Flight Safety Information April 9, 2019 - No. 072 In This Issue Aviation world faces moment of reckoning after 737 MAX crashes Too many airplane systems rely on too few sensors Incident: Biman B738 near Chittagong on Apr 8th 2019, engine failure Incident: PSA CRJ7 at Augusta on Apr 5th 2019, dropped panel Incident: TUI B738 at Arrecife on Mar 25th 2019, EGPWS PULL UP, aircraft continued final approach Sky High Aviation Services Jetstream 41 suffers runway excursion on landing at Dominica Airbus A330-343 - Engine Shutdown (Taiwan) Ethiopian preliminary report 'very thorough': NTSB chairman Flight Training: A Guide to Aviation Education T-38 endures as stellar training aircraft 60 years after maiden flight ViaAir temporarily cancelling Austin flights amid pilot shortage Inoculating Pilots Against Loss-of-control Gulfstream Sets Longest Business Jet Flight Record. GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Fly Safely | Fly With AvSax MITRE - SMS Course - June 2019 Call for Nominations For 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award Aviation world faces moment of reckoning after 737 MAX crashes SEATTLE, WA - MARCH 22: A Boeing 737 MAX 9 test plane is pictured at Boeing Field on March 22, 2019 in Seattle, Washington. 737 MAX airplanes have been ground by multiple aviation authorities after two two 737 MAX 8 airplanes crashed within five months of each other. (Photo by Stephen Brashear/Getty Images) (CNN)It was a moment the aviation world had been waiting for since a second deadly crash grounded the 737 MAX fleet: Boeing gathered hundreds of pilots, airline executives, and regulators to unveil a fix that would return the jetliner to the sky. "Every time something happens ... we learn from it," a senior Boeing official told reporters, reflecting on lessons from the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes, less than five months apart, that had killed nearly 350 people. "There are one-off occurrences that happen -- accidents like we've just experienced." In the week-plus since that announcement, it has become increasingly clear that the two accidents were not unfortunate "one-off occurrences," the software change Boeing touted would not be enough, and the industry is facing a serious test of its mettle. The challenges of crafting deeper, more expensive fixes, addressing structural deficiencies in the certification process, and reassuring shaken fliers around the world have become more apparent. Boeing has said that its software change needs additional weeks of work, and has seemed to accept some responsibility for designing a system in need of improvement. Fueled in part by damning preliminary reports that show how starkly similar the two crashes were, the moment of reckoning is challenging corporations, regulators, and investigators to take a critical look at the design and inspection of aircraft, and question whether decisions and long-standing methods -- employed for practical reasons -- put the flying public at risk. "It's our responsibility to eliminate this risk," Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said on Thursday. "We own it and we know how to do it." His comments in a Boeing video followed the Ethiopian government's preliminary report describing the pilots of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 struggling on the morning of March 10 to control their 737 MAX 8 during the six-minute ill-fated flight. According to Ethiopian crash investigators, the pilots correctly followed procedures publicized after the Lion Air accident in October to disable a faulty computerized stabilization system that Boeing created to prevent planes from crashing, but the plane's speed and the clock worked against their efforts. Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and a CNN aviation analyst, said he sees evidence Boeing is now no longer primarily focused on returning the MAX to the skies, but is working on regaining public trust in its latest, most fuel-efficient version of the workhorse jet that airlines had been lining up to buy. "I think clearly it has got through to Boeing," Goelz said. The Ethiopian report contained two recommendations: First, that Boeing develop a remedy, and second, a call that regulators scrutinize the fix "before the release of the aircraft to operations." Questions of trust lay with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has faced concerns from lawmakers of excessive coziness with Boeing. Due to the company's broad aerospace portfolio, the federal government is both the regulator of Boeing and hires it for sensitive military contracts and complicated space operations. The world's most famous aircraft, Air Force One, is, after all, a Boeing jet. The FAA, created with the dual mission of regulating and promoting the aviation industry, has defended its decision to keep the 737 MAX flying while other aviation authorities around the world ordered it grounded. Acting Administrator Daniel Elwell bristled when members of Congress asked him why other countries had acted sooner by proactively pulling it from service. Elwell defended the US and Canadian authorities as awaiting evidence, calling them "the first countries to ground the aircraft with data." The FAA's decisions have "shaken" confidence in the FAA, the "gold standard for aviation safety," said Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel. While Ethiopian and Indonesian investigators continue to probe the circumstances of those crashes, multiple investigations in the United States are casting a wide net. A long-standing practice that has allowed both plane- and part-makers to certify their own work as meeting airworthiness standards is coming under scrutiny. House Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio said he has "many serious questions surrounding the Boeing 737 MAX and the FAA's certification process." He said the inspector general has opened a probe, and a special DOT advisory committee will review "the procedures ... for the certification of new aircraft." Prosecutors with the Justice Department have subpoenaed documents, including from former Boeing employees. The FAA has formed its own international review into "the 737 MAX automated flight control system." For all the reviews, some are wondering what will change. When the public's attention moves on, the FAA will still be left with a mandate to delegate some certification decisions to the manufacturers, former FAA chief of staff Michael Goldfarb told CNN. It's one thing, he said, for Congress to criticize the system it put into law, but another for it to fund enough FAA inspectors to oversee manufacturer decisions. "It's been hard for the agency (FAA) to keep pace with pay" in private industry, Goldfarb said. The NTSB, with power to recommend safety changes but not require them, is reviewing the organizational delegation authority, Chairman Robert Sumwalt said Friday. "We would not really be doing our job if we weren't making sure that those aspects were being looked at," Sumwalt said. He said the board has the power to make conclusions separate from the Ethiopian and Indonesian investigations, of which it is a part. Goldfarb said the FAA and its worldwide counterparts would be smart to assemble for a "regulatory summit" to evaluate the 737 MAX before it returns to service. Confidence in the agency has been hurt since its delayed decision to ground the MAX, he said. Goelz, the former NTSB leader, sees signs -- in Boeing's latest comments and the decision to put more work into the software change -- that Boeing and FAA are moving in the right direction. "I think the top priority is to make sure that this aircraft is 100% safe, secondly to make sure that the pilots who fly it have the information and the skills to fly it safely even in difficult situations," Goelz said. "Then thirdly to convince the public -- prove to the public that they've done everything in their power to make this safe again." Convincing the flying public may be the most difficult task of all. Among the defenders of the MAX were the pilots who flew them -- who, in some cases, reacted to the Ethiopian report by calling for additional review of what went wrong. "In the wake of the tragic loss of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on Sunday, people around the world are jumping to conclusions about the Boeing 737 Max," the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots of American Airlines, said on Thursday afternoon. "Federal and international authorities have just begun to look into Sunday's accident. It is too early to determine possible causes." And then there's those who sit behind the pilots. In the weeks ahead, travelers will need to decide if they are comfortable walking onto a 737 MAX, buckling up, and taking off. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/boeing-aviation-737-max- aftereffects/index.html Back to Top Too many airplane systems rely on too few sensors Planes have many sensors, supplying all kinds of useful data. vaalaa/Shutterstock.com Author Carlos Varela Associate Professor of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute The apparent connection between fatal airplane crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia centers around the failure of a single sensor. I know what that's like: A few years ago, while I was flying a Cessna 182-RG from Albany, New York, to Fort Meade, Maryland, my airspeed indicator showed that I was flying at a speed so slow that my plane was at risk of no longer generating enough lift to stay in the air. Had I trusted my airspeed sensor, I would have pushed the plane's nose down in an attempt to regain speed, and possibly put too much strain on the aircraft's frame, or gotten dangerously close to the ground. But even small aircraft are packed with sensors: While worried about my airspeed, I noticed that my plane was staying at the same altitude, the engine was generating the same amount of power, the wings were meeting the air at a constant angle and I was still moving over the ground at the same speed I had been before the airspeed allegedly dropped. So instead of overstressing and potentially crashing my plane, I was able to fix the problematic sensor and continue my flight without further incident. As a result, I started investigating how computers can use data from different aircraft sensors to help pilots understand whether there's a real emergency happening, or something much less severe. Boeing's response to its crashes has included designing a software update that will rely on two sensors instead of one. That may not be enough. Cross-checking sensor data As a plane defies gravity, aerodynamic principles expressed as mathematical formulas govern its flight. Most of an aircraft's sensors are intended to monitor elements of those formulas, to reassure pilots that everything is as it should be - or to alert them that something has gone wrong. My team developed a computer system that looks at information from many sensors, comparing their readings to each other and to the relevant mathematical formulas. This system can detect inconsistent data, indicate which sensors most likely failed and, in certain circumstances, use other data to estimate the correct values that these sensors should be delivering. For instance, my Cessna encountered problems when the primary airspeed sensor, called a "pitot tube," froze in cold air. Other sensors on board gather related information: GPS receivers measure how quickly the aircraft is covering ground. Wind speed data is available from computer models that forecast weather prior to the flight. Onboard computers can calculate an estimated airspeed by combining GPS data with information on the wind speed and direction. Using information on ground speed and the current wind conditions, a computer can estimate the plane's airspeed. Shigeru Imai and Carlos Varela, CC BY-ND If the computer's estimated airspeed agrees with the sensor readings, most likely everything is fine. If they disagree, then something is wrong - but what? It turns out that these calculations disagree in different ways, depending on which one - or more - of the GPS, wind data or airspeed sensors is wrong. A test with real data We tested our computer program with real data from the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447. The post-crash investigation revealed that three different pitot tubes froze up, delivering an erroneous airspeed reading and triggering a chain of events ending in the plane plunging into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 228 passengers and crew. The flight data showed that when the pitot tubes froze, they suddenly stopped registering airspeed as 480 knots, and instead reported the plane was going through the air at 180 knots - so slow the autopilot turned itself off and alerted the human pilots there was a problem. But the onboard GPS recorded that the plane was traveling across the ground at 490 knots. And computer models of weather indicated the wind was coming from the rear of the plane at about 10 knots. When we fed those data to our computer system, it detected that the pitot tubes had failed, and estimated the plane's real airspeed within five seconds. It also detected when the pitot tubes thawed again, about 40 seconds after they froze, and was able to confirm that their readings were again reliable. How multiple sensors on a plane can provide safety When one sensor fails, other equipment can provide data to detect the failure and even estimate values for the failing sensor. A different sort of test We also used our system to identify what happened to Tuninter Flight 1153, which ditched into the Mediterranean Sea in 2005 on its way from Italy to Tunisia, killing 16 of the 39 people aboard. The Tuninter plane that ran out of fuel over the Mediterranean Sea in 2005. Reuters/Tullio Puglia After the accident, the investigation revealed that maintenance workers had mistakenly installed the wrong fuel quantity indicator on the plane, so it reported 2,700 kg of fuel was in the tanks, when the plane was really carrying only 550 kg. Human pilots didn't notice the error, and the plane ran out of fuel. Fuel is heavy, though, and its weight affects the performance of an aircraft. A plane with too little fuel would have handled differently than one with the right amount. To calculate whether the plane was behaving as it should, with the right amount of fuel on board, we used the aerodynamic mathematical relationship between airspeed and lift. When a plane is in level flight, lift equals weight. Everything else being the same, a heavier plane should have been going slower than the Tuninter plane was. Our program models only cruise phases of flight, in which the plane is in steady, level flight - not accelerating or changing altitude. But it would have been sufficient to detect that the plane was too light and alert the pilots, who could have turned around or landed elsewhere to refuel. Adding information about other phases of flight could improve the system's accuracy and responsiveness. What about the Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes? The angle of attack describes how the wings meet the oncoming air. J Doug McLean/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA The full range of data about Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 302 is not yet available to the public, but early reports suggest there was a problem with one of the angle-of- attack sensors. My research team developed a method to check that device's accuracy based on the plane's airspeed. We used aerodynamics and a flight simulator to measure how variations in the angle of attack - the steepness with which the wings meet the oncoming air - changed the horizontal and vertical speed of a Cessna 172. The data were consistent with the performance of an actual Cessna 172 in flight. Using our model and system, we can distinguish between an actual emergency - a dangerously high angle of attack - and a failing sensor providing erroneous data. The actual numbers for a Boeing 737 Max 8 would be different, of course, but the principle is still the same, using the mathematical relationship between angle of attack and airspeed to double-check each other, and to identify faulty sensors. Better still As my team continues to develop flight data analysis software, we're also working on supplying it with better data. One potential source could be letting airplanes communicate directly with each other about weather and wind conditions in specific locations at particular altitudes. We are also working on methods to precisely describe safe operating conditions for flight software that relies on sensor data. Sensors do fail, but even when that happens, automated systems can be safer and more efficient than human pilots. As flight becomes more automated and increasingly reliant on sensors, it is imperative that flight systems cross-check data from different sensor types, to safeguard against otherwise potentially fatal sensor faults. https://theconversation.com/too-many-airplane-systems-rely-on-too-few-sensors- 114394 Back to Top Incident: Biman B738 near Chittagong on Apr 8th 2019, engine failure A Biman Bangladesh Boeing 737-800, registration S2-AHV performing flight BG-85 from Singapore (Singapore) to Dhaka (Bangladesh) with 99 people on board, was enroute at FL380 about 140nm southeast of Chittagong (Bangladesh) when the crew decided to divert to Chittagong due to the failure of the left hand engine (CFM56). The aircraft landed safely on Chittagong's runway 05 about 40 minutes later. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Chittagong about 10 hours after landing. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c66ff27&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: PSA CRJ7 at Augusta on Apr 5th 2019, dropped panel A PSA Airlines Canadair CRJ-700 on behalf of American Airlines, registration N514AE performing flight AA-5169 from Charlotte,NC to Augusta,GA (USA), completed a seemingly uneventful flight with a safe landing in Augusta. The aircraft subsequently overnighted in Augusta. The following morning a panel was found missing. The FAA reported providing a time stamp of the following morning, that a 4 foot panel near the fuselage was missing from the airframe, no debris was found. The occurrence was rated an incident. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL5169/history/20190406/0245Z/KCLT/KAGS http://avherald.com/h?article=4c66f7cb&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: TUI B738 at Arrecife on Mar 25th 2019, EGPWS PULL UP, aircraft continued final approach A TUI Airways Boeing 737-800, registration G-TAWA performing flight BY-4140 from London Gatwick,EN (UK) to Arrecife,CI (Spain), was on a VOR approach to Arrecife's runway 21 about 4.25nm before touchdown at about 14:47L (13:47Z), when the aircraft descended through 1120 feet AGL and the EGPWS issued a "PULL UP!" warning. The aircraft temporarily levelled off at about that height and continued for a safe landing on runway 21. On Apr 8th 2019 Spain's CIAIAC reported, providing the date and time erroneously as Mar 26th 2019 19:00Z (at that time the aircraft was on a flight from Hurghada Egypt to London Gatwick, a TUIFly A20N was on a normal approach to Arrecife landing on runway 21 at about 18:21Z on a normal vertical profile), that the aircraft was on a VOR approach to runway 21 about 4.25nm from the runway threshold at 1120 feet AGL when the EGPWS sounded "PULL UP!", the crew continued the approach in manual flight and landed without further incident. The CIAIAC opened an investigtion into the occurrence. ADS-B data show the aircraft at about 1150 feet MSL on Mar 25th 2019 at about 13:47Z about 4nm before the runway 21 threshold, maintaining that height for a minute subsequently before continuing the descent towards the runway. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c66d337&opt=0 Back to Top Sky High Aviation Services Jetstream 41 suffers runway excursion on landing at Dominica Date: Monday 8 April 2019 Type: British Aerospace 4100 Jetstream 41 Operator: Sky High Aviation Services Registration: HI1038 C/n / msn: 41033 First flight: 1994-04-14 (25 years ) Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Aircraft damage: Substantial Location: Dominica Douglas-Charles Airport (DOM) ( Dominica) Phase: Landing (LDG) Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Santo Domingo-Las Américas José Francisco Peña Gómez Int'l Airport (SDQ/MDSD), Dominican Republic Destination airport: Dominica Douglas-Charles Airport (DOM/TDPD), Dominica Narrative: A BAe Jetstream 41, operated by Sky High Aviation Services, suffered a runway excursion after landing on runway 27 at Dominica's Douglas-Charles Airport. Photos from the scene show an undercarriage leg and debris on the runway with the aircraft having come to rest in the grass next to the runway. All occupants evacuated from the aircraft. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20190408-0 Back to Top Airbus A330-343 - Engine Shutdown (Taiwan) Date: 08-APR-2019 Time: c. 08:05 LT Type: Airbus A330-343 Owner/operator: Cathay Dragon Registration: B-LBG C/n / msn: 1557 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 330 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Unknown Location: near Kaohsiung - Taiwan Phase: Initial climb Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Kaohsiung International Airport (KHH/RCKH) Destination airport: Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG/VHHH) Narrative: Cathay Dragon flight KA451, an Airbus A330-343, returned to Kaohsiung, Taiwan after suffering engine problems on departure. The flight took off from runway 09 at Kaohsiung Airport at 08:02 hours local time (00:02 UTC). Shortly after departure, loud noises were heard and sparks were observed from the exhaust of one of the engines (RR Trent 772B-60). The flight crew shut down the engine. A safe landing was made back at Kaohsiung Airport at 08:31. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=223803 Back to Top Ethiopian preliminary report 'very thorough': NTSB chairman The chairman of the US National Transportation Safety Board says a preliminary report on the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 crash was "very thorough", even as he cautions that information could well change following the release of the initial findings. "I thought the report was very thorough and well done," Robert Sumwalt told reporters following the Aero Club luncheon in Washington DC earlier today. "I applaud the Ethiopian government for coming up with it within not a lot of time, which was 30 days," adds Sumwalt, calling the report "a very comprehensive job". Sumwalt, however, urges the industry to refrain from speculating on the cause of the 10 March crash, telling the audience at the luncheon: "The only caveat i can put on that is that it's a preliminary report and things can change." NTSB sent representatives to participate in the investigations into the Ethiopian crash and the October 2018 crash of a Lion Air 737 Max 8 in Indonesia that went down in similar circumstances. Preliminary reports into both incidents had highlighted erroneous angle-of-attack sensor readings, and repeated instances of the aircraft pitching nose-down automatically. Attention has focused around the aircraft's Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) - a system new to the 737 Max and not found on earlier 737 variants - and how it could have activated in response to the erroneous readings. Boeing started developing a software update for MCAS following the Lion Air crash, and said in recent days it is working to have the update certified by regulators. Sumwalt declines to comment on whether Boeing could have moved faster on the software update after the Lion Air incident, saying that the NTSB was not involved in the US Federal Aviation Administration's decision to ground the 737 Max on 13 March, aside from validating data from the Ethiopian flight to help the FAA make an informed decision. "That's an issue for the regulator [the FAA]," he says. "That's not in our lane." https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ethiopian-preliminary-report-very-thorough- ntsb-c-457281/ Back to Top Flight Training: A Guide to Aviation Education Experts say that a global pilot shortage and increased air travel are fueling a boom in aviation education provided by colleges. Pilots flying airplane in cockpit With increasing demand for aviation training, experts recommend students start training in high school.(GETTY IMAGES) FROM FLIGHT TRAINING TO aviation management and mechanics, colleges are gearing up to meet labor challenges faced by airlines. Over the next 20 years, the aviation industry will need 790,000 new pilots across the globe, according to a 2018 study by aircraft manufacturer Boeing. The study predicts a need to recruit an additional 206,000 new airline pilots in North America alone. Similarly, Boeing predicts a global need for 754,000 technicians and 890,000 new cabin crew members in the next two decades. While those numbers are grim for airlines, they're a positive sign for aviation majors looking to land a job after college. To draw students in and fill shortages in the workforce, airlines are partnering with colleges to bolster flight training programs. "A lot of our industry partners have stepped up and they've offered scholarships and pathway programs to try to give a little more certainty to students that are considering entering the profession. And that certainly has paid off. A lot of students take advantage of those programs," says Jim Higgins, aviation department chair and professor at the University of North Dakota. As an example of how industry is partnering with colleges, Associate Dean of the College of Aerospace and Aviation Professor Elizabeth Bjerke points to pathway programs at UND through a variety of airlines. Pathway programs offer graduates a direct path to working for an airline while scholarships help students pay for college. The Federal Aviation Administration requires 1,500 flight hours in order to earn the airline transport pilot certificate needed to fly commercially. An aviation degree-holder benefits from a lower threshold for required flight hours. A graduate of an FAA authorized institution needs only 1,000 flight hours to fly commercially if he or she earned a bachelor's degree in aviation. Graduates with an associate degree need to log 1,250 flight hours to earn an airline transport pilot certificate. But colleges are struggling to keep up with the skyrocketing demand. One of those challenges is finding enough seats for potential pilots, says Mike Wiggins, professor and department chair of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, which has campuses in Florida and Arizona. "We've reached pretty much the most we can handle here at the Daytona Beach campus, and our Prescott campus is pretty much at capacity as well. From what I understand, most of the other flight schools are reaching capacity at this point," Wiggins says. Wiggins suggests students who might be interested in a career in aviation start training in high school. Students can earn a private pilot certificate at age 17 by logging a minimum of 40 flight hours. Pilot training must include at least 10 hours of flying solo. "There's a couple of reasons for that; it will accelerate their time in flight training in college, and it will make sure that this is what they really want to do before investing a considerable amount of money into flight training beyond that point. It's something you're either going to like, or you're not," Wiggins says. Students interested in a career in aviation should be intentional about pursuing that path in high school studies, says Mike Suckow, associate professor of practice at Purdue University-West Lafayette in the School of Aviation and Transportation Technology. "Don't shy away from technology courses, math and science courses, because those are fundamental to what we do," he says. College graduates can earn additional hours by serving as flight instructors. Bjerke says pilots can often hit the 1,000 hour mark in a little more than a year as flight instructors. From there, Higgins says that many pilots join regional airlines that are often hit harder by the shortage because of more lucrative pay and benefits at major aviation companies, which incentivize employees to work there. While pilots are on the front lines of the aviation industry, experts also stress the need to fill the often unseen technician slots. "There's some evidence that the technician shortage is actually going to be worse than the pilot shortage, but nobody is really talking about that. The maintenance technicians are more behind the scenes; not too many people see them or know them. But there's going to be a shortage of those (technicians) going on as well, and those are actually pretty good paying jobs," Wiggins says. Industry salaries and hiring have shifted upward in recent years as demand for personnel has steadily increased. "The major airlines are finally hiring at rates we haven't seen since before 2001. When there are opportunities, more young people are interested in coming into the field of aviation, which is great, but right now the increase in demand does present some challenges as we try to accommodate all of those individuals," Bjerke says. "It's a great, great time to be in the industry. Once you choose this career path - no pun intended - the sky is the limit," Suckow says. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2019-04-05/flight-training-a- guide-to-aviation-education Back to Top T-38 endures as stellar training aircraft 60 years after maiden flight A scanned image from the Wingspread published in 1961 with a photo of the first T-38 to arrive at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas -- The T-38 Talon prototype embarked on its maiden flight as the Air Force's first supersonic trainer on April 10, 1959. Sixty years later, the sleek aircraft developed by the Northrop Corp. continues to meet the service's training needs. Used primarily by Air Education and Training Command for undergraduate pilot and pilot instructor training, the T-38 endures because of its initial design, a thorough maintenance regimen and a sustainment program known as Pacer Classic that has been responsible for essential modifications to the aircraft. "It had to be a great product for starters," said Lt. Col. William Borron, 560th Flying Training Squadron director of operations. "But we've had great people working on the plane for years, and that's kept it going. "We've also had amazing updates to the jet. All avionics have been updated, and it received an engine modification. While the outside of the jet looks the same, the inside is completely different and meets the needs of today's student pilots." The T-38 made its first appearance at Randolph Air Force Base March 17, 1961. The aircraft was met with "applause and exclamations of admiration from the hundreds of persons who witnessed its delivery," according to the March 22 edition of the Wingspread newspaper. On the 50th anniversary of the T-38, Lane Bourgeois, 12th Flying Training Wing historian, focused on the aircraft's development and innovations. He cited the lightweight J-85 engine, the afterburner version of an engine developed by General Electric for a drone that fit into the bomb bay of a B-36. "Northrop realized the higher thrust-to-weight ratio of two J-85s together would be greater than the thrust-to-weight ratios of other engines," Bourgeois said. "For example, two J-85s together produced just as much thrust as one J-57 engine, but the two J-85s weighed about 500 pounds less. Lighter engines meant designers didn't need as much wing area, less wing area meant less engine thrust required to push the airplane, and so on." Northrop designed a lightweight frame around two J-85s weighing about 10,000 pounds, which was half the weight of an F-100F and with better performance, Bourgeois noted. Another innovation was Northrop's development of a fuselage based on the "Whitcomb theory" attributed to Richard Whitcomb, an American aeronautical engineer known for his contributions to the science of aerodynamics. "Richard Whitcomb had calculated that necking the fuselage just before the wings reduces drag at supersonic speeds," Bourgeois said. "The next time you see a T-38 up close, take note of the tapering hourglass shape of the fuselage. That's Whitcomb's theory at work, and it helps to make the T-38 supersonic." More than 1,100 T-38s were delivered to the Air Force before production ended in 1972; more than 500 are still in service. Now known as the T-38C, the aircraft boasts a variety of Pacer Classic modifications. "Engine updates improved our takeoff and landing performance, and the ejection seats have been updated, giving us a larger safe-ejection envelope," Borron said, "but the most important update to the T-38 was the transition to the C-model, which improved avionics and allowed for the use of GPS. GPS is the future in terms of navigation, and it was crucial to train all future pilots to navigate utilizing GPS." Borron called the T-38 "the toughest plane" he's ever flown, which could be advantageous for new pilots. "The best thing about the T-38 is, after learning to fly it well, you feel like you have the ability to fly anything in the Air Force fleet," he said. But it is also a "great fun plane to fly," Borron said. "It rolls faster than any plane I've ever flown and climbs great," he said. "I've flown many planes and this one can change parameters on you faster than any of them. It is a challenge to fly, like I've said, but once you learn to fly it well, you feel like you've achieved something." The T-38 maintains its relevance with the newest generation of Air Force pilots. Second Lt. Kevin Yalung, 435th Fighter Training Squadron Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals student pilot, said his first exposure to the T-38 was at the U.S. Air Force Academy. "Now I have more than 130 hours in the T-38, but I had not flown any aircraft at the academy except gliders," said the 2018 USAFA graduate. "At the academy, instructors would talk about the T-38 and they would do flyovers there, which was a blast." Yalung's comments on flying the T-38 mirrored those of Borron. "It's just a great aircraft to fly," he said. "It's a challenge, but exciting. There's a lot we can do with the new updates. It allows us to get exposure to a lot of different training types." Even though the aircraft has been in use since before his parents were born, Yalung sees the value of the T-38. "They train us to know so much about this airframe and its upgrades," he said. "I have a lot of trust in it. It works quite well." https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/Article/1808518/t-38-endures-as-stellar-training-aircraft- 60-years-after-maiden-flight/ Back to Top ViaAir temporarily cancelling Austin flights amid pilot shortage Citing a pilot shortage, ViaAir will for the next seven weeks cease its direct, nonstop service between Baton Rouge and Austin. The pause means all flights to Austin-Bergstrom International Airport-which depart from Baton Rouge on Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays at 1:38 p.m.-are canceled until May 23, at which point the normal schedule will resume. News of the cancellations comes without any advertisement from ViaAir. However, tickets for flights before May 23 are no longer being sold, and previously purchased tickets have been refunded. Flights have been on hold since last week, says Don Bowman, the airline's director of planning and business development, due to the effects of a national pilot shortage that has trickled down to smaller carriers like ViaAir. "It's best for us to pull down for a month or two so that we have time to train pilots," Bowman says, noting they're looking to hire another four pilots to staff the flights scheduled between May and June, plus an additional four after June. He says ViaAir is about halfway through its hiring target, with some recent hires currently going through training. Since joining the Baton Rouge market in September, the regional carrier has had some problems with its nonstop direct flight services. About a month ago, the airline cancelled four Baton Rouge flights to Austin over a three-week period, spurring irritation among passengers who said they weren't notified ahead of time. The spate of cancellations were among 20 total that occurred out of the 116 BTR-AUS flights scheduled since Sept. 20. The break in service also comes not long after Via cut back on its regular flights to Orlando amid soft demand. While the temporary cancellation of Austin flights isn't tied to ticket sales, Bowman says passenger demand for the service is middling compared to other markets. Bowman says the best way to ensure the Austin service is successful in the future is to come out ahead of potential issues by cancelling nearly two months' worth of flights, refunding previously purchased tickets and hiring enough pilots in advance. "We're trying to take a more proactive, consumer-friendly way of notifying passengers now versus having last-minute changes," he says. "We feel it's better customer service to tell them upfront." https://www.businessreport.com/newsletters/viaair-temporarily-cancelling-austin- flights-amid-pilot-shortage Back to Top Inoculating Pilots Against Loss-of-control Ed Wischmeyer has spent endless hours trying to figure out how to prevent pilots from losing control of their airplanes and crashing. His inspiration comes from fellow pilots and not wanting to keep adding to the list of friends who have died in accidents. He was also inspired by the Experimental Aircraft Association's Founder's Innovation Prize competition, which incentivizes entrepreneurs to create products and techniques to help prevent loss of control (LOC), with winners recognized annually at the EAA AirVenture show. That contest, however, seems to be overly focused on gadgets, and Wischmeyer believes there is a better way to "inoculate" pilots against the dreaded LOC disease. What he has developed is a series of exercises that any flight instructor can teach to new and experienced pilots. These exercises are designed to help pilots get more comfortable flying outside of their comfort zone while remaining within the aircraft's normal or utility envelope that is generally considered safe. Wischmeyer calls his concept Extended Envelope Exercises (E3), and their biggest benefit is the low cost of implementation. While upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) is hugely beneficial, it is expensive, and it's not likely that a large percentage of pilots will ever be able to experience such training. UPRT usually requires special aircraft, highly trained instructors, and a suitable location. There is a recent trend to offer UPRT in simulators that are modified with software that allows flight into the stall regime, and this is also effective. But affordability is also an issue here; a day's worth of UPRT in a full-motion simulation can cost thousands of dollars. And again, a highly qualified instructor must teach this type of UPRT. The E3 concept, which is still in testing, consists of a series of flying exercises that are relatively simple for an instructor to learn and then share with students during initial training or with experienced pilots, say, during a flight review or proficiency training. It should be noted that similar work is underway by the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), under its new "CFI-Proficiency Initiative" or "SAFE CFI-PRO" effort. Wischmeyer's intent, once the E3 exercises are fully developed, is to recommend that flight instructors (CFIs) either demonstrate the E3 exercises during their own checkrides or that they have limited privileges until they demonstrate E3 mastery. For example, a new CFI might not be able to get an additional instructor rating until endorsement by an experienced E3 CFI. The same would be true for being qualified to teach pilots for their commercial certificate, to provide endorsements for flight reviews, tailwheel, complex, high-performance, and high-altitude operations, and perhaps the ability to sign off student pilots for certain privileges. "These ideas obviously need fine tuning," he said. THE LOC CHALLENGE The problem with LOC and trying to teach pilots how to prevent it is that to most pilots, the concept is meaningless. Although the NTSB included LOC on its Most Wanted list in 2017-2018, the Board dropped LOC from the 2019-2020 list. Still, safety advocates cite ongoing high LOC accident statistics, and a significant number of accidents do result from LOC. Part of the problem is that pilot training has shifted away from basic stick-and-rudder skills to more management of the avionics and systems. Pilots are being trained to be comfortable within a narrow portion of the normal flight envelope. "Lots of pilots get nervous at plus-30-degree banks, or they never learned full rudder or aileron deflection," Wischmeyer said. "That's part of what E3 does," helping get pilots comfortable flying in an expanded yet still safe envelope. "It's an ongoing philosophy. People say we don't teach stick-and-rudder anymore. E3 is a descendant of that, and it answers the question: how could we teach stick-and-rudder skills?" The E3 exercises don't get near aerobatic maneuver limits. But by teaching pilots to get comfortable with flying their airplanes up to and not beyond pitch and bank limits where aerobatics start, pilots will have more "cognitive availability to handle other events," he explained. In Wischmeyer's submission for the EAA Founder's Prize, he explained "cognitive unavailability." Another way of putting this is the computer geek's reference to "brain cycles," which makes an analogy between human brains and computer processors, suggesting that when all the brain cycles are being used, few remain to focus on, say, avoiding a stall-spin accident. Some pilots call this "tunnel vision," when the brain focuses exclusively on some aspect of flying and ignores all other input (such as audible warnings, flashing lights, etc.). According to Wischmeyer, "Data suggests that LOC occurs when the pilot does not or cannot process all of the available cues and information. This phenomenon is called cognitive unavailability, an innovative concept, casually based upon concepts such as cognitive overload and cognitive resilience. If the airplane is uncompromised, the pilot is unimpaired, and there are no freak atmospheric events, then LOC is almost always a result of cognitive unavailability. LOC occurs in 'scenarios where pilots should have been able to get the airplane on the ground but were unprepared or distracted.' This concept recognizes that cognitive unavailability contributes in the same way to LOC, regardless of whether the underlying cause of cognitive unavailability is IMSAFE, channelized attention [tunnel vision], cognitive capture, task completion error, startle factor, confusion or task saturation, or anything else." The E3 maneuvers aren't yet part of any formal training program, and Wischmeyer doesn't intend that CFIs simply adopt the maneuvers and begin training them. What he would like to see are industry experts, such as larger flight training university programs, take the concept and develop it into training that helps pilots fly safer. "My objective is to make these ideas succeed, not my program," he said. That said, Wischmeyer also believes that the current FAA Airman Certification Standards (ACS) that govern pilot practical testing come up short on teaching pilots what they need to know. "Broadly generalizing," he said, "E3 is a response to a lack of what's in the ACS. The ACS doesn't want you close to the bogeyman-a stall-while E3 says if you get there, it's not your first rodeo." Some of the E3 maneuvers are derived from types of flying that most pilots will never experience. For example, glider pilots often fly near or even into a stall while turning. So turning stalls is one of the E3 maneuvers. Others are simply exercises in controlling the airplane precisely and with more confidence. As Wischmeyer explained in his Founder's Prize submission, "E3 is an innovative concept of fun, enjoyable, and challenging flight exercises to reduce cognitive unavailability by expanding the pilot's experience and comfort zone from the narrow middle-of-the-envelope presently taught out to flight regimes that may be precursors to LOC. E3 seeks to transfer more of flying from System 2, (implicit or requiring concentration) to System 1 (explicit or second nature). E3 exercises are within the capabilities of almost all 'standard class' airplanes. While upset training and spin training teach remedies for LOC after it has occurred, E3 vaccinates pilots against LOC before it occurs-easily, affordably, acceptably. And because E3 requires no hardware, the entire general aviation fleet is already E3-capable." FLYING THE E3 MANEUVERS According to the FAA, "A loss of control (LOC) accident involves an unintended departure of an aircraft from controlled flight." LOC is the primary cause of general aviation fatal accidents, the FAA says. By this definition, what happened during a night flight that I did a few months ago to regain night currency qualifies as LOC. I was flying in a Piper Cherokee 180 at 2,000 feet, and I looked down at the iPad mounted on the kneeboard strapped to my leg to find the frequency for an airport where I planned some takeoffs and landings. When I looked up, the Cherokee was in a steepening bank, the nose was down, and speed was increasing. This, Wischmeyer later confirmed, was the beginning of a spiral. I returned the wings to level then raised the nose and continued on. The point is that the spiral could easily have worsened. The FAA notes that there are five precursors that contribute to LOC: disorientation can occur when continuing a VFR flight (intentionally or inadvertently) into instrument meteorological conditions; sometimes accidents occur when there is a distraction by something on the ground or in the airplane; an inappropriate response to an emergency event or "startle response" can delay or inhibit the pilot's reaction to hazards that occur suddenly; rusty aircraft handling skills has contributed to loss of control, particularly in crosswind operations; inadequate risk management has led many pilots into situations where they lacked the skill to cope with the hazard. My spiral could have developed further, with at least three of those precursors involved: disorientation, distraction, and inappropriate response. Could this have resulted in an accident, especially if it happened to a low-time pilot who hadn't flown in a long time or otherwise was unprepared? Could these factors be related to John F. Kennedy Jr.'s fatal LOC accident in 1999? I have been practicing some of the E3 maneuvers in the Cherokee and also spent a day with Wischmeyer in Savannah, Georgia, learning more about the E3 concept and flying some maneuvers in his RV-9A experimental amateur-built airplane. Compared to the Cherokee, the RV-9A is much more responsive and easier to fly precisely, but both airplanes worked fine for E3 maneuvers. In the RV-9A, we did slow Dutch rolls, low-speed spirals, stalls while turning, 60/90 serpentines, vertical S's, and runway sidestep exercises. Some of these exercises are easier, while others require some practice. For example, the slow Dutch rolls specify rolling at a constant rate of one degree per second while using opposite rudder to keep the nose on a specific point, something that takes some trial and error. For the low-speed spirals, we pretended that we were distracted while turning in landing configuration and then allowed the nose to drop. Surprisingly, we quickly lost 600 feet before recovering. As Wischmeyer pointed out, if we were turning base to final for landing, we would have hit the ground before realizing what had happened. While in a steep bank, I tried stalling and recovering but remaining in the same steep bank. This took a lot of effort, and I ended up staying in the stall buffet for too long instead of stalling and quickly recovering. It was challenging to try to maintain at least a 45-degree bank while stalling and recovering. The 60/90 serpentines require turning 90 degrees one way using a 60-degree bank with full aileron deflection then turning in the opposite direction. It takes practice to get used to using full aileron deflection. Vertical S maneuvers again required lots of concentration to climb and descend at a specific airspeed with wings level. Back at Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport, Wischmeyer asked the tower for permission to fly S-turns on final approach. He then gave me instructions to line up first with the left side of the runway, then the right side, then to line up on short final with the centerline, then to land one expansion joint to the right of the center line. This exercise was just more practice at flying precisely. We flew two flights that day. After experiencing some of the E3 maneuvers, I agree that it makes sense to offer CFIs additional tools to help their students gain confidence in and extend their flying skills. I think the maneuvers also give CFIs something new to teach students, either as a way to bring pilots back for more beneficial training or as something to demonstrate and practice at flight review time, but as a separate event. WHERE TO NEXT? Wischmeyer isn't trying to create and market the E3 maneuvers as a packaged system ready for use by CFIs, but would rather encourage industry members to take on the task of proving their effectiveness and promoting their use. To that end, he is working with aviation universities that have done some work with E3, and he is hoping to expand the interest beyond the initial universities that are now exploring E3. In fact, Michael Hollister, assistant professor at the Utah Valley University (UVU) School of Aviation Science, coined the term E3, and he has been working with flight instructors at UVU on testing the maneuvers. Hollister is planning to devote significant time in the next few years to helping develop E3. "As a CFI," he told AIN, "I have believed for some time that the FAA-well-intentioned though they may be-have been moving away from past training requirements that actually create a better-prepared pilot. In other words, I believe training is too benign these days and the industry is doing a disservice to those we award a pilot certificate to." Hollister has flown more than a dozen flights trying out E3 maneuvers with volunteer CFIs, whose average flight time is about 600 hours. He has flown nine exercises with the CFIs, with his favorite the 60/90. "This exercise provides the highest level of sensory input for the pilot, while requiring full aileron deflection to a 60-degree bank and a 90- degree turn. Once reached, the pilot then immediately rolls the aircraft in the opposite direction to 60 degrees of bank and turns back 90 degrees to the original heading. I am of the opinion that a training program that goes beyond the certificate, but short of upset recovery or aerobatic training, is a very viable and warranted endeavor. It has been my experience that those pilots I have flown with, CFI's who are now teaching the next batch of pilots, all needed and benefited from even their one- time exposure to E3 during our flight together." The value of E3 is that it exposes pilots to flying closer to the limits of their aircraft while adding confidence and more appreciation for their aircraft's capabilities, he explained. "A student pilot never once being required to experience a stall while in a 45- degree bank, and then recovering while still in a bank, is an example of the disservice I spoke of before. Such a flight condition is, of course, not required currently." We all remember being told that our first pilot certificate is a license to learn, but as Hollister points out, there is no requirement that pilots continue learning until they get involved in professional flying. "If professional pilots are required to go through annual recurrency training where, in some cases, deficiencies are being found during situations most would consider 'Pilot 101' stuff, I find it curious that for most in GA, once you have the certificate, it's 'have a good life, be safe.' I know there is the flight review, but honestly, is that really enough? I don't think so. Wouldn't it be great, or at least a step in the right direction, if a certificated pilot could participate in an E3 training (refresher) course, without having to go upside down, pulling g's, while flying airplanes that fly nothing like the airplanes the pilot actually flies?" Hollister sees E3 helping the aviation industry, especially with the pilot shortage forcing operators to lower experience requirements. "If there is an increase in voices throughout the industry advocating for better training and even those going beyond the minimums required, I believe the fewer safety issues the industry will see in the coming months and years." At LeTourneau University in Texas, pilot students earn their private pilot license in American Champion Citabria taildragger trainers. According to Flight Science Department chair Bruce Chase, LeTourneau students already learn more stick-and- rudder skills than most new pilots, but he is discussing the E3 maneuvers with university leadership. "We're on the same page with a lot of this," he said. "Some things, like stalls in a turn, we're already doing. Other maneuvers are new and interesting, and I can see where they could be valuable. "Philosophically, we're very much in agreement with what Ed [Wischmeyer] is trying to do. We think the pilot training aspect is more important than another technological piece. Another warning or annunciator is just another thing to get ignored in periods of high stress." Meanwhile, SAFE launched its CFI-PRO program at the Sun 'n' Fun show in April. The workshop, designed for CFIs, is a two-day event, with ground and flight training, with the first scheduled October 2-3 in Frederick, Maryland. Cost is $375. According to SAFE, "The program offers CFIs a path to improved skill, knowledge, and confidence in aerodynamics and aircraft control, especially in the less-often-explored areas of the normal flight aerodynamic envelope. According to SAFE executive director David St. George, the training doesn't involve aerobatics or upset recognition and recovery but "offers CFIs a chance to explore seldom-visited corners of the flight envelope." He added, "We have a tested syllabus and use only normal and utility category aircraft and stay within their limitations. Since typical pilots use only about 5 percent of a standard category aircraft's flight envelope, there's lots to explore without going aerobatic." https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2019-04-08/inoculating- pilots-against-loss-control Back to Top Gulfstream Sets Longest Business Jet Flight Record Gulfstream's ultra-long range G650ER set its industry-leading 90th city pair speed record, by flying from Singapore to Tucson, Ariz., in 15 hours and 23 minutes, crossing the Pacific at an average speed of Mach 0.85. Gulfstream notched a new city-pair speed record for its flagship ultra-long-range G650ER, and in the process established a new record for the farthest business jet flight in history, the company announced today. The records are pending approval by the U.S. National Aeronautic Association. On March 29, the ultra-long-range G650ER flew from Singapore to Tucson, Arizona, in 15 hours and 23 minutes, with fuel in excess of NBAA IFR reserves, eclipsing the previous record set earlier last month by a Bombardier Global 7500 by 44 minutes. The Gulfstream twinjet departed Changi Airport at 4:53 a.m. local time on March 29, and arrived in Tucson at 5:16 p.m. local time, covering the 8,379 nm at an average speed of 597 miles per hour. This also bested the 8,152-nm distance flown last month during that same Global flight. "Worldwide, you can't go farther faster, and this record proves it," said Gulfstream president Mark Burns. "With 350 aircraft in service, the G650 and G650ER show day in and day out that they are class-creating and leading aircraft that set the standard when they were announced and continue to do so today." https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2019-04-08/gulfstream- sets-longest-business-jet-flight-record Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Dear Aviation Colleague, My name is Catherine Troyer, and I am a graduate student in aviation management working with graduate student Alyssa Harvey and Professor Brian Dillman at the School of Aviation and Transportation Technology at Purdue University. We are seeking your input on reference usage for studying flight maneuvers in this survey. Loss of control in flight is one of the main causes of aviation accidents. This survey is part of a research project which explores the connection between the flight training process and preventing loss of control accidents. We expect that the results obtained from this study will be used to advise the FAA of possible changes to the Commercial Airmen Certification Standards and other training resources and improve the safety of general aviation for future generations. The first part of the survey asks demographic questions, most of which are optional. The second part of the survey asks questions pertaining to the use of references when learning or teaching flight maneuvers. Please consider taking this survey if you are working towards or have already obtained your FAA Commercial Pilot's Certificate, are a Certified Flight Instructor of commercial students under the Federal Aviation Administration, develop training resources for a flight school, or help write government publications. The survey should take under 15 minutes to complete and consists of 12 to 15 questions. Once you begin the survey, you can stop at any point and continue where you left off later. We will report results in aggregate. This survey is part of a Partnership to Enhance General Aviation Safety, Accessibility, and Sustainability (PEGASAS) Center of Excellence research project evaluating resources for flight certification preparation. You are under no obligation to participate in this survey. If you do participate you may stop at any time and for any reason. Your answers on the survey are anonymous and cannot be used in any way for identification. Any results we report will be in aggregate. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this survey. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Your responses are greatly appreciated and will help contribute to general aviation safety. If you have any questions regarding the survey, feel free to contact the researchers troyer5@purdue.edu, amharvey@purdue.edu, or dillman@purdue.edu. Survey Link: https://purdue.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_a3qMKc22QbSnWHH Back to Top Back to Top Back to Top Call for Nominations For 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Foundation is now accepting nominations for the 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award, honoring a leader in global aviation safety. The Award will be presented during the 72nd Annual International Air Safety Summit, taking place Nov 4-6 in Taipei, Taiwan. Presented since 1956, the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award recognizes notable achievement in the field of civil or military aviation safety in method, design, invention, study or other improvement. The Award's recipient is selected for a "significant individual or group effort contributing to improving aviation safety, with emphasis on original contributions," and a "significant individual or group effort performed above and beyond normal responsibilities." Mechanics, engineers and others outside of top administrative or research positions should be especially considered. The contribution need not be recent, especially if the nominee has not received adequate recognition. Nominations that were not selected as past winners of the Award can be submitted one additional time for consideration. Please note that self-nominations will not be considered. The Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award's story dates back 74 years. On April 14, 1945, after visiting family in Pittsburgh, Laura Taber Barbour was aboard a Pennsylvania Central Airlines DC-3 when it crashed into the rugged terrain of Cheat Mountain near Morgantown, West Virginia. All passengers and crew were killed. In the years following, her husband, Dr. Clifford E. Barbour and son, Clifford E. Barbour, Jr., established the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award in her honor. The Award Board, composed of leaders in the field of aviation, meets each year to conduct a final review of nominees and selection of the current year's recipient. Please help us honor this year's most deserving recipient. Nominations, including a 1-2- page narrative, can be submitted via the Laura Taber Barbour Foundation website at http://ltbaward.org/the-award/nomination-form/. Nominations will be accepted until May 10, 2019. For more information, including a complete history of Award recipients, see www.ltbaward.org. ABOUT THE LAURA TABER BARBOUR AIR SAFETY AWARD: The Award was established in 1956 through early association with the Flight Safety Foundation and from its founding has enjoyed a rich history of Award Board members, nominees and Award recipients. In 2013, the non-profit Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Foundation was formed from members of the Award Board, the aviation community and the Barbour family. As the foundation plans to broaden the scope of its intent, with great purpose, the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award will continue to spotlight those champions who pioneer breakthroughs in flight safety. CONTACT: Philip Barbour, 205-939-1700, 205-617-9007 Curt Lewis