nikhil Borwanker, said. This declaration is being violated by Jet Airways, the petitioner has alleged and claimed that the persons allowed to travel as flight crew under the GD may be part of some illegal activities like money laundering. The plea also claimed the existence of a conflict of interest in the operations of DGCA, as the regulator often hired employees of Jet Airways as its senior officials. The petition alleged that due to this, DGCA "routinely turns a blind eye" to any violation of civil aviation rules by the private airline. It has sought issuance of show cause notices to the regulator and the airline as to why there should not be an investigation by CBI or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged violations. The court will hear the matter next on August 29. http://www.zeebiz.com/companies/news-jet-airways-allowing-unauthorised-persons-to-travel-masquerading-as-crew-check-out-pil-43014 Back to Top Russia agrees to extend overflight approvals for U.S. airlines WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia agreed to extend by six months overflight approvals for U.S. airlines, the U.S. State Department said on Tuesday, hours before an agreement on overflights was due to expire. FILE PHOTO: A Delta jetliner (foreground) is de-iced while an American Airlines plane (rear) takes off at Reagan National Airport in Washington The agreement that allows U.S. carriers to fly over Russia was to expire at 7:59 p.m. (2359 GMT). The State Department said the extension was for operations on three routes through Oct. 28, 2018. It did not specify the routes. Additionally, the Russian Ministry of Transport extended approvals for all cargo flights from Asia to Europe through April 20 but proposed an alternative route after that date, which was being discussed, the State Department said. "We are also working to schedule discussions with Russian civil aviation officials to discuss this and other civil aviation matters," the State Department said. "Our goal remains to provide as many benefits as possible for U.S. carriers." Earlier, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told a daily briefing for reporters that the department had met with representatives from U.S. commercial and cargo carriers to discuss their concerns as the deadline loomed. U.S. diplomats in Moscow were in touch with the Russian government, she said. Russian civil aviation officials had canceled a meeting in Washington this week to discuss renewing the agreement, Nauert said. Discussions on the overflights unfolded amid tensions between Moscow and Washington after the United States, France and Britain launched missile strikes in Syria on Saturday aimed at curbing that country's chemical weapons programs. Russia is a staunch ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taxes/irs-gives-taxpayers-one-day-extension-after-computer-glitch-idUSKBN1HO354 Back to Top Nepal seeks Chinese help for gainful aircraft operation Minister for Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation Rabindra Prasad Adhikari (4th left) and Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Yu Hong (5th left) attend the handover ceremony of two Chinese-made Y12e aircraft at the Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu, on Tuesday. KESHAV THAPA Apr 18, 2018-Tourism Minister Rabindra Adhikari has requested Chinese to help Nepal to operate the aircraft recently received from China more profitably. China provided one MA60 and one Y12e worth Rs2.94 billion as gifts. Nepal Airlines Corporation (NAC) subsequently bought another MA60 and three more Y12e with a soft loan of Rs3.72 billion provided by China's EXIM Bank. The corporation took delivery of the last batch of two aircraft three years after they were manufactured. The manufacturer completed assembling the 17-seater Y12e for Nepal in early 2015. They were sitting in the factory hangar since then after NAC refused to bring them due to their poor performance in the Nepali skies and lack of pilots. The aircraft were procured with the objective of serving remote mountain airfields. However, in the last three years, NAC has not flown the aircraft to any mountain airfield or even conducted test flights to Lukla and other mountain airports where demand has increased notably. The two Y12e planes were brought in February. The shiny new planes have remained parked at the airport since then due to lack of flying crews. On Tuesday, the aircraft were formally handed over to the Nepal government. "If these Chinese-made planes perform well in Nepal, it will further strengthen relations between Nepal and China," said Adhikari, speaking at the aircraft handover ceremony. "I hope the aircraft manufacturer will also help NAC by providing spare parts and maintenance facilities promptly which is one of the concerns raised by NAC. The planes have arrived, but there are no senior pilots to fly them," he said. "How can the plane fly without pilots? It's a challenge. We need to develop quality manpower." NAC rushed to hire pilots only after the planes reached Nepal. The national flag carrier has produced only three captains to fly the Y12e aircraft in the last three years. Of the three captains, only one is currently available. It has nearly a dozen co-pilots. These management lapses have resulted in a huge financial burden to NAC, officials said. The 55th annual report of the Office of the Auditor General released recently said that the corporation had been operating the Chinese-made MA60 aircraft incurring losses of Rs66.7 million annually, while its losses from the Y12e amount to Rs39.4 million annually. "The corporation does not seem to have made a solid working plan to operate these aircraft at a profit," the report said. Although the corporation has targeted flying 9,168 flights in the domestic sector annually, it has been operating 4,538 flights only. The corporation's expenditure has increased which has resulted in less income, the report said. NAC Managing Director Sugat Ratna Kansakar admitted the failure to fully utilize the planes. "Yes, in terms of reliability, we have achieved only 68 percent, and in terms of punctuality we have achieved below 34 percent in domestic services," he said on Tuesday. "Without help from China, we cannot improve the performance of the Chinese aircraft. Let's sit together and resolve the issues to ensure that all six aircraft fly smoothly in the Nepali skies," said Kansakar. In November 2012, NAC signed a commercial agreement with AVIC, a Chinese government undertaking, to procure six aircraft. One 56-seater MA60 and one 17-seater Y12e arrived in Kathmandu in April and November 2014 respectively under this deal. NAC put off taking delivery of the rest of the planes for two years following problems, including load restrictions, with the two that had joined its fleet in the first lot. In February 2017, the corporation received another MA60 and Y-12e aircraft after being assured by the manufacturer China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC) that it would provide every help necessary to keep them flying in the Nepali skies. http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2018-04-18/nepal-seeks-chinese-help-for-gainful-aircraft-operation.html Back to Top Armed forces 'lacking 800 pilots and 2,400 engineers'(U.K.) Whitehall's spending watchdog warns of a serious shortage in "critical skills" across areas such as engineering. Ministry of Defence handout photo dated 25/05/17 of the cockpit of a Royal Air Force A400M Atlas from 70 Squadron, based at RAF Brize Norton, taking part in a Flypast over Brussels, Belgium, to mark the NATO summit The NAO says pilots are among those needed to plug skills gaps Britain's armed forces are "significantly" understaffed in critical areas - including a shortfall of more than 2,000 engineers and 800 pilots, according to Whitehall's spending watchdog. In all, more than 8,200 regulars are needed to bridge what the National Audit Office (NAO) describes as the "largest gap in a decade". As of January, the country's full-time military was operating at 5.7% below target, according to the NAO. Around 2,400 more engineers are needed, most of them as weapons engineers in the Royal Navy, 700 intelligence analysts and 800 pilots - especially in the RAF. The NAO also identified 102 trades where there are not enough trained regulars to cover operational tasks without cancelling leave or training. Problem areas include engineering, intelligence, logistics, pilots, communications and medical. The NAO report criticised the Ministry of Defence's reliance on young recruits in lower ranks to develop and be trained over time. The Ministry of Defence says the military has enough to meet operational requirements This has not closed the gaps quickly enough, the NAO said, adding that a 24% shortfall in the number of regular recruits between 2016 and 2017 had worsened the situation. Meanwhile, the percentage of those leaving the armed forces voluntarily has increased from 3.8% a year in March 2010 to 5.6% in December 2017. But new demands, such as the increasing risk of cyber and electronic attacks, will "add to the pressure to increase capability in some trades that already have shortfalls" the report added. Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "In these uncertain times, it is more critical than ever that Britain has a well-staffed armed forces with the technical know-how to handle threats to national security. "But the NAO report shows that the armed forces are woefully below compliment, especially in crucial areas like intelligence and engineering." Ms Hillier said: "Without more innovative methods to attract and retain staff, the UK risks continuing with big gaps in capability and overstretching already hard working and crucial service personnel," she said. NAO chief Sir Amyas Morse said: "The department needs to fundamentally change its approach to develop skilled personnel and address the long-established shortfalls that persist." An MoD Spokesman said recruiting and retaining talent was a "top priority" and there were many schemes to attract and keep skilled personnel. "The military has enough personnel to meet all its operational requirements, including being active on 25 operations in 30 countries throughout the world," he said. "In the past year we have recruited over 13,000 people into the armed forces." https://news.sky.com/story/armed-forces-lacking-800-pilots-and-2400-engineers-11336144 Back to Top Boeing Provided Pilots To Replace Avianca Pilots Who Were Fired For Striking, ALPA Says Avianca aircraft undergoes maintenance in Rionegro, Colombia in Nov. 2017. (Nicolo Filippo Rosso/Bloomberg) This story was updated at 3:15 p.m. EDT with a comment from Boeing. Boeing sent a dozen 787 pilots to work for Colombia's Avianca after the carrier fired about a hundred pilots who participated in a seven-week strike that ended in November, the Air Line Pilots Association said. On Monday, one of the dozen pilots was fired because he refused to fly in place of fired strikers, according to sources familiar with the events. The fired pilot worked for Boeing's purchased service pilots group, which provides pilot training for buyers of Boeing aircraft. It does not normally provide pilots to provide scheduled service, the source said. Boeing spokesman Charles Bickers said the dozen pilots are not Boeing employees, but rather work for a contractor that supplies pilots to Boeing. "The pilots supporting Avianca are employees of a purchased services supplier, and we don't discuss supplier personnel matters," Bickers said. Starting in late March, the contract pilots were flying some of Avianca's routes from Bogota to Barcelona, London and Madrid. Boeing sent the pilots to Colombia despite a March 27th letter to CEO Dennis Muilenburg from Tim Canoll, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, asking that it reconsider its move. "We understand that the Boeing Company has agreed to provide 12 Boeing 787 pilots to Avianca for a period of eight months," Canoll wrote. "It appears this agreement would result in the replacement of the 12 qualified and experienced Colombian airline pilots who honored the union's strike. "The Boeing Company's decision to provide pilots to Avianca under these conditions appears unprecedented," he wrote. "The Boeing Company is now directly involved in an ongoing industrial dispute at Avianca. Our union and the world's airline pilots strongly condemn such action." Avianca's 1,300 pilots struck on Sept. 20, seeking increased wages and benefits. They voted to suspend the strike and return to work in November, despite not reaching a resolution to the dispute. Afterwards, Avianca Chairman German Efromovich said pilots who participated in the strike would face disciplinary action. Avianca subsequently fired about 100 pilots, while about six dozen left voluntarily to work for other global airlines, the source said. "Avianca had called the pilots' demands unreasonable," according to a Reuters story posted Nov. 10. "Pilots wanted reduced working hours and for Avianca to pay 70 percent of their monthly taxes, among other things. "In an effort to mitigate the effect of the cancellations, the civil aviation authority allowed Avianca to bring in foreign pilots to fill in on some routes," Reuters said. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/04/17/boeing-provided-pilots-to-replace-avianca-pilots-who-were-fired-for-striking-alpa-says/#4e0fb40076c6 Back to Top Inmarsat introduces SB-S into commercial service Inmarsat has entered its next-generation satellite IP platform SwiftBroadband-Safety (SB-S) into commercial service. SB-S is designed to meet the needs of aviation data communications in the digital age and offers airlines game-changing visibility into their airline operations. It is the first and only global, secure, broadband platform for operations and safety communications. SB-S unlocks a world of digital intelligence for airlines, transforming the role of satcom from a safety utility to a key source of strategic value. The platform enables a range of value-added applications, allowing airlines to utilise rich, real-time data to drive decision-making, improve operational efficiency and assure the highest levels of safety in the skies. The commercial service introduction follows a successful in-flight evaluation on Hawaiian Airlines' Boeing 767-300 aircraft and installations on the airline's entire Airbus A321neo fleet. SB-S is also in flight evaluations with United Airlines and Shenzhen Airlines, and has been selected by Airbus as a Light Cockpit Satcom (LCS) solution on its A320 and A330 families. The platform is already attracting significant industry recognition. It has undergone successful evaluation by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s Performance-Based Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC) as a platform to provide direct data link communication between pilots and air traffic control (ATC). In addition, SB-S received the prestigious 2018 Jane's ATC Award in the Technology category last month. Captain Mary McMillan, Inmarsat Aviation Vice President of Safety and Operational Services, said: "With SB-S in commercial service, the aviation industry can now fully realise the benefits of the connected aircraft - driving greater efficiency in airline operations, while leading the way for the future of aviation safety. We are excited to see the real-world impact that SB-S will have on aviation efficiency and safety in the months and years to come." SB-S reduces airlines' fuel costs and CO2 emissions through enabling connected Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) applications, including real-time weather reports, optimised profile descent and trajectory-based operations. Flight tracking, real-time flight data streaming (Black Box in the Cloud) and interface with rescue coordination centres will assure safety by providing a solution to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)'s imminent new Global Aeronautical Distress & Safety System (GADSS) requirements on flight tracking and data recoverability. With SB-S, remote, secure access to onboard data delivers aircraft health and performance information to the ground in real time, improving predictive maintenance and assisting in quick fault resolution for faster on-the-ground turnaround. Increased periodic position reporting enables reduced separation minima, unlocking additional airspace capacity to match growing demand, while digital SatVoice capabilities relieve pressure on currently crowded VHF radio links. SB-S provides a secure communications and surveillance solution for ATC requirements, and its broadband capability is essential for air traffic management (ATM) modernisation. SB-S also serves as the platform for Iris, a ground-breaking programme with the European Space Agency (ESA) that will enable 4D trajectory ATM which is expected over Europe by 2020. Regulated safety Inmarsat is the only aviation broadband provider capable of connecting the complete aircraft from cabin to cockpit with its own network. Inmarsat's networks are designed for total data segregation between regulated safety and operational services and passenger connectivity, with a 'data fortress door' ensuring the highest level of information security. SB-S is available through a global network of leading distribution partners including SITAONAIR, Rockwell Collins and China Transport Telecommunication Information Group Company Limited (CTTIC) / Aviation Data Communication Corporation (ADCC) in China. http://www.adsadvance.co.uk/inmarsat-introduces-sb-s-into-commercial-service.html Back to Top Fearing Collisions, Airlines Support Global Drone Registry Concerned by a rise in near collisions by unmanned aircraft and commercial jets, the world's airlines back development of a United Nations-led global registry for drones, an executive of their trade group said on Tuesday. The International Air Transport Association backs efforts by the United Nations' aviation agency to develop such a registry, which could also help track the number of incidents involving drones and jets, said Rob Eagles, IATA's director of air traffic management infrastructure. IATA would consider collaborating with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) with using the registry for data analysis to improve safety. ICAO is developing the registry as part of broader efforts to come up with common rules for flying and tracking unmanned aircraft. "One of the important things we would like to see on a registry as well is the compilation of data which would include incident and accident reporting," Eagles said in an interview on the sidelines of IATA's Safety and Flight Ops Conference in Montreal. Airlines and airport operators are looking to drone registries, geo-fencing technology and stiffer penalties for operating drones near airports. They hope these steps will ensure flying remains safe as hobbyists and companies like Amazon.com Inc use more drones. In Britain, the number of near misses between drones and aircraft more than tripled between 2015 and 2017, with 92 incidents recorded last year, according to the U.K. Airprox Board. Air New Zealand Ltd said last month a flight from Tokyo with 278 passengers and crew on board encountered a drone estimated to be just five meters away from the Boeing 777-200 jet during its descent into Auckland. A single registry would create a one-stop-shop that would allow law enforcement to remotely identify and track unmanned aircraft, along with their operator and owner. It's not yet clear what kind of drones would be listed in the registry, although IATA would support inclusion of most drones, including large unmanned aircraft and smaller ones used for commercial and industrial purposes, Eagles said. "The intention at present is to merge this activity into the ICAO registry for manned aircraft, so that the sector has a single consolidated registry network," said ICAO spokesman Anthony Philbin by email. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/04/18/486697.htm Back to Top INFLIGHT FIRE By Captain Shem Malmquist • June 2, 1983, Air Canada flight 797 experienced an in-flight fire. The first hint of smoke odor occurred at 1900 CDT. The crew had thought they had extinguished the fire. At 1907 CDT the smell of smoke returned, and just two minutes later aircraft electrical systems began to fail. The flight crew was able to get the aircraft on the ground, landing just 13 minutes later. 90 seconds later the fire flashed over, killing 23 passengers. • February 7, 2006, a UPS DC-8 crew detected a faint odor that smelled like burning wood as they descended from FL330 enroute to Philadelphia. 25 minutes later they touched down on 27R at PHL. The crew stopped the aircraft and the cockpit filled with smoke. The crew evacuated and the aircraft subsequently became engulfed in flames. • September 5, 1996, a FedEx DC-10 crew responded to in-flight smoke. Landing just 18 minutes later inNewburgh, New York, the crew and jumpseaters evacuated the aircraft. The aircraft was destroyed by fire. • September 2, 1998, just barely over two years later, a Swissair MD-11 crashed less than 21 minutes after the pilots first noticed an unusual odor in the cockpit. • September 3, 2010, a UPS 747-400 crashed while attempting to land in Dubai, UAE. The flight was approximately 120 miles west of Dubai when the crew first declared an emergency. As with any other emergency, surviving an in-flight fire requires sound procedures and regular training to ensure we, the flight crew, follows those procedures. Unfortunately, a fire is one emergency that can kill you even if you do everything right, as the resources traditionally available to us have significant limitations. Pilots are paid to manage risk. The procedures flying a passenger aircraft are limited by such factors as passenger oxygen. Cargo aircraft have a different set of concerns. Regardless of whether you fly passenger or cargo aircraft, knowing what tools are out there is worthwhile. Consider, for example, the procedures to depressurize the aircraft to an altitude as determined by the manufacturer, a standard part of the checklist for cargo aircraft. FAA tested this procedure and found that: ... test results showed a reduced burn rate for all materials tested as the altitude increased (pressure decreased). The decreased burn rate was nearly linear, slightly greater than a reduced rate of 2% per 1000 feet. Testing of lithium metal and lithium ion batteries, a fire safety area of concern for all transportation modes, showed that altitude had little or no effect on the reaction. However, the time needed to heat the batteries to the point of reaction was increased, because of the reduced burn rate of the fuel supplying the heat, as altitude was increased (pressure reduced). ... test results showed that although depressurization reduced the initial burning, the fire intensity on decent was greatly accelerated. The highest depressurization altitude evaluated (25,000 feet) produced the best initial results but the largest fire on decent.[i] Absent a better solution, depressurization provides one of the best known methods to buy us time, but that must be balanced against the needs of passengers. This is a decision only you can make. Time is what we need to get on the ground. Knowledge of the research, however, might provide some clues as to how and when you might want to plan your descent in the event of a fire. Unfortunately, one of the greatest threats today is the carriage of Lithium batteries and current systems provide at best limited protection for Lithium fires. A study published by the Royal Aeronautical Society found that: On a typical flight, a single aisle jet carrying 100 passengers could have over 500 lithium batteries on board. These devices are not tested or certified nor are they necessarily maintained to manufacture's recommendations. Replacement batteries from questionable sources ('grey' market) can be contained within devices. ii While the fact that a fire might be caused by Lithium batteries does not change most of the recommendations, it can force a situation where the ONLY option is an immediate landing or ditching. It should also be noted that in certain circumstances the fire is associated with what is known as a "pressure pulse". Essentially, a rapid combustion in an enclosed compartment or container builds up pressure like a bomb and when the walls of that enclosure breach a pressure wave is generated. It is also possible to generate a pressure wave inside the aircraft just through a very rapid combustion. Either way, this pressure pulse can then lead to the failure of the aircraft compartment. As an example, if the fire is in a lower cargo compartment, the protection from the extinguishing agent is predicated on the walls of the compartment maintaining a relatively high concentration of the agent. If a pressure pulse is able to compromise the containment of the extinguishing agent then all of the assumptions for keeping the fire under control are no longer valid. Unfortunately, the cargo compartments were not designed to withstand even a fairly small pressure pulse. It is not clear whether the flight crew would be aware of such an occurrence, although it is possible. Each situation is different, and only the flight crew will be able to determine the best course of action. With that stated, following are offered for your consideration. Are you prepared should you encounter a fire? There are things that we, as pilots, can do that will significantly improve our odds of surviving an in-flight fire. The first thing to remember is that it is essential that you follow our training as closely as possible. It is particularly vital that you become familiar with and follow the checklists in your aircraft as closely as possible. A real fire is not the time to be fumbling with the checklist due to unfamiliarity. Following all the procedures is great, but that does not mean that we cannot learn additional things to make the most of our procedures, such as the lesson above from the FAA studies of the effects of depressurization on fire. Remember the procedures are based on assumptions that are only valid if the assumptions are true. Reading through the brief synopsis list above, a common theme is how little time we have to respond to an in-flight fire. A Canadian Transport Safety Board study found that your chances of surviving an in-flight fire decrease significantly after about 20 minutes, dropping to a very low probability after 35 minutes. The following chart depicts the time that various crews had from the first indication of the presence of a hidden fire, to the time that fire became catastrophically uncontrollable[iii]: DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT TYPE TIME TO BECOME NON-SURVIVABLE (MINUTES) 07-26-1969 BISKRA, ALGERIA CARAVELLE 26 07-11-1973 PARIS,FRANCE B-707 7 11-03-1973 BOSTON, USA B-707 35 11-26-1979 JEDDAH,SAUDIA ARABIA B-707 17 06-02-1983 CINCINATTI,USA DC-9 19 11-28-1987 MAURITIUS,INDIAN OCEAN B-747 19 09-02-1998 NOVA SCOTIA,CANADA MD-11 16 A fire onboard an aircraft creates numerous hazards. Here are some things to consider: • At the first indication of a fire, it is vital that we don our full-face mask. What is the first indication? Often it is just the smell of smoke or fumes. • Every situation is different, but when reading the accident reports, the risk of waiting for a secondary indication is clear. If you smell fumes, you do not have to wait for visual confirmation or any warning systems. In the event of a fire onboard an aircraft there is not much time. SR111 lost a few minutes trying to confirm the indications before initiating a divert. Did those minutes cost them their lives? • Can you get the oxygen mask on within 4 seconds with your eyes closed? Ensure that your mask is clear of fumes? This may require using the Emergency position of the oxygen mask long enough that there is no doubt that it is clear. Fumes can cause vision problems. Fumes can be toxic and may affect our neurological functioning. Both are, obviously, very bad news when you are trying to fly an airplane. • Do you know where the Emergency knob for your oxygen mask is? Can you find that knob and operate it blind while wearing the mask? While the location of the control is obvious when you are holding the mask in your hand, finding it with the mask on is a different story. The location (with the mask donned) might surprise you the first time. You do not want that "surprise" when you need to find it in a real emergency. • If you have fumes or smoke, your vision may be impaired. Smoke in the eyes can make your eyes close. It is not voluntary. You cannot open them, no matter how hard you try. Being able to don your mask and turning it to the Emergency position completely blind could mean the difference between life and death. When was the last time you tried it? Your next flight might be a good opportunity to try it once or twice. • Does your aircraft have a HUD? Studies have shown that it is possible to see the HUD display even with thick smoke in the cockpit. Are you one of those that has resisted using it on a normal basis? A fire would not be the best time to first become accustomed to using a HUD/EFVS. • Review the Smoke and Fumes checklist for your aircraft. Could you run the checklist quickly? If you are a Captain, would it work out better if you are PF or PM? Who should be working the radios? Remember that you will be using the intercom to communicate on the flight deck. That adds more work than you might expect. Just like anything else we do, thinking about the scenario in advance can make a big difference. • What about the emergency equipment? Can you reach it from your seated position? What if you slide your seat back? What if you get out of your seat, will the oxygen mask hose be long enough to reach the walk-around bottle/mask, fire extinguishers and crash axe? Can you think of scenarios where it might be important to reach these items, or at least know what you can and cannot do in each of these examples? The onboard fire on the UPS B-747 in Dubai burned through oxygen lines leading to the crew oxygen system. • Do you know where your pack switches are? Can you find them blindfolded? Do you know how to configure them to keep smoke out of the cockpit if you cannot read a checklist due to smoke? How fast can you pull together the information you need to divert? • As indicated in the FAA study, there is a significant advantage to depressurizing and staying high, and fast, until fairly close to the airport. Not only does that take advantage of the depressurized state slowing the fire, it also reduces the amount of time for the fire to flare as you start down. Additionally, your fastest ground speeds are usually available around FL250 to 280. In a freighter this is a no-brainer, but for a passenger aircraft does the risk to the passengers of depressurizing outweigh the risk of the fire or ditching? This is something that only the crew can decide based on the specific circumstances, and, unfortunately, no matter what you decide there will be people who get to spend months discussing and analyzing your choices and how you got it wrong - never mind the fact that you only had seconds to make that decision. • Once you are diverting, how close to the airport can you maintain maximum forward speed? There are documented cases where crews slowed to 250 kts approaching 10,000 feet, with an in-flight fire. Those habits die hard. A common debrief item in the simulator exercise is that the crew could have stayed faster, longer. How much longer? • In the simulator, find out how long you can maintain Vmo before you need to slow down to make the landing. Obviously the "stable gates" are not a limitation, but you definitely don't want to have to go-around or go off the end of the runway. Consider using the gear and speed brakes to slow down. Landing gear and doors are pretty tough, and in most jet aircraft, the speed brakes are approved to be used even at maximum operating speeds. They are a lot stronger than flaps or slats. Further, the latter tend to add lift and not all that much drag, and hence are not intended to be used to slow the aircraft, just to allow the aircraft to fly slower. • While on the topic of flight controls, there are aspects of modern flight control systems you may not have considered. One of the factors in the UPS B-747 accident in Dubai was that the fire had not only compromised the oxygen system, but also had burned through the barrier protecting the cables that led from the control column to the elevators. On that model B-747 the autopilot is actually fly-by-wire (FBW), so the autopilot still had full authority. There are other types of aircraft that have a similar architecture, or might have separate computers, e.g., flight control computers for a FBW system from the pilot controls are different than the computers that the autopilot uses. Know your airplane, and above just what might be contemplated in your manuals. • What about the FMS? Envelope protection features? Will your FMS slow you to 250 kts passing 10,000 feet or some other restriction? Do you know how to bypass that to keep your speed up? What about envelope protection features, can there be a scenario where the system slows you down where it is not absolutely necessary when an active fire is the big risk? Again, know your aircraft! • Staying on the topic of knowing your aircraft, how many miles does it take to get from Vmo to approach speed on a 3 degree glideslope? How long from 250 kts to approach speed on the glideslope? How about at maximum takeoff gross weight? You are more likely to encounter many of these fires early in the flight than late, so the probability that you will be doing this at maximum takeoff gross weight is significant. Heavy weights will change the numbers quite a bit. • Consider the winds. A little tailwind will make it a lot harder to slow down due to the increase in energy, so be aware! Perhaps, the next time you find yourself with some extra simulator time, it might be worthwhile to try for yourself to see what you can do and still feel safe. Try it with the oxygen mask on. • Sorting out that flow when you experience it for real the first time is not conducive to surviving the situation. Consider giving the oxygen mask and intercom a try sometime enroute. Working out the details during a routine cruise flight can provide a significant leg up in the event of a real emergency. • What kind of "Smoke Barriers" does your aircraft have? The cockpit door is one such barrier. On cargo aircraft a smoke curtain is another, as is a rigid barrier. When it comes to stopping the smoke, utilize all the barriers you can. One of successes of the FedEx Express Flight 1406 flight crew was attributed to their ability to keep a smoke barrier (cockpit door closed) in place and, consequently, their flight deck relatively free from smoke until after landing. Passengers utilizing a mixed flow of oxygen have few options, another factor to consider. • When you get settled in your seat, take a moment to close your eyes and locate the things you need, in order to exit the aircraft: window latch, crank, inertia reel door, etc. When the UPS flight into PHL touched down, inertia forced the smoke into the front of the aircraft, and the flight crew was blinded by the smoke. UPS Capt. Jess Grigg, at that time a First Officer and pilot flying, said that he was focused on getting out of the aircraft, and eliminating things that might impede him, so he released his seat belt and tore off his oxygen mask, then couldn't find the door for the escape reel. He managed to open his window, and stuck his head out to get some air, but still couldn't find his escape reel. They were able to escape the aircraft when the S/O found the 1L door, and was able to open it. He now advises crewmembers to check the location with their eyes closed. Captain Grigg recalled that when doing "smoke in the cockpit" training in the simulator, he found that the exercise always ended when they landed the plane. In real life, he said, landing was nowhere near the end of the deal. He said that when the smoke alarms went off, it was like "somebody threw an angry bobcat into the cockpit." He also said that when he hit the brakes, it was "as though someone had dumped a pail of hot ashes down my collar." If you assume an RTO on every takeoff, and a missed approach prior to every landing, you are more prepared in the event those options become reality. Shouldn't you apply the same proactive approach to a smoke/fire/fumes event? Of all the non-normal events a pilot might face in his/her career, a smoke/fire/fumes event is the least forgiving. Your actions have to be correct the first time. [i] FAA Fire Safety Highlights [ii] Royal Aeronautical Society. SMOKE, FIRE AND FUMES IN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT. Available from: http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/SpecialistPapers/SAFITA__2013.pdf [iii] AC 120-80 Appendix 3 Back to Top Back to Top RESEARCH SURVEY - I Dear Participants, I would like to have some help with a questionnaire I created (only 8 questions) aiming to find it if Aviation Industry understands Safety as an organizational or corporate value. I would be grateful if you could disseminate the surveymonkey link SURVEY LINK: Is Safety an Organisational Value? Survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/65MM65D) The Survey ends on April the 22nd and I will create and report with the findings and my opinion at May the 15th.I could send you also the report when is ready. Thank you in advance for your assistance Kind Regards Dimitrios Soukeras,MBA(ER) Lieutenant Colonel HAA(Ret.)-Helicopter Pilot SJSU Faculty Member Office:+302661054690 Mobile:+306947006664 Email: d.soukeras@yahoo.com P.O. BOX 391, 49100 CORFU , GREECE Back to Top RESEARCH SURVEY - II Dear Participants, You are being asked to participate in a research study of your experience on retaining your manual flying skills during flight. This survey study is expected to take approximately 5 minutes of your time. In order to participate, you must be at least 18 years old and currently employed as an airline transport pilot in the United States. Participation in this study is voluntary, and you may choose to opt out of the study at any time. If you choose to opt out, your data will be destroyed. We appreciate your consideration and time to complete our study. Please click on or copy and paste the URL below: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/R8NCDGC For more information, please contact: Gajapriya Tamilselvan: gtamilselvan2014@my.fit.edu Or Dr. Scott Winter: winte25e@erau.edu We appreciate your interest and participation! Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 1 Dear Participant: Graduate students at Lewis University have invited you to participate in a research project entitled: Evaluating, Attitudes, and Opinions on the Cyber Threat Vulnerabilities of Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast. The purpose of this survey is to collect survey data from the aviation communities on beliefs of current ADS-B security and its present issues. This study has been approved by Lewis University's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The survey is anonymous. Participation in this research is completely voluntary and you may refuse to participate without consequence. The survey will take approximately ten minutes to complete. If you would like to know the results of this research, contact faculty advisor Dr. Erik Baker at bakerer@lewisu.edu. Thank you for your consideration. Your help is greatly appreciated. Survey link: https://goo.gl/forms/MP1833a6acHXBLGn2 Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 2 Dear Participant: Hello my name is DEREK HAYNES and I am an MSc student at City University of London and a Captain on the B787. However would you kindly please spare me a few minutes of your valuable time to complete my Air Transport Management MSc Jet Airline Pilot Survey - preferably by 30th April 2018, (it is anonymous). It takes <10 mins. Thanks a million, Derek. The survey can be completed here: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/TWKHCFK Curt Lewis