Flight Safety Information October 3, 2019 - No. 200 In This Issue Boeing rejected 737 MAX safety upgrades before fatal crashes, whistleblower says Boeing CEO: Preliminary investigations show 737 Max pilots exposed to 'high workload environment' Boeing B-17G-30-BO Flying Fortress - Fatal Accident (CT) Incident: MAP AT72 at Manaus and Itaituba on Sep 16th 2019, engine failure in flight Incident: Republic E170 at Chicago on Oct 2nd 2019, loss of cabin pressure Incident: Fly One A319 at Chisinau on Sep 30th 2019, take off over vehicles AEM Aviation Joins the ACSF and ASAP Opinion: Regulators Should Focus On Facts And Cooperation Here's why in-flight WiFi is so slow and expensive EASA, Airbus Partner On VTOL Platforms Jamaica's civil aviation boss heads international body These Airlines Operate The Largest Boeing 747 Fleets RAF pilot picked to join Virgin Orbit space programme Reno Air Races: From Biplanes to Jets The B-57: This Was America's First Jet-Powered Bomber Virgin Galactic Will Launch a Crewed Research Flight for Italy in 1st for Government-Private Spaceflight RESEARCH SURVEY GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY MITRE - SMS Course - December 2019 Human Factors in Accident Investigation from SCSI Boeing rejected 737 MAX safety upgrades before fatal crashes, whistleblower says Rescuers work at the scene of an Ethiopian Airlines jet crash south of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 11, 2019. Boeing's 737 MAX 8 aircraft has been grounded worldwide as a result of this crash and another last October. (Mulugeta Ayene / The Associated Press) Seven weeks after the second fatal crash of a 737 MAX in March, a Boeing engineer submitted a scathing internal ethics complaint alleging that management - determined to keep down costs for airline customers - had blocked significant safety improvements during the jet's development. The ethics charge, filed by 33-year-old engineer Curtis Ewbank, whose job involved studying past crashes and using that information to make new planes safer, describes how around 2014 his group presented to managers and senior executives a proposal to add various safety upgrades to the MAX. The complaint, a copy of which was reviewed by The Seattle Times, suggests that one of the proposed systems could have potentially prevented the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people. Three of Ewbank's former colleagues interviewed for this story concurred. The details revealed in the ethics complaint raise new questions about the culture at Boeing and whether the long-held imperative that safety must be the overarching priority was compromised on the MAX by business considerations and management's focus on schedule and cost. Managers twice rejected adding the new system on the basis of "cost and potential (pilot) training impact," the complaint states. It was then raised a third time in a meeting with 737 MAX chief project engineer, Michael Teal, who cited the same objections as he killed the proposal. A version of the proposed system, called synthetic airspeed, was already installed on the 787 Dreamliner. It was not directly related to the flight-control system - the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) - that contributed to both crashes. But it would have detected the false angle of attack signal that initiated events in both accidents, and so potentially could have stopped MCAS from activating and repeatedly pushing down the nose of each jet. But installing it in the MAX would likely have meant 737 pilots needed extra training in flight simulators. Running thousands of pilots through simulator sessions would have delayed the jet's entry into service and added substantial costs for Boeing's airline customers, damaging the MAX's competitive edge against the rival Airbus A320neo. Ewbank's complaint goes further than the decision not to install this one new system. He describes management as "more concerned with cost and schedule than safety and quality." And he alleges that in one instance Boeing hid inflight safety incident data from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). As first reported in The Seattle Times, Boeing did an inadequate system safety assessment that missed flaws in the design of MCAS that were central to the two MAX disasters. And Boeing engineers were under pressure to limit safety testing to certify the MAX. These fresh allegations from inside Boeing indicate that the problems with jetmaker's safety culture may go deeper than MCAS. Sticking out from the side of a 737 MAX, two pitot tubes for measuring air pressure sit above an angle of attack vane. A new system was proposed for the MAX, but never approved, that would have allowed these different sensors to cross-check each other. That could have enabled detection of a faulty angle-of-attack signal such as those linked to the two fatal crashes of 737 MAX jets. (Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times) Submitted via Boeing's internal whistleblower system, Ewbank's complaint alleges that MAX program managers, concerned with avoiding higher costs and more pilot training, were intent on "shutting down trade studies that attempted to modernize the airplane and avoiding awareness of known issues encountered in historical 737 operation." Federal investigators The FBI has interviewed at least two Boeing employees about the complaint. It's unclear how the Boeing document reached the agency, but federal investigators are known to have issued subpoenas to the company. Department of Justice prosecutors, Department of Transportation inspectors and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officials are all involved in a wide-ranging federal investigation into possible wrongdoing at Boeing during certification of the MAX that was already under way before the engineer filed his internal complaint in April. Boeing declined to comment on the details of the ethics complaint. Teal, 737 MAX chief project engineer, could not be reached for comment. The Department of Justice also declined to comment. The Seattle Times is not naming the employees who have been questioned by the FBI to protect the identity of the source of that information. Ewbanks declined to be interviewed. The Seattle Times is naming him because he identified himself in his complaint to Boeing. The MAX has been grounded worldwide for almost seven months as Boeing works on a comprehensive fix to its flight-control systems that will satisfy air safety regulators around the globe. The final updates to the systems are expected to be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this month, and Boeing anticipates clearance to return the jet to the sky in November. Meanwhile, multiple investigations and reviews, internal and external, are examining what caused the deadly crashes. Last week, Boeing's board announced a revamp of the company's reporting structures aimed at producing better internal safety oversight. On Monday, Boeing chairman and chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said he's "taking immediate steps" to implement those recommendations. The engineer Ewbank's ethics complaint expressed concern about the possible personal consequences of stepping forward inside the company. "Given the nature of this complaint, the fear of retaliation is high, despite all official assurances that this should not be the case," he wrote. "There is a suppressive cultural attitude towards criticism of corporate policy - especially if that criticism comes as a result of fatal accidents." Ewbank wrote that co-workers told him in private they are afraid to speak up about similar safety concerns out of "fear for their jobs." In a statement responding to requests for comment this week, Boeing said it "has rigorous processes in place, both to ensure that such complaints receive thorough consideration and to protect the confidentiality of employees who make them." "Accordingly, Boeing does not comment on the substance or existence of such internal complaints," the statement added. Ewbank's LinkedIn profile shows he graduated from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in 2008 with a degree in aeronautical engineering, then got a master's at Purdue. After college, he took a job as rocket scientist, doing launch site design engineering at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida with United Space Alliance, the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. He was hired by Boeing in 2010 to work on designing commercial airplane flight deck systems, including the MAX. He now works on airplane systems integration for the 777X program. However, dissatisfied with his experience on the MAX program, he took a break from Boeing. LinkedIn shows he left the company in April 2015 and returned to work on the 777X only last November. The reason for the career break is cited in the ethics complaint: his feeling that Boeing management was "squeezing the engineering budget for new programs ... more concerned with cost and schedule than safety and quality." In his first stint at Boeing, he worked on the safety of flight deck systems across multiple jet programs. It put him at the center of what has become one focus of the investigations into the crashes: The systems that tell pilots how their plane is performing in flight and alert them to anything going wrong. Ewbank's complaint says his job included "designing appropriate crew alerting and crew procedures based on expected (system) failures." We need your support In-depth journalism takes time and effort to produce, and it depends on paying subscribers. If you value these kinds of stories, consider subscribing. Last week, a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report called for improvements to such systems and criticized Boeing's testing of the MAX for failing to simulate the possible barrage of system failures and warnings the pilots on the crashed flights faced. The memo The proposal for system upgrades that Ewbank discusses in his complaint emerged from work he did alongside several veteran employees in Boeing's Aviation Safety department "to analyze Loss of Control inflight accidents and design flight deck features that would work to break the accident chain of events." One was Associate Technical Fellow Randy Mumaw, a cognitive psychologist and "human factors" expert in how pilots react to an airplane's instruments. Mumaw, who left Boeing in 2015, said that as a non-engineer he can't assess the technicalities of the synthetic airspeed system. But he said he knew Ewbank as "highly respected and bright." The Seattle Times interviewed four former Boeing employees who were involved in the work of assessing the proposed safety upgrades. Rick Ludtke, a former flight deck integration engineer, worked alongside Ewbank and was a key participant in the proposal, which was presented in an engineering memo titled "Boeing Commercial Airplanes Strategy for Reducing the Risk of Loss of Control Events." Ludtke said the purpose of the memo, which Ewbank cites in his complaint, was to "capture the approval" of executives and to try to get a list of six system improvements accepted across Boeing's airplane programs, including the MAX, which was then in early development. The memo, which was signed off by Todd Zarfos, the Boeing vice president who heads the company's engineering design centers, recommended that synthetic airspeed be installed on the MAX "with the next appropriate software update." Another veteran Boeing engineer and associate technical fellow, Carlo Ruelos, was the early champion of synthetic airspeed at Boeing. A pilot flying any airplane needs to know the current airspeed - the plane's speed relative to the air. Depending on the direction of the wind, that can be faster or slower than the groundspeed, the plane's speed relative to the earth. Too high an airspeed could stress the airframe. Too low an airspeed could stall the plane. This key piece of data is measured by pitot-static air pressure sensors, little tubes that stick out of the fuselage on both sides under the cockpit. It's entered into multiple calculations performed by the flight control computer, so an accurate value is important. Synthetic airspeed is a new system that provides an additional, indirect calculation of airspeed using different sensors, including the plane's angle-of-attack sensors. The system enters the airplane's angle of attack, its weight, the position of its control surfaces and other parameters into a proprietary Boeing algorithm to come up with an independently measured airspeed reading. The independence of the synthetic reading means that if it matches the direct airspeed readings, it verifies the data as highly reliable. If there's a discrepancy, the air data is rejected and the plane's automated systems won't use it. Ewbank's complaint cites a study that found air data reliability, and airspeed awareness in particular, as a "dominant theme" in airplane accidents where the pilots lost control. The only Boeing airplane using synthetic airspeed today is its latest all-new jet, the 787 Dreamliner. On the MAX, Ruelos saw an opportunity because the jet had a new integrated air data system box installed that had more computational power than that on the previous 737 NG model. That extra capability, Ruelos decided, would make it possible to add a variant of the 787 synthetic airspeed system to the MAX. And if it could be added, he felt it should be - because it would broadly enhance the reliability of the 737's air data systems. Ruelos, now 75 and retired, said in an interview that the pitot and static probes used for standard airspeed measurement"stick out of the airplane and can be damaged by a bird strike. Or something can plug the very small hole." So, he said, "I firmly believe that as another means of verifying the air data, (synthetic airspeed) is a key element in maintaining the safety of the airplane." "We pushed very hard for it, because safety is always the No.1 priority," he added. With the new air data avionics box on the MAX, he believed the system was "ready to go" on the new jet. The crashes At the time of this proposal, no one had identified MCAS as a concern. Back then, the original design of MCAS was more benign than the final version that went haywire on the two crash flights. It required two sensors to activate - a high angle of attack and and a high G-force -and was less extensive in its ability to push the nose down. It wasn't until March 2016 that the MCAS design was changed to depend solely on a single angle-of-attack sensor. Synthetic airspeed gains significance in the aftermath of the accidents because the system's cross-check of the independent airspeed readings would raise a red flag if there's any angle-of-attack sensor fault. If the readings disagree, Ewbank wrote in his complaint, the system as implemented on the 787 is designed to "monitor and detect erroneous angle-of-attack data, and then work to prevent the use of erroneous data by downstream systems." While Ewbank prefaces this statement with a careful qualifier - "It is not possible to say for certain that any actual implementation of synthetic airspeed on the 737 MAX would have prevented the accidents" - his implication is clear: Synthetic airspeed might have stopped MCAS from activating in the circumstances of the two crashed flights. Ludtke and Ruelos agreed. There's "a very good chance" that if Boeing had implemented synthetic airspeed on the MAX, it would have prevented the crashes, Ludtke said. "In our department, we never designed anything without comparators," meaning monitors that compare independent sensor readings and de-activate the system if they disagree, he said. "Curtis, I know, had several types of comparators in that synthetic airspeed system." Asked separately if synthetic airspeed might have prevented the crashes, Ruelos responded: "I think so. The left and right systems do cross checks, and if there is a discrepancy, it won't let the automatic system take control of the airplane. ... It would disengage and the downstream systems wouldn't use the data." The cost concerns Of course, Boeing could have achieved the same result in simpler ways, for example if MCAS had been designed from the start to compare readings from the two angle-of- attack sensors instead of only one. Still, in hindsight the rejection of synthetic airspeed seems fateful. In his complaint, Ewbank puts it down to "a corporate culture ... of expediency of design-to-market and cost-cutting." "The 737 MAX was designed via piecemeal updates to prevent triggering expensive certification and (pilot) training," his complaint states. Ludtke agreed. Synthetic airspeed was rejected "probably because of cost," he said. He said Boeing had promised the airlines that the MAX would be so minimally different from the prior 737 model that no additional pilot certification or flight simulator training would be necessary. He said his manager told him Boeing promised MAX launch customer Southwest "$1 million per tail" if the FAA were to require expensive simulator training. "The MAX program leaders had always mandated that, if it's not required for function or certification, it's not going on the airplane," Ludtke said. They looked upon synthetic airspeed as "a good improvement, but just an improvement," not a necessity. "We still tried. Because we believed these aircraft need improving for the quality of pilots we are experiencing," Ludtke added. "In the old days, before the MAX, that's how we did business. At the launch of a new program, its leaders would be very interested in including all the latest ideas and safety improvements. "The MAX was different from the very beginning," he said. "We're just going to put these new engines on and the minimum change to make that happen. That's it. We're not spending money." "That concept broke the company," Ludtke concluded. Another former Boeing employee, a veteran test pilot also involved in the assessment of the proposed system changes, wasn't close enough to the technical details of synthetic airspeed to be sure it would have prevented the accidents, yet agreed that any similar system based on angle of attack likely would have cut out MCAS. "That's how you would hope the system would work," said the pilot, who asked for anonymity to preserve relationships at Boeing. And the pilot agreed with Ludtke that preserving the MAX's common type rating - certifying it as just a variant of the prior 737 NG model, rather than a new airplane - and ensuring that airline pilots wouldn't be required to train for the MAX on flight simulators was "such a huge deal" that it blocked potential updates to the avionics systems. "I couldn't believe they kept stretching the 737, both literally (with a longer fuselage) and also in terms of cockpit design," the pilot said. The culture Ray Craig, former chief pilot on the 737 MAX until he retired in 2015, had a very different take. He said he worked with Ewbank and knew him as a "very sharp, very dedicated" engineer. Yet he defended the safety culture at Boeing and around the MAX program. "Safety was paramount. If there was something we thought was a safety issue, there was no question, it was taken care of," Craig said. "But it's not always a black-and- white decision." Lacking full technical details, he wouldn't venture an opinion about whether synthetic airspeed could have prevented the crashes. "I don't remember it as ready to go. It wasn't just a simple plug-and-play," Craig said. "It wasn't as program-ready as perhaps some of the folks were thinking. But I don't remember the exact reason it was shot down." Ewbank's ethics complaint is much broader than the failure to install synthetic airspeed. He attacks the company's culture around aviation safety and questions Craig's and Boeing's assertion that safety is always paramount. He recounts an episode in his department when he says Boeing hid in-flight safety incidents from Europe's aviation regulator. This occurred when EASA found five events where 737s experienced a problem with the autothrottle disconnecting on approach and a confusing alert led to an inappropriate pilot response. EASA asked if Boeing was aware of any other such events and Ewbank was assigned to search the in-service databases. But when he identified five further similar incidents on 737s, his ethics complaint says his manager decided "to not tell EASA about these events" and that instead "we would fix the issue ourselves." Ewbank, a relatively young engineer at the start of his career and with less than six years at Boeing over his two employment stints, even goes so far in the complaint as to directly attack CEO Muilenburg. He cites Muilenburg's statement on a quarterly earnings teleconference, just four days before Ewbank filed the ethics complaint, denying that the two recent MAX crashes were due to any "technical slip" by Boeing during the jet's design or certification. Ewbank calls this "a false statement." "When CEO Muilenburg and others state that the Max was a safe airplane as designed, they seriously misrepresent what Boeing Engineering has learned about how data and control functions should be treated," Ewbank wrote. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-whistleblowers- complaint-says-737-max-safety-upgrades-were-rejected-over-cost/ Back to Top Boeing CEO: Preliminary investigations show 737 Max pilots exposed to 'high workload environment' Pilots who were unable to save two separate commercial Boeing 737 Max airplanes from crashes that killed 346 people were exposed to a "high workload environment," according to early findings from an investigation, Boeing's (BA) CEO Dennis Muilenburg said Wednesday during an address to the Economic Club of New York in Manhattan. Boeing has previously acknowledged that during both flights faulty data from a single external airplane sensor triggered an automatic system known as MCAS that adjusted the angle of the aircraft downward. However, in defense of the plane's design, Muilenburg has raised pilot inaction as a factor in a chain of events that could determine whether pilots successfully troubleshoot to disengage MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) and recover the aircraft. "If that kind of scenario occurs and you go through the checklist...it calls out actions that would be taken around power management and pitch management of the airplane," Muilenburg said in response to a reporter during the company's annual shareholder event in April. "It also refers to the cutout switches, that after an activation that was not pilot-induced, that you would hit the cutout switches," he added. "And, in some cases, those procedures were not completely followed." 'More workload for pilots' While much debate has ensued over whether highly trained pilots would have avoided the fatal crashes, Muilenburg's statements Wednesday acknowledged investigators' determination that MCAS software compounded pilots' emergency troubleshooting environment. "While the investigations have not yet issued their final reports, they have shared preliminary findings," Muilenburg said. "The early information established that in both lights, a software function activated in response to incorrect information from an external airplane sensor as part of a broader chain of events that created more workload for the pilots in what was already a high workload environment." Grounded Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are seen parked at Boeing Field in Seattle, Washington, U.S. July 1, 2019. Picture taken July 1, 2019. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson In testimony before Congress in June, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the decorated commercial airline captain responsible for saving the lives of 155 people in a heroic 2009 landing on New York's Hudson River, emphasized the significance of pilot "startle factor" and chaotic cockpit situations that play into a pilot's emergency response capabilities. Asked by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) whether more experienced pilots would have been able to handle the MCAS-related emergencies, Sullenberger opined that it would have been unlikely they would have performed differently from the crews on the accident flights. "I'm one of a relatively small group of people who have experienced such a crisis and lived to share what we learned about it. I can tell you firsthand that the startle factor is real. And it's huge. It absolutely interferes with one's ability to quickly analyze the crisis and take an active action," Sullenberger said. 'Grab the weel, keep it from turning' Still, former FAA Certification and Regulatory Enforcement Support specialist, Larry Williams, has said any experienced pilot should have been able to handle the Max emergencies. "You grab the yoke and pull it back and if you can't override it you just kick off trim and fly it manually. It's autopilot disconnect, basically. Push a button on the yoke and disconnect - grab the wheel, keep it from turning." As a result of the findings, Boeing is altering both how much exterior data the 737 Max intakes, as well as the number of backup systems to recognize when an automatic adjustment of the plane's nose is in error. After alterations, each Max will be equipped with three redundancies, including two exterior "angle of attack" sensors, instead of one; single automatic activation of the MCAS system, rather than multiple activations; and a pilot override, to stop MCAS from pushing the nose down once a pilot takes control. Max planes were grounded by the FAA on March 13 following the second of two similar crashes that killed all passengers and crew on board. Shortly after takeoff from Jakarta, Indonesia, on October 29, Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on March 10. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dennis-muilenburg-boeing-737-crashes- 002622906.html Back to Top Boeing B-17G-30-BO Flying Fortress - Fatal Accident (CT) Date: 02-OCT-2019 Time: c. 10:00 LT Type: Boeing B-17G-30-BO Flying Fortress Owner/operator: The Collings Foundation Registration: N93012 C/n / msn: 7023 Fatalities: Fatalities: 7 / Occupants: 13 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Windsor Locks-Bradley International Airport, (BDL/KBDL), CT - United States of America Phase: Approach Nature: Passenger Departure airport: Windsor Locks-Bradley International Airport, CT (BDL/KBDL) Destination airport: Windsor Locks-Bradley International Airport, CT (BDL/KBDL) Narrative: A Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress, registration N93012, impacted an airport structure while attempting to return to Windsor Locks-Bradley International Airport (BDL/KBDL), Connecticut. The aircraft had received clearance for departure from runway 06 at 09:45 hours local time. After takeoff the aircraft made a right-hand turn. At 09:50 the aircraft contacted the Bradley Tower controller for permission to land on runway 06. This was approved. The aircraft crashed as it attempted to land on runway 06. The aircraft came to rest in an airport de-icing fluid farm located 1100 feet to the east of the threshold of runway 06. Officials reported that there were ten passengers and three crew members on board. Six people were taken to a local hospital. Seven occupants were killed and the fate of the remaining six is unknown. Also three people on the ground were injured The aircraft was part of The Collings Foundation's Wings of Freedom Tour. Five historic WWII aircraft were on display at Bradley Airport and scenic flights were carried out. Fatalities confirmed in B-17 crash at Bradley International Airport https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/229659 Back to Top Incident: MAP AT72 at Manaus and Itaituba on Sep 16th 2019, engine failure in flight, other engine fails after touch down A MAP Linhas Aereas Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72-200, registration PR-MPY performing flight PAM-5913 from Itaituba,PA to Manaus,AM (Brazil) with 39 passengers and 4 crew, departed Itaituba for the about 260nm trip to Manaus. While enroute another aircraft caused Manaus Airport to close forcing the crew to return the aircraft back to Itaituba. While on final approach to Itaituba the left hand engine failed, after touch down at Itaituba the right hand engine failed, too. Brazil's CENIPA reported the crew was able to restart the right hand engine and taxied the aircraft to the apron. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft. The occurrence, classified as "out of fuel" and rated a serious incident, is being investigated by CENIPA (editorial note: the initial note does not say anything about fuel remaining on board). On Oct 2nd 2019 The Aviation Herald received information from a source in Itaituba, that no usable fuel was left in the tanks of the aircraft when the aircraft stopped on the apron. http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd72878&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Republic E170 at Chicago on Oct 2nd 2019, loss of cabin pressure A Republic Airlines Embraer ERJ-170 on behalf of United, registration N724YX performing flight UA-3591 from Chicago O'Hare,IL to Washington National,DC (USA), was climbing through FL220 when Center reminded the crew they were cleared to FL230. After the crew confirmed FL230, Center handed the aircraft off to the next sector. The aircraft performed an emergency descent to 10,000 feet shortly afterwards, the passenger oxygen masks were not released. The crew subsequently decided to return to Chicago for a safe landing on runway 10C about 73 minutes after departure. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/RPA3591/history/20191002/1800Z/KORD/KDCA http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd896a3&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Fly One A319 at Chisinau on Sep 30th 2019, take off over vehicles A Fly One Airbus A319-100, registration ER-00002 performing flight 5F-131 from Chisinau (Moldova) to Moscow Vnukovo (Russia), departed Chisinau's runway 26 when the crew noticed three vehicles near the end of the runway while climbing over the vehicles. The crew immediately notified tower asking whether this was normal. The aircraft continued to Moscow for a safe landing about 90 minutes later. The former head of Moldava's Air Traffic Service Provider Moldatsa reported tower forgot to first send the vehicles performing cleaning works on the runway off the runway. Moldatsa reported the tower controller was suspended. The airline confirmed the occurrence and stated they immediately reported the occurrence to the CAA. Moldava's Civil Aviation Authority have opened an investigation into the occurrence rated a serious incident. According to preliminary investigation results a human error had occurred. http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd889a8&opt=0 Back to Top AEM Aviation Joins the ACSF and ASAP the ACSF is a non-profit aviation safety organization that provides programs to enable the highest levels of safety in personal, charter and business aviation. Air Charter Safety Foundation (ACSF) Orlando, Florida-based AEM Aviation has joined the ranks of more than 210 other safety-focused aviation companies as a new member of the Air Charter Safety Foundation. The ACSF is a non-profit aviation safety organization that provides programs to enable the highest levels of safety in personal, charter and business aviation. In addition to reaping many of the safety-focused benefits that participation in the ACSF provides, AEM Aviation's crew members will also be able to share in the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), which is administered by the ACSF in partnership with the Federal Aviation Authority. The ASAP makes use of employee input to identify significant safety concerns and issues, operational deficiencies, non-compliance with regulations, deviations from company policies and procedures, and unusual events. Each report is investigated, and corrective actions are determined based on a non-disciplinary approach to flight safety. "AEM Aviation has always taken a 'safety-first' approach to our operations, and our participation in the ACSF is yet one more indication of how important safety is to our day-to-day functioning," said AEM Aviation President, John Valliant. "We're eager to become an active ACSF member, and that means actively participating in the ASAP as well." "We're very pleased to enroll AEM Aviation as yet another member among the growing roster of aviation-related companies in our ranks," said Bryan Burns, ACSF's president. "It's so gratifying to see such a positive response to the ACSF's mission, and nothing indicates that more than the steady stream of new members we're welcoming to our organization." https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/business-general-aviation/press- release/21108681/air-charter-safety-foundation-acsf-aem-aviation-joins-the-acsf-and- asap Back to Top Opinion: Regulators Should Focus On Facts And Cooperation ARSA rejects EASA claims about shortcomings in U.S. oversight process. All aviation safety regulators live in glass houses when it comes to aviation safety and the potential for-and inevitability of-deadly accidents. In comments before the European Parliament's transport committee meeting on Sept. 3, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Executive Director Patrick Ky seems to have tried to shatter the FAA's. Instead of expressing solidarity and faith in the mutual recognition achieved through bilateral aviation safety agreement processes, EASA's leader took the opposite approach. According to media reports, during an "exchange of views" with committee members about the recent Boeing 737 MAX accidents and subsequent aircraft grounding, Ky asserted: "The FAA is in a very difficult situation. . . . When they will say, this [airplane] is good to go, it's very likely that international authorities will want a second opinion, or a third opinion. That was not the case one year ago. . . . I think that's going to be a very strong change in the overall worldwide hierarchy or relationship between the different authorities." Ky's assertion that a similar problem in the certification of an aviation product "would not happen in [EASA's] system," suggests a rather smug sense of undeserved self- satisfaction. The FAA's systems are different, but the goals and results are the same. European regulators are good but aren't any better than their U.S. counterparts at identifying potential safety issues. The simple fact is that every airworthiness directive issued by EASA (or any other regulator) reflects a safety problem that can or did lead to unfortunate results. We reject Ky's implication that oversight has different meanings in Europe than in the U.S., that the FAA might decide to let an unsafe aircraft fly, and in that case, like knights on a white horse, European regulators would ride in to save the day. Those notions are contrary to the facts and the very principles underpinning the global aviation regulatory framework. For bilateral aviation safety agreements to function, and for their benefits and efficiencies to be realized, regulators must be confident in one another's work. Throwing the FAA under the bus only serves to diminish public confidence and create unrealistic expectations about Europe's oversight regime, undermining the system of global regulatory cooperation. The bottom line is that collaborative oversight and mutual recognition require acknowledgment that the regulator cannot and does not prevent mistakes or accidents. Regulators can only ensure that applicants and certificate holders meet established standards and are held accountable when things go awry. Creating unrealistic expectations about the superiority of EASA's capabilities and processes will almost certainly backfire when problems with Europe's certification processes come to light in the wake of a future accident. Instead, let's focus on what the aviation industry does best. Let's follow the facts, analyze them dispassionately, learn from mistakes, and collectively improve our systems and processes. Let's leave demagoguing and finger-pointing to the politicians. Let's recommit ourselves to working together on a global basis to ensure that commercial aviation continues to be the safest form of transportation on the planet. https://www.mro-network.com/safety-regulatory/opinion-regulators-should-focus-facts- and-cooperation Back to Top Here's why in-flight WiFi is so slow and expensive * The in -flight WiFi industry is expected to grow significantly by 2035. * The current WiFi on planes is slow, spotty, and usually expensive. But airlines are planning to invest in upgrading their equipment. * A survey showed that 67% of customers are more likely to rebook with an airline that has good quality WiFi. * The quality and price of your in-flight WiFi depend on your airline, aircraft, in- flight WiFi provider, and your travel region. Airplane WiFi is slow and usually expensive. And just because you're paying more doesn't necessarily mean you're getting more. You may not get WiFi until you're 10,000 feet in the air, and when you do get it, it may be slow and spotty. Even so, people are still willing to cough up their cash to post pictures of clouds mid-flight, or do some actual work. The industry is expected to be worth $30 billion by 2035. That's more than what Walmart is worth now. But if it's such a huge industry, why does in-flight WiFi still suck? First, we need to talk about how these planes, speeding around at hundreds of miles an hour, 36,000 feet in the air, can even get WiFi. There are two ways: towers on the ground or satellites in space. Let's look at the towers. This method is called air-to-ground, or ATG for short. Antennas on the belly of the craft pick up signals from cell towers on the ground. The benefit? You'll get less delay because the towers are closer to your plane than a satellite. The downside? No towers, no signals. That means when you're flying over large bodies of water, above mountains, or passing over countries with cell towers that restrict WiFi access, you probably won't get any WiFi. So, what about satellites? The big dome-shaped antenna on top of the plane will pick up signals from the satellites. These satellite-based systems will either use Ku-band or Ka- band connections, which is similar to 3G versus 4G. There's a whole debate on whether Ku or Ka band is better, but they're both way faster than ATG systems. But when you're sharing internet with a couple hundred other people, traveling 500 miles per hour, 36,000 feet in the air, there's bound to be a hiccup or two. But towers versus satellite isn't the only thing that affects whether you'll be able to stream this week's episode of "The Bachelor" or not. The quality and price of your in-flight WiFi actually depend on four more things: your airline, aircraft, the in-flight Wi-Fi provider, and the region you're traveling to and from. First of all, in an effort to cut costs, some airlines, like Frontier, don't even offer WiFi. If your airline does offer WiFi, it could be free, or go all the way up to $30 for an all-day pass. But just because the airline offers WiFi doesn't mean your plane supports it. Some aircraft aren't even built with WiFi capabilities. An American Airlines Boeing 738 might have satellite-based WiFi, but an American Airlines Boeing 757 might not. Then there's the provider. They all offer different speeds, which is crucial for watching those meltdowns in HD. And lastly, you'll need to factor in your route. If you're flying over a lot of mountains or an ocean, there probably won't be many towers along the way. And if the plane isn't equipped to receive satellite internet, you'll be completely out of luck. For a while, Hawaiian Airlines didn't want to invest in in-flight WiFi because the technology along their flight paths crossing the Pacific Ocean was sparse, but communication companies are launching new satellites, and Hawaiian is rethinking the investment. So, why isn't everyone upgrading their equipment? For some airlines, it's just not their highest priority. Upgrading equipment means taking planes out of service for a few days, which means airlines lose money. It also means budgeting for new infrastructure. Plus, at least one in-flight provider has 10-year contracts with some of the airlines, which doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for upgrades and changes. But better and faster in-flight WiFi is definitely on its way. American Airlines, for example, is making moves to invest in better in-flight WiFi. One survey showed that 67% of passengers would rebook with an airline if high-quality WiFi were available. In other words, good WiFi means customer satisfaction and loyalty. Airlines have good reason to upgrade their offerings, so it might not be a bad call for airlines to speed up the process. But for now, you're probably better off saving your reality-TV binge for when you get home. https://www.businessinsider.com/in-flight-wifi-is-slow-and-expensive-2019-9 Back to Top EASA, Airbus Partner On VTOL Platforms Image: Airbus Helicopters Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have signed a Memorandum of Cooperation designed to "bring together their respective experiences and know-how" on developing the next generation of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) platforms and associated regulatory framework. According to Airbus, the agreement includes cooperation in areas such as high-speed flight, certification of new piloting assistance systems, thermal/electrical hybridization of rotorcraft, and condition-based maintenance. "Partnerships with industry are part of our strategy to ensure that innovation in the aviation market happens safely," said EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky. "The learnings we derive from cutting edge technologies play a significant role in helping us to prepare our certification methodologies for these new advancements. The cooperation on innovation with Airbus Helicopters represents an important contribution to this strategy." As previously reported by AVweb, EASA published a "Special Condition" for the certification of eVTOL aircraft last July, calling it the "first building block to enable the safe operation of hybrid and electrical vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft." The Special Condition covers eVTOLs carrying nine or fewer passengers with maximum takeoff weights of up to 7,000 pounds. https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/evtols-urban-mobility/easa-airbus-partner-on- vtol-platforms/ Back to Top Jamaica's civil aviation boss heads international body AS Jamaica continues to play a leading role in global efforts to engender a uniformly safe, sustainable and efficient air transport industry, its civil aviation industry and the Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority (JCAA) has been thrust into the leadership position. At a gathering of the international aviation community's governing body on September 24, delegates at the 40th assembly elected JCAA's Director General Nari Williams- Singh as president of the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO's) 40th Assembly. More than 2,600 ministers and high-ranking government officials attended the launch of the United Nation's aviation agency's 40th Assembly at its Montréal headquarters at which the ICAO delegates made the decision during the opening session and plenary. The assembly is being held from September 24-October 4. The assembly is convened triennially to allow delegates and other representatives to deliberate on and endorse the upcoming three-year work programme for ICAO, while establishing a new global consensus on the priorities to be pursued by the global aviation industry, through the UN aviation agency. As president of ICAO's 40th Assembly, Williams-Singh will provide support to manage the event's efficient decision-making processes on topics with global ramifications. These include revisions to ICAO's Global Plans for aviation safety, and air navigation capacity, efficiency, and security. His leadership role will also extend to spearheading deliberations that will lead to endorsements of new ICAO environmental trends and forecasts, as well as agreements that facilitate ICAO's continued leadership role in the promotion of important socio- economic benefits for all aviation stakeholders. In his opening statement, Williams-Singh noted that it was a great honour and privilege to accept the confidence reposed in him, to serve as president of the historic assembly. He also highlighted the fact that the honour was accepted, not only on behalf of Jamaica, but on behalf of other small island developing states. He described his election as providing "a fitting crescendo and symbolic continuation of ICAO's five-year 'No country left behind' focus, which reflects the continuing and genuinely inclusive" stance through which ICAO has successfully embraced state equality and inclusion in principle and action. He used the platform to share information on Jamaica's major infrastructural modernisation projects in air navigation services, communications, surveillance, safety systems, and other areas, noting the country's continued conformity with ICAO's Standards and Recommended Practices. He also gave the assurance that he would "preside over and guide the activities and deliberations of the meeting in an impartial and inclusive manner", while advocating individual government support. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/jamaica-s-civil-aviation-boss-heads- international-body_175831?profile=1373 Back to Top These Airlines Operate The Largest Boeing 747 Fleets The world's first jumbo jet - the Queen of the Skies - has enjoyed a 50-year reign, but is slowly being phased out of some airlines' fleets. However, many airlines still operate large numbers of the type; here are the ones who love the Boeing 747 the most. The Boeing 747 is still a popular aircraft. Photo: Lufthansa Boeing's 747 completely revamped air travel when it hit the market in 1969, being bigger, more high-tech and more reliable than anything that had come before it. Despite speculation that the manufacturing of the latest 747-8 will soon cease, ending Boeing's 747 production, many airlines still cling tightly to it. British Airways Earlier this year, British Airways placed an order of 14 Boeing 777-9 to replace its 747 aircraft. Though the plan is to slowly phase out the 747, British Airways is still the leading commercial operator of the model. According to its website, it has 34 in its fleet currently, favoring the -400 series for its "high reliability" and the fact that it makes use of "major aerodynamic improvements" in order to operate most efficiently. According to Air Fleets, the airline received its first of the active fleet in 1993. It is the only airline to have owned the aircraft which is registered G-BNLY and internally named City of Swansea. But why is British Airways looking to replace an aircraft it seems to love so much? British Airways celebrated its 747 at the Royal International Air Tattoo. Photo: British Airways Well, the 747 can only take the airline so far. Though the model has built on the successes and failures of its predecessors, Boeing is now making even more sophisticated models, such as the 777X. But, British Airways is also looking at other manufacturers to develop its fleet. On 5th August this year, BA's first inaugural flight was taken to Madrid from London Heathrow on its brand-new A350-1000, which the airline had been waiting six years for. The long waits for aircraft deliveries are the reason that British Airways has kept its 747s operating, but when the new aircraft arrive it's likely to go ahead with the full retirement plans. Lufthansa German airline, Lufthansa, is the second-largest commercial operator of the Boeing 747. It has 32 in its fleet of 313 aircraft and, unlike British Airways, predominantly uses the 747-8 model. In fact, it is the world's largest operator of the model and was the first to receive the aircraft back in 2012. Lufthansa's first 747-8. Photo: Benedikt Lang via Flickr It flies 19 of the 747-8 Intercontinental in a 4-class configuration, offering first class, business, premium and economy. It's not looking to phase out its 747-8 aircraft any time soon, but the same can't be said for its -400s. It flies 13 -400s in a 3-class configuration, having received the first back in 1996. It continued to receive orders of this model all the way until 2002. But with 777Xs on order as the European launch customer, the airline is looking to phase out the -400s to make way for newer technologies that will make its fleet more efficient. Atlas Air Whilst also being a commercial airline, that's not how Atlas Air is best known. It has the world's largest fleet of 747s, but they're mainly freighter versions. It trumps British Airways and Lufthansa by having 39 of the aircraft, 35 of which are used for air cargo. There are just four 747-400 passenger aircraft that belong to Atlas Air, since it prefers the -400F of which it owns 25. According to Boeing, at the time of production, the freighter version of the -400 was prized because it could carry "twice as much cargo, twice as far, as the competitor's leading freighter." But now Atlas Air has invested in even newer freighter technology, with 10 747-8F. It received its first in May 2012, according to Air Fleets. One of Atlas Air's 747. Photo: Chuks Spotting via Flickr Boeing claims that its 747-8F is the world's most efficient freighter with a spec that ensures improved turnaround times, new cargo handling systems and "the lowest tonne-kilometer cost of any large freighter." And having the latest technology on-board bodes well since Boeing forecasts that in the next 20 years, air freight will still be delivering more than half the world's air cargo. Other notable operators On the freighter side, there are various other airlines that use Boeing's 747 model. Cargolux and Cathay Pacific Cargo are also large operators of the -400F and -8F models, with 26 and 20 aircraft in their fleets respectively. Cargolux was one of the first airlines to purchase the 8F model alongside Nippon Cargo Airlines, the latter of which only ever went on to receive eight aircraft. Of the commercial airlines, Korean Air is also a primary user of the 747 with 23 aircraft in a mixture of -400 and -8 passenger and freighter aircraft. Are you a 747 fanatic? What are your thoughts on retirement plans for the 747? Let us know below! https://simpleflying.com/largest-boeing-747-fleets/ Back to Top RAF pilot picked to join Virgin Orbit space programme Flight Lieutenant Mathew Stannard An RAF pilot who has been picked to join Virgin Orbit's space programme has spoken of his pride at being involved in the pioneering project. Flight Lieutenant Mathew "Stanny" Stannard, who is a Typhoon pilot with one of the RAF's test and evaluation squadrons, is set to begin his three-year secondment next year. He said: "I've flown Tornado and Typhoon fighter jets in the RAF but being involved in Virgin Orbit's space programme is a truly unique opportunity. "This programme is pushing the boundaries of our understanding of space so it's a real privilege to be part of it and I'm looking forward to bringing the skills and knowledge I gain back to the RAF." We are thrilled to welcome Flight Lt Matthew Stannard to our team of hugely talented pilots where I know his presence will move us further, faster and to new heights. During his secondment Flt Lt Stannard is set to join the fleet of expert "test pilots" trialling Boeing 747-400 aircraft from which cutting-edge satellites will be launched. Defence minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan said the UK and the US already have an incredibly close defence relationship and would be working together to try to forge new frontiers in space. She said: "This exciting partnership will see Virgin Orbit benefit from the skills and expertise of our personnel while propelling the RAF's space ambitions to new heights." Air Vice-Marshal Simon "Rocky" Rochelle, the RAF Air Capability Chief of Staff, said: "Having one of our test pilots working at the heart of such a cutting-edge programme is a significant step in the RAF's space journey. "It also reinforces the close relationship we have with industry and with the US, we expect this to further enable UK satellite launch capabilities." The Virgin Orbit launcher One The Virgin Orbit launcher One (Ministry of Defence/Crown Copyright/PA) Flt Lt Stannard's return to the RAF should help boost the UK's understanding of the military uses of small satellites, according to the Ministry of Defence. Flt Lt Stannard, who graduated from RAF officer training in May 2007, has amassed over 1,000 hours on Tornados during multiple combat tours, after which he undertook instructional duties. He was selected to become an experimental test pilot in 2015, and trained at the US Naval Test Pilot School before qualifying as a Typhoon test pilot. The secondment still needs to gain final US and UK regulatory approvals. Virgin Orbit's chief executive Dan Hart said: "As part of Team Artemis, we've been working with the RAF and the US Air Force to demonstrate the utility of small satellites and responsive, resilient space launch and operations. "We are thrilled to welcome Flight Lt Matthew Stannard to our team of hugely talented pilots where I know his presence will move us further, faster and to new heights." The secondment announcement was made on the RMS Queen Mary ship in California as the RAF's Red Arrows display team flew overhead during the ceremony. The MoD has previously announced it is investing £30 million to fast-track the launch of a small satellite demonstrator within a year. The demonstrator, also known as Programme Artemis, is being delivered by a new transatlantic team of UK and US defence personnel and firms including Virgin Orbit. The UK has also joined Operation Olympic Defender, a US-led international military unit aimed at strengthening deterrence against hostile actors in space and at preserving the safety of spaceflight. https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/national/17943603.raf-pilot-picked-join-virgin- orbit-space-programme/ Back to Top Reno Air Races: From Biplanes to Jets Reno Air Races The Reno Air Races attract a big crowd over five days each September. Billed as the fastest motorsport in the world, the Reno Air Races always attract a large crowd of spectators over five days. But entrants in the Unlimited class that prompts that description are dwindling. As a counterbalance, the jet class is growing, and racers exceed 400 mph, as they do in the sports class. The other four classes also boast good participation. Private pilot Bill Smith Jr. has been attending Reno as a spectator for 50 years. He has seen the Unlimited Class grow and decline, as the cost of maintaining and insuring those sensual warbirds has soared. Over recent time, prize money has dwindled from more than $700,000 to less than $100,000, as large sponsors have pulled out, he says. Still, Smith also enjoys the Sports and Jet classes, and each year brings a reunion of old friends. Another informed observer told AIN that it costs a yearly $250,000 to keep a warbird in top shape for Reno. "In the case of a P-51 Mustang, why spend that money when you could convert it to a two-seater, and sell it for $2 million?" he added. P-51 Mustangs P-51 Mustangs have been the mainstay of the Unlimited class, but their number is dwindling. Robin Crandall owns a Hawker Sea Fury named "Sawbones," which is raced by Curt Brown. Crandall has been coming to Reno for 10 years, supported by various sponsors (12 this year) and an all-volunteer crew. During that time, the Wright R3350 engine that replaced the original Bristol Centaurus has been removed three times. Custom stainless steel exhaust stacks have been installed. A new propeller was installed this year. Crandall told AIN that the Sea Fury must be officially inspected each year, and insurance costs $17,000. Still, he owns a warbird that can reach 420 mph and is worth $1 million. Robin Crandall Robin Crandall poses with his Sea Fury "Sawbones", one of only 10 in the US and 17 worldwide. "Sawbones" would have been contending for top place in the "gold" final this year if the canopy had not blown off during practice. Brown was uninjured, and Crandall has a replacement back at his Minnesota base. The top dog for 2019 was Dennis Sanders in another Sea Fury, who clocked 403 mph round the eight-lap, near-63-mile circuit. There were 13 starters but only four finishers in this year's series of Unlimited races. Dreadnought The Sea Fury named Dreadnought and flown by Dennis Sanders rounds a pylon on its way to becoming this year's Unlimited class winner. The Jet class was won by Pete Zaccagnino flying an Aero Vodochody L-29 Delphin that reached 495 mph. L-39 Albatroses from the Czech airframer dominate this class. One is flown by Lachie Onslow, an Australian who flies to Reno each year to compete in a borrowed jet. He first came here 11 years ago to fly in the Formula 1 class. In Australia, he is a helicopter pilot providing support to mining companies and even to fishermen who want to be airlifted into remote gorges to pursue their hobby. "Reno gets into your blood, and it's one big family here," he told AIN. L-29 Delphin An L-29 Delphin jet trainer. L-29s and L-39s from the Czech manufacturer dominate the Jet class. The Sport class attracts the largest number of entries-34 this year. One of them is veteran British pilot James Stringer. He is another Reno enthusiast who takes a long- haul flight to come each year. Stringer has a half-share in a U.S.-based RV Rocket 6 that he races here. Home in the UK, he owns a standard RV-6 that he built himself. The Sport class was won this year by Andrew Findlay flying a Lancair Super Legacy at 390.7 mph. Rocket 6 The Rocket 6 flown by UK-based pilot James Stringer taxis for takeoff and the Sport class race. The next most numerous entry was for the Formula 1 class, won this year by Lowell Slatter flying "Fraed Naught" at an average 243 mph to beat 25 other contenders. There were 15 entrants for the T-6 class, won by Chris Rushing in an AT-6B at 235 mph. The final-day "gold" race for the Biplane class was canceled due to high winds. The "silver" race the day before was won by Alan Hoover in a Pitts S-1. T-6 Fifteen Harvards and Texans contested this year's T-6 race. A new racing class next year will be the STOL Drag aircraft. They made a preliminary appearance this year, showing off their bizarre oversized wheels and shock-absorbing struts. They can land in just a few feet. Toby Roberts built his own Carbon Cub with the help of three friends in only 81 days. He told AIN that most owners are self-funded. He flies into fields with four-foot-high grass in the Alaskan outback, to shoot moose. Unfortunately, the Polish-built PZL Wilga belonging to current STOL Drag world champion Mike Patey was destroyed on takeoff after the races. Patey, his wife, and another passenger were unhurt. PZL Wilga This PZL Wilga STOL Drag aircraft was destroyed on takeoff after the show. These uniquely modified machines will form a new racing class at Reno next year. If spectators get tired of the racers, there is plenty more to interest them at this show. The U.S. armed forces bring combat aircraft, helicopters, and airlifters for static display. This year, the U.S. Air Force flew the Thunderbirds F-16 demo team. There was also a static display of immaculately restored vintage aircraft, competing for the National Aviation Heritage Invitational Award. This year's honors went to Chris Galloway and his 1931 Waco QCF. A-10 Thunderbolt This A-10 Thunderbolt (also known as the "Warthog") was one of many US military aircraft that were available for inspection in the static park. Also on view were two Phenom business jets belonging to Embraer: a 100EV and a 300. Taylor Richards, a business development executive with Embraer, told AIN that the company sold a 300E at Reno last year. "We always get serious inquiries here and convert some of them into sales later," he said. his Cessna 195 was one of some 20 entrants for the National Aviation Heritage Invitational Award. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2019-10-01/reno-air-races- biplanes-jets Back to Top The B-57: This Was America's First Jet-Powered Bomber And it was put to very good use. Key Point: The U.S. Air Force officially retired the last training and reconnaissance B-57s in 1982. However, three specially modified WB-57F weather reconnaissance planes have remained active with NASA and were even deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 to serve as airborne command posts (BACANs). During World War II the speedy deHavilland Mosquito demonstrated that speed and altitude afforded a bomber better survivability than defensive machine guns. In 1944, the manufacturer English Electric began work on a turbojet-powered bomber to bring it to new heights and speeds. The result was a twin-engine Canberra bomber that would see action in dozens of Cold War conflicts. Though the United States Air Force already had B-45 Tornado jet bombers, it found the Canberra to be superior. The Martin Corporation arranged for license-production and eventually churned out 403 B-57 Canberras of all types. After the initial near-identical B-57A Canberra, the B-57B main production model entered Air Force service in 1955, differing from the British original in its J-65W-5 turbojets, its tandem seating arrangement under a bubble canopy, and a new rotary bomb rack in the internal bomb bay that could be quickly swapped out between missions. The Canberra's cigar-shaped fuselage mounted extremely broad, elliptical wings. These housed eight .50 caliber machineguns, replaced in later models by four 20-millimeter M39 cannons with 290 rounds each. The 13.5-ton jet could lug 6,000 pounds of bombs internally, and up to 4,000 pounds on four wing racks-though it usually operated with roughly half that payload. Furthermore, an air brake assisted dive bombing and low altitude attack runs, though the non-power-assisted controls demanded a lot of the pilots. The B-57 also sported a then-sophisticated rear-ward facing Radar Warning System, a chaff dispenser for decoy missiles, navigational and targeting radar, ejection seats. The bomber also included a toss bombing computer, allowing Canberras to pull up and chuck a nuclear bomb, then circle away in hopes of escaping the blast. Indeed, B-57s were rushed to Cold War hotspots during crises in Lebanon and over the Taiwan Straits. Impressively, the B-57B's maximum speed of 580-600 miles per hour and a service ceiling of 48,000 feet high matched first-generation F-80 jet fighters, but the Soviet- built MiG-15s encountered over Korea were faster and could fly just as high. Thus the B-57B and the similar B-57C and E trainer and target tug models began to be replaced by supersonic fighter-bombers after only three years in service. However, specialized reconnaissance Canberras proved more long-lasting, particularly the RB-57D which had gigantic 103-foot wide wings allowing it loft up to 70,000 feet high. These flew on strategic spy missions over the Soviet Union and China that lasted up to seven hours-though a Taiwanese RB-57D became the first aircraft destroyed in combat by a surface-to-air missile. An even larger RB-57F with 122-foot wide wings was also deployed, but the type was mostly replaced by the legendary U-2 spy plane. Canberras Comes to Vietnam The last two B-57B units, the 8th and 13th Bomber Squadrons, were deployed to Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines. After two apparent clashes between North Vietnamese and U.S. Navy (one later found to be a false radar contact), American President Johnson ordered a retaliatory naval air strike and had these B-57s deployed to Bien Hoa airbase on August 1964, despite a treaty forbidding deployment of U.S. warplanes to Vietnamese soil. Inauspiciously, two B-57s collided on landing at Bien Hoa, and another fatally crashed at the backup airstrip at Tan Son Nhut. Though not flying combat missions, the American bombers attracted hostile attention. On November 1, 1964, an NVA mortar team rained bombs on the planes for thirty minutes, destroying five B-57s, damaging fifteen, and killing six American and Vietnamese personnel. This and other incidents spurred the Johnson administration to counter-escalate. On February 19, 1965, B-57s struck Viet Cong targets in Phuoc Tuy Province. This was not only the first U.S. Air Force bombing raid of the Vietnam War, but the first ever airstrike ever performed by U.S. jet bombers. In March, Canberras struck targets in North Vietnam, then in April B-57s began scouring the Ho Chi Minh trail, the critical supply line running through Laos and Cambodia by which Hanoi supplied Viet Cong guerrillas in the south. C-123 and C-130 transport planes accompanied the B-57s, dropping flares to illuminate trucks on the trail, while EF-10B Skyknight jets jammed radar-guided anti-aircraft guns. B-57s could interdict traffic for four hours at a time using conventional bombs, napalm, rocket pods, and M35 and M36 incendiary cluster bombs that could shower a football- field-sized area with 180 thermite bomblets. A Vietnamese prisoner, shown the silhouette of the noisy jet, once reportedly said, "The screaming bird. It is the worst. It stays over the target so long. And it never runs out of bombs." But the night raiders faced thousands of cheap and effective automatic flak cannons deployed across Vietnam. These defenses were especially thick in North Vietnam, so much so that a special patch was devised to commemorate veterans of those raids. For instance, The B-57 piloted by Larry Mason narrowly averted disaster on a mission over Tchepon, Laos, as he described in a letter to his wife: "Target intelligence has confirmed that there were 37 mm and 57 mm anti-aircraft gun batteries and six 12.7 mm anti-aircraft gun batteries in the flack trap that got us. The truck on the road was used as bait to lure us into that trap. They had us point blank..." Flak knocked out one turbojet and set another aflame, disabled the landing gear controls, and badly wounded navigator Jere Joyner in the arm and leg. Realizing Joyner wouldn't survive an ejection, Mason limped his jet back to base and braced himself for a belly landing-only to discover that enemy fire had fortuitously jarred his landing gear down! The South Vietnamese Air Force (SVAF) also received several B-57s after a handful of personnel were hastily trained in their operation-including future Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky. The SVAF B-57s launched a single raid for propaganda purposes flown by American pilots. However, efforts to train Vietnamese crew were unsuccessful. After unit commander Major Nguyen Ngoc Bien was run over by his own bomber in a parking accident, the B-57s were transferred back to U.S. service. The worst B-57 accident by far occurred May 16, 1965, when a bomb detonated onboard a Canberra queued for takeoff at Bien Hoa, starting a chain reaction of explosions that annihilated two squadrons-worth of aircraft (ten B-57s, eleven A-1H Skyraiders, and an F-8 Crusader) and killed thirty-four personnel. Afterwards, B-57s were transferred first to Da Nang and then Pho Rang airbase, and reassigned to hit targets primarily in South Vietnam. During this period, Canberra crews reportedly were accompanied by the legendary Chuck Yeager. The B-57s were also joined by the Canberra B-20s of the Australian Air Force's No. 2 Bomber squadron, which used the call-sign 'Magpie.' The license-built B-20s had a glass nose through which a third crewmember used a World War II-era bombsight to drop bombs while flying level at high altitude. This method proved surprisingly accurate. The Aussies flew 11,963 combat missions before being withdrawn in June 1971, having suffered only two losses. By then, the Canberra was growing long in the tooth compared to F-4 Phantom fighters that were faster, heavier lifting and more maneuverable. The 13th Squadron was withdrawn in early in 1968, while the last nine aircraft in 8th Squadron followed in October 1969. Of ninety-four B-57Bs deployed to Vietnam, fifty-one-more than half- were lost, including thirty-eight to enemy fire. However, the Air Force then upgraded sixteen special B-57Gs with chin-mounted Forward-Looking Infrared Sensors and a laser-designator operated by a third crew member. This new equipment, dubbed 'Tropic Moon III,' gave Canberra's the capability to precisely target up to four laser-guided Paveway bombs. The guns were removed to save weight, though a side-firing 20-millimeter cannon turret was tested. The 13th Squadron was reformed, and in October 1970, eleven glossy black B-57Gs were deployed to Ubon, Thailand, and began flying interdiction missions over the Ho Chi Minh trail. Through 1972, they reported destroying 2,000 trucks for the loss of a single aircraft to a likely midair collision-but were outperformed by slower, more heavily armed AC-130 gunships that claimed twelve thousand trucks. While the B-57G was retired, it had helped pioneer night-attack and precision-strike techniques that are now routine in the U.S. military. The U.S. Air Force officially retired the last training and reconnaissance B-57s in 1982. However, three specially modified WB-57F weather reconnaissance planes have remained active with NASA and were even deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 to serve as airborne command posts (BACANs). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/b-57-was-americas-first-jet-powered-bomber- 85011 Back to Top Virgin Galactic Will Launch a Crewed Research Flight for Italy in 1st for Government-Private Spaceflight The mission could launch as early as next year. Virgin Galactic has booked a crewed research flight to suborbital space for the Italian Air Force that could fly in the next year. Virgin Galactic has one SpaceShipTwo (VSS Unity) in trials and is building a new ship (shown here). For the first time ever, a government agency has booked a crewed research flight aboard a commercial spacecraft. That agency is the Italian Air Force, which will send three people and a variety of scientific payloads to suborbital space aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo vehicle, perhaps as early as next year. The experiments include gear that will monitor how the shift from Earth gravity to microgravity affects the human body, Virgin Galactic representatives said today (Oct. 2) when announcing the deal. The flight will also haul equipment designed to investigate the chemistry of environmentally friendly fuels. "We're delighted to work with the Italian air force to further space-based research-and- technology development through this historic mission," Virgin Galactic CEO George Whitesides said in a statement. "The experiments they plan to test on SpaceShipTwo will expand our understanding of space science, and the researchers' active participation will demonstrate an important new avenue for space research," he added. "We are proud that Virgin Galactic is able to provide frequent access to space for this important work." Virgin Galactic's spaceflight system involves two vehicles, the six-passenger SpaceShipTwo and a carrier plane called WhiteKnightTwo. The carrier vessel transports the space plane to an altitude of about 50,000 feet (15,000 meters) and then drops it, at which point SpaceShipTwo powers up its rocket motor and cruises up to suborbital space. Passengers on SpaceShipTwo will be able to see the curvature of Earth against the blackness of space and experience a few minutes of weightlessness. Those few minutes are precious for researchers, who can conduct experiments in conditions impossible to recreate here on Earth's surface. The Italian researchers will be active participants in this work on the upcoming flight, Virgin Galactic representatives said: The spaceflyers will unclip from their seats and conduct the experiments during the brief microgravity stretch. A seat aboard SpaceShipTwo currently sells for $250,000, and more than 600 people have put down deposits to reserve a ticket. Virgin Galactic is still in the test-flight phase but looks poised to begin commercial operations soon. The company's latest SpaceShipTwo vehicle, VSS Unity, has already reached space twice, in December 2018 and February 2019. Technicians are touching up Unity's interior at Virgin's manufacturing facility in Mojave, California; the vehicle will be ferried to Spaceport America in New Mexico, the company's commercial hub, when this work is done, Virgin Galactic representatives have said. Unity is Virgin's second SpaceShipTwo. The first, VSS Enterprise, was destroyed during a test-flight accident in October 2014 that killed co-pilot Michael Alsbury and injured pilot Peter Siebold. Two more SpaceShipTwos are in production in Mojave. One of these vehicles should be ready to begin test flights in 2020, Virgin Galactic President Mike Moses told Space.com recently. The Italian air force deal isn't the first contract Virgin Galactic has signed with a government department. The company has flown NASA payloads to suborbital space, but no NASA folks went along for the ride. Government-funded crewed flights on commercial spacecraft will soon become relatively commonplace, if all goes according to plan - and not just to suborbital space. In 2014, NASA awarded both Boeing and SpaceX multibillion-dollar contracts to develop vehicles that will ferry agency astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). But those are primarily transport flights to the station, not research flights aboard the vehicles themselves. Development of both private capsules, Boeing's CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX's Crew Dragon, has proceeded more slowly than NASA had hoped; agency officials said in 2014 that they wanted at least one of the vehicles up and running by the end of 2017. But big milestones may be in sight; both spacecraft could launch their first crewed test flights to the ISS in the coming months. https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-italian-air-force-contract.html Back to Top RESEARCH SURVEY Dear Part 141 Flight School Senior Staff, The Ohio State University's Center of Aviation is conducting a comparative analysis of Part 141 program models through its student capstone course. The goal of the study is to better improve factors such as instructor retention, aircraft utilization, and general program attraction. All Part 141 flight schools are encouraged to participate! This survey is meant for Part 141 aviation program staff who have knowledge of current pay rates, CFI benefits, and fleet utilization data. The data received from this survey will be shared with collaborators, upon request. Although any feedback received will aid us in our analysis, all questions are considered optional. We understand that not all data requested may be available to you. We estimate this survey will take 20 minutes or less to complete. For more information or assistance with this survey, please contact Noel Benford at Benford.15@osu.edu. Survey https://qtrial2019q3az1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_aVR6Y5B50Lu23qd Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Dear Participants, You are being asked to participate in a research study to assess a pilot's trust in air traffic controllers. This study is expected to take approximately 5 minutes of your time. In order to participate, you must be a resident of the United States, at least 18 years old, and a certified pilot. 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 immediately destroyed. We appreciate your consideration and time to complete our study. Please click on or copy and paste the URL below: https://forms.gle/JmvoYiUBb3BfJbgY9 For more information, please contact: Brad Baugh, Ph.D. in Aviation Candidate baughfd0@my.erau.edu We appreciate your interest and participation! Curt Lewis