Flight Safety Information - June 29, 2023 No. 126 In This Issue : British Airways A380 from San Francisco declares emergency : Engine Mix-up Led To 737 Ditching : Not-So-Gentle-T-Storms : Update: Ramp Worker Ingested By Delta A319 Engine : Here's what we know so far about a plane that crashed near Southport : Aeroflot Flight 593: How A Family Cockpit Visit Brought Down An Airbus A310 : Global Aerospace's SM4 Aviation Safety Program Provides Insight on the Effects of Increased Demand and Fatigue on Pilots : A Grumman G-1159 Gulfstream II landed with the nose gear retracted. British Airways A380 from San Francisco declares emergency Image Credit: RadarBox A British Airways transatlantic flight inbound to London from San Francisco has declared an emergency as it passes Ireland inbound to the UK mainland. British Airways flight BA286, an Airbus A380 operating the long-haul route from San Francisco (SFO) to London Heathrow (LHR), declared a general emergency, squawking 7700 as it approached the UK mainland enroute. Flight BA286 declared the general emergency whilst in the cruise as it approached the British Isles. The aircraft is currently maintaining track to London Heathrow (LHR), on descent through FL280 as it passes the British Midlands region. Stay up to date with all things aviation & travel news by signing up for the AviationSource Newsletter, which will be launching in early July! Click the Image today to register your interest! Updates from the British Airways A380 Inbound to London Heathrow from San Francisco… The nature of the emergency is not known at this time. Aircraft in question is British Airways Airbus A380-841 registered G-XLEB; a 10 year old airframe belonging to the British flag carrier. Flight now passing through 10,000 feet on approach. Update #2 13:11 BST: The Airbus A380 has now returned to a normal squawk and has landed safely at London Heathrow after being given a priority landing, while the reason for the emergency code being used is still not known. Engine Mix-up Led To 737 Ditching By Russ Niles Published: June 18, 2023 Updated: June 19, 2023 The NTSB says the crew of a first-generation Boeing 737 that ditched in the ocean off Honolulu on July 2, 2021, mixed up which engine was underperforming on the plane and steadily reduced power to the good engine while trying to coax more out of the damaged one. The aircraft went down a few miles offshore and both pilots survived. According to the final report, the Transair cargo flight had just taken off from Honolulu with the first officer flying when they heard a thud and the pilot flying correctly assessed that the right engine had lost some power. As the crew worked the problem, the first officer reduced power on both engines to slow the plane to a target speed of 220 knots and subsequently mixed up the engines and told the captain it was the left engine that was affected. “The captain accepted the first officer’s assessment and did not take action to verify the information,” the report said. The captain took control but remained under the incorrect assumption that the good engine was on the right. He added throttle to the damaged engine and it responded somewhat but not enough to keep the plane in the air. Meanwhile, the undamaged left engine was near idle and he did not adjust the left throttle. There wasn’t enough power to keep the plane in the air and he ditched in the ocean. The report says the failure to verify which engine was affected was “likely the result of the captain’s high workload and stress.” Not-So-Gentle-T-Storms Let’s take a look at how one pilot underestimated a summer storm and ended up an NTSB statistic. What went wrong? What could he have done instead? By Tim Vasquez Published: June 26, 2023 On a warm summer afternoon, a two-ship flight consisting of a Beech A-36 Bonanza and a Piper PA-31 Navajo lifted off from Newport, Rhode Island. One made it through a looming storm; one didn’t. Short Trip The two airplanes made a gradual right turn to the southwest out over the grayish-blue waters of Rhode Island Sound. Aboard the Navajo was a 70-year-old real-estate developer specializing in high-end properties. He built his fortune designing homes for New York celebrities and owned several restaurants. His 70-year-old wife and their 22-year-old grandson, a Georgetown University student, were aboard. At the controls was a 47-year-old commercial pilot hired by the developer. He was instrument-rated with single- and multiengine privileges and had accumulated 3000 flight hours. The aircraft owner was a former pilot but no longer flew. A charter pilot from the same company flew the Bonanza, and aboard was the developer’s granddaughter, returning to Long Island after finishing her prep-school term. Both planes were carrying plastic tubs packed with her belongings. This two-ship flight was to cross the 56 miles from Newport to East Hampton Airport, on the far eastern end of New York’s Long Island. Usually, this was a quick 20-minute flight, but the western horizon was dark with the gray mass of a storm. The Bonanza pilot reported that the accident pilot and the owner had discussed the weather for an hour before departure. However, the FAA had no record of an official weather briefing, and no flight plan was filed. A weather advisory was already in effect half an hour before takeoff. The plan was to fly VFR southwest to the Sandy Point VOR on Block Island, then turn west and follow the coast to the East Hampton Airport. Shortly after takeoff, the accident pilot talked to Providence departure, who advised them that there was a “bad storm” over their destination. Heading southwest toward Block Island, the Navajo with the developer and his wife moved ahead and took the lead. Approaching Long Island, a dark, menacing scene filled the windshield. A powerful thunderstorm was covering much of the Hampton area. The gray, diffuse rain core blotted out the view of most of the island, and a broad, dark shelf cloud hung over the coast. The Navajo, approaching the storm’s leading edge, checked in with East Hampton Airport tower, reporting he was five miles out and at 500 feet and “coming in below” the thunderstorm. “Doesn’t look like there’ll be an issue,” he said to ATC. For undetermined reasons, the pilot decided to fly the Navajo directly toward the airport traffic pattern, taking a course that penetrated the storm’s core head-on. Nothing more was heard from the airplane. The Bonanza, following about two minutes in trail, talked to air traffic control and vectored clockwise around the storm. The airport was beginning to emerge from the storm’s backside by this time, and the airplane landed uneventfully. The Navajo wreckage was eventually located one mile off the beach in 50 feet of water. The fuselage was broken into multiple pieces, and both wings had separated from the fuselage at the wing root. The airplane, equipped with a Garmin MX20 MFD and a Garmin GNS 530 GPS, could display weather information. However, with all the electronics damaged and submerged in saltwater, no data could be retrieved, and it was unknown what the pilot was seeing. The crash sparked a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the grandson’s sister against the developer’s $150 million estate and the charter services operator. The case argued that the pilot and the aircraft owner “knowingly and intentionally flew the subject aircraft directly into the most dangerous depicted weather, rather than diverting to a different airport or altering the flight path to the destination.” At the time this article was written, the lawsuit was still in litigation. A Weather Perspective The NTSB investigators set to work during the weeks after the accident. An astute witness had taken a series of photos of the storm just ten minutes before the crash showing many details of the storm. (See the photograph at the top.) Among these features was a large, turbulent shelf cloud with ragged elements on the underside. This is a classic presentation of a forward propagating convective system driven by a large outflow region. Colored shading and red contours of this weather chart at the time of the accident correspond to areas of strong atmospheric forcing and possible weather development. The darker areas of the photo correspond to the area underneath the storm updraft itself that had tops of 47,000 feet according to FAA radar. These areas often have frequent cloud-to-ground lightning. The brighter regions beyond the dark region represent the rainy downdraft. The storm itself originated from eastern Connecticut and was moving directly southward. The weather charts showed an upper-level disturbance and cold conditions aloft, with a frontal system moving southward out of New England and New York. Analysis of the weather field showed strong vorticity and convergence over Long Island Sound as the thunderstorms crossed this region. It was fueled by a small but potent frontal low centered on New York City. To understand this better, consider the cold air aloft flowing southward out of Canada. This air tends to be colder than usual. Meanwhile, at the surface, winds may be out of the north, but there’s still significant heat and moisture. Temperatures were in the low 80s across Rhode Island, with dewpoints in the upper 60s. These are quite high for the northeast U.S. The definition of an unstable air mass is cold air overlying warm air, with a rapid decrease in temperature per unit of vertical distance. When temperatures fall rapidly in the vertical, the air mass is unstable. This is compounded further by high dewpoints, making it possible to convert the instability into kinetic motion through convective updrafts. Thunderstorm convection rises vertically to redistribute the heat. Putting warmer air in the upper troposphere and bringing cool brisk air to the surface relieves the imbalance and stabilizes the atmosphere. Storm Scale Weather The powerful thunderstorm that moved across the Hamptons was manifested by a cumulonimbus cloud containing an updraft. This is a plume of vertical motion fed by warm low-level inflow that is moving into the storm. The updraft represents the conversion of instability into vertical acceleration—the stronger the vertical movement, the greater the potential for severe weather. The measure of stability, CAPE, is directly correlated to updraft vertical velocity. Crisp, solid-looking cumulonimbus towers are also associated with strong updraft vertical velocity. As precipitation develops, a cold downdraft descends to the surface. The entrainment of rain, graupel, hail, and ice accelerates it even faster toward the ground. This downdraft spreads out horizontally as outflow producing cool gusty winds that we associate with storms. In very moist, tropical weather regimes, these storms tend to have diminished downdrafts and outflow, while storms with dry air aloft are likely to produce strong downdrafts. The storm that downed Delta Flight 191 in 1985 was associated with an intrusion of dry mid-level air, a rare occurrence for Dallas in the summer. This produces strong evaporative cooling of downdrafts. Likewise, the storm in Long Island in our case study was associated with slightly drier air moving southward from Canada in the middle troposphere. It wasn’t strong enough to produce microbursts and downbursts, but the outflow and its interaction with the environment were strong enough to create strong turbulence. The Bonanza pilot reported having to slow down due to the amount of turbulence ahead of the storm. Meteorologists weigh storms according to the balance between in-flow updraft energy and downdraft-outflow energy. Such storms are described as inflow-dominant, balanced, or outflow dominant. Weak outflow dominance is probably the most common type, especially in the summer in the southeast U.S. Updrafts move several miles in a different direction and re-develop, causing what’s known as a multicell storm cluster. These are also called “popcorn storms.” Since the new updraft location tends to pop up in random places, it’s hard to forecast precisely where new precipitation will develop. Forecasting them is a bit like playing “whack-a-mole.” In much more dynamic weather situations where dry air aloft is a factor, storms take on strong outflow dominance. This means that powerful outflow winds surge out from the storm, producing gusty winds or even damage. These winds are hazardous to aircraft in the local traffic pattern because they contain vortexes and rapid airspeed changes. This cross-section shows the outflow surging away from the storm. We can plot the different parts of a typical outflow wind as a vertical cross section diagram (shown above). This shows the outflow as a broad river flowing away from the storm. Its depth ranges from a few hundred to a few thousand feet. Frictional effects and overturning produce gusty winds near the ground. At the leading edge, we find a gust front, where the surface wind changes suddenly. While we can’t know exactly how all these elements were configured underneath the storm, the NTSB suggested that the accident airplane lost control while flying along the top of one of these outflow surges or after entering the precipitation and downdraft area.The sequence in which the Navajo lost control is unknown, but a stall, loss of control, or structural failure were the most likely culprits. The heavy weight of the aircraft also likely degraded the airplane’s performance. Lessons For Safety The first rule is never to fly into a storm without dedicated onboard radar equipment or, at the minimum, a sfericks system. This is something we’ve previously suggested. During all the years that I’ve spent combing NTSB reports for weather accidents, by far, the most significant cause of fatalities are pilots taking a risk and flying into storms without the proper tools. The fact that there are so many of these reports means that many pilots are still assessing storms as benign and manageable when they are not. One of the additional rules we often repeat is that satellite and ADS-B weather radar products are not designed for threading your way through a storm. During the time it takes to construct a radar mosaic, queue it for distribution, and send it to devices, the storm can quickly shift up to 10 miles. In a recent weather accident article, we highlighted a case where a storm was 30 miles from its last reported position. These displays are great for getting the big picture, but small-scale details need to be thought of as outdated. They’re best for determining generalized trends of a storm. The radar image near the time of the accident clearly shows the aircraft attempting to fly into a significant danger zone. At the time of this accident, the New York City NEXRAD radar was down 15 hours for maintenance. Neighboring radars like Boston, Albany, and Fort Dix were used to fill the gap. Storms in the New York City area were not well sampled, suffering from high beam altitudes and beam broadening effects at long distances. This can significantly affect radar mosaics and present a storm as weaker than it is. These effects start to become significant at about 80 miles from the radar, close to where the East Hampton storm was located in relation to the Boston radar. It’s yet another reason why having airborne radar is better. And if you need help, talk to the controller. They have radar displays with short latency. It’s particularly telling that in our case study, one aircraft coming in on the same track talked to the controller and added some margins for safety. The result was a route around the storm and an uneventful landing. The other aircraft tried winging it and didn’t make it, however, examples like this are rare. Know your tools, select them judiciously, and use the appropriate ones as needed. Thunderstorm safety guidelines in the AIM are built on a solid foundation of lessons learned from thousands of thunderstorm accidents and mishaps over the decades. All of this will go a long way towards keeping you safe once the wheels are up. Update: Ramp Worker Ingested By Delta A319 Engine By Russ Niles Published: June 26, 2023 Updated: June 27, 2023 For the second time in six months, an airline ramp worker has been ingested by a jet engine. The FAA has confirmed the Delta Air Lines worker was killed at the San Antonio Airport late Friday. “An airport ramp worker was involved in an accident in the gate area at San Antonio International Airport around 10:30 p.m. local time on Friday, June 23, while a jetliner was pulling up to the terminal. Delta Flight 1111, an Airbus A319, had just arrived from Los Angeles International Airport,” the FAA said in a statement. The NTSB released a statement saying the aircraft was taxiing to the gate on one engine when the incident occurred. Update: On Monday (June 26) the Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled the death of the ramp worker to be a suicide. Accordingly, the National Transportation Safety Board has canceled its investigation into the incident. “There were no operational safety issues with the airplane or the airport,” the NTSB wrote in a statement. Meanwhile, American Airlines has been fined $15,565 by the Occupational Health and Safety Association (OSHA) for safety violations in the death of a Piedmont Airlines ramp worker on Dec. 31, 2022. The NTSB preliminary report said the worker had been told in two separate meetings just before the arrival of the aircraft to stay away from the engines on the Envoy E175 until they had been shut down and the aircraft’s beacon was off. Piedmont and Envoy are both wholly owned American subsidiaries. One of the pilots also warned the ramp agent that the engines were still running. The report said the mother of three was carrying a safety cone when she was plucked off her feet and ingested by the engine. Here's what we know so far about a plane that crashed near Southport Jamey Cross Wilmington StarNews Photos: Plane crashes in neighborhood near Southport A single-engine plane crashed Sunday near Southport leaving the pilot dead, officials confirmed Monday. Here's what we know about the incident so far. What happened? The plane, a single-engine Mooney M20R, took off from the Cape Fear Regional Jetport at 4:15 p.m. on Sunday, June 25, according to a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration. The pilot radioed the jetport a few minutes into the flight requesting to come back, but he didn't make it, said Howie Franklin, director of the Cape Fear Regional Jetport. More:As plane wreckage removed from Brunswick neighborhood, what's next in the investigation? Where did the plane crash? The plane crashed into a home about 1.5 miles from the jetport. The home at 4437 Frying Pan Road sustained some damage. Southport Fire Department officials arrived on scene Sunday and found the plane “fully engulfed in flames.” The exterior of the home was on fire, but its three occupants evacuated without injury. Crews had the fire contained within 15 minutes, officials said. The occupants were permitted to reenter the home by Sunday evening. More:Neighbor describes plane crash near Southport that killed pilot Was anyone else on board the aircraft? The pilot was the only person aboard the plane when it crashed, and he was pronounced dead at the scene. His name had not yet been released as of Tuesday morning. What's happening now? The Federal Aviation and the National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the crash. Crews arrived from Atlanta Air Recovery to retrieve the wreckage Tuesday morning. Peter Knudson, a spokesman for the NTSB, said a preliminary report would be released in two to three weeks, but the investigation would take one to two years to complete. Aeroflot Flight 593: How A Family Cockpit Visit Brought Down An Airbus A310 BY JUSTIN HAYWARD, JAKE HARDIMAN , AND LUKE BODELL UPDATED 13 HOURS AGO Visiting the cockpit used to be a common experience. However, one such incident led to a horrific crash of an Aeroflot A310. Photo: contri via Wikimedia Commons Many people remember when you could visit the cockpit during a flight. This has now generally been prohibited for many years, and cockpit access is much more secure these days. However, one unfortunate cockpit visit stands out when one of the pilot's children was allowed to take control – with devastating results. Aeroflot Flight 593 background The incident happened onboard an Aeroflot Airbus A310 aircraft on March 23rd, 1994. The aircraft carried registration F-OGQS and had only entered service with the airline at the end of 1992. At the time, Aeroflot had recently welcomed five A310s in its fleet and handpicked an elite group of two-dozen pilots to fly its new Western planes. The A310 was operating Aeroflot Flight 593 from Sheremetyevo International Airport, Moscow, to Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong. There were 63 passengers onboard (40 Russian nationals and 23 foreigners), plus nine flight attendants and three pilots. Piloting the aircraft on that evening was captain Andrey Viktorovich Danilov, 40, first officer Igor Vasilyevich Piskaryov, 33, and relief pilot Yaroslav Vladimirovich Kudrinsky, 39. Two of the passengers onboard were the children of relief pilot Kudrinsky – his sixteen-year-old son Eldar and 12-year-old daughter Yana. A few hours into the flight, they visited their father in the cockpit – while this in itself was technically not permitted under Russian aviation regulations, in those days it was not unusual to give younger passengers a cockpit tour. By this point, Captain Danilov had exited the cockpit to sleep, giving up his position to Kudrinsky, who was to be accompanied by Piskaryov for the rest of the flight. Stay informed: Sign up for our daily and weekly aviation news digests. What was unusual and dangerous was that Yaroslav allowed his children to sit in the pilot's seat and handle the aircraft's controls. The autopilot was engaged at the time, but Yaroslav clearly wanted to entertain his children and give them the impression they were flying the plane. The details of what happened next are based on transcripts from the cockpit voice recorder. His daughter, Yana, took the controls first. Yaroslav adjusted the heading on the autopilot to turn the aircraft while she was at the controls, but the autopilot remained engaged. His son, Eldar, then did the same but applied much more force to the control column. This disengaged autopilot control of the aircraft ailerons, leaving Eldar partially in control. This caused the aircraft to bank right - pilots were initially unaware anything was wrong as the A310's silent indicator went off. The pilots became confused as the flight path depiction shown on the screen changed to show a 180-degree turn. In the time it took to realize the problem, the aircraft's bank angle had steepened past 45 degrees to almost 90 degrees. The Airbus A310, like most commercial aircraft, could not handle such a steep bank angle. The aircraft started to descend rapidly. With the autopilot disengaged from aileron control, it tried to compensate by pitching up and increasing thrust. The airline industry is always full of new developments! What aviation news will you check out next? The aircraft began to stall and automatically switched into a dive to recover. The pilots then regained control and attempted to pull out of the dive. They succeeded, but the first officer - who had the least flight hours on an A310 at 440 hours - over-compensated and again stalled the aircraft. This time, the steep angle caused the aircraft to spin. Again, the pilots managed to recover, but the aircraft had lost too much altitude. It crashed into the Kuznetsk Alatau mountain range in Kemerovo Oblast, killing everyone onboard - the entire tragic situation had unfolded in just two-and-a-half minutes. Photo: Dean Morley via Flickr Cause of the crash Obviously, the children's actions and their distractions in the cockpit were contributing factors. Allowing them to take any form of control was against regulations. There was no evidence of a technical failure of any sort found. Sadly, it was also reported that if the pilots had left the controls to the autopilot, rather than try and correct them manually, it would have recovered the situation. It is also worth noting that the Airbus A310 was the first Western-made aircraft to join the Aeroflot fleet - up until the early 1990s, the Russian carrier had only operated domestically produced planes, such as the Yakovlev Yak-42, Tupolev Tu-54 and Ilyushin Il-86. However, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 enabled the carrier to invest in Western planes, but its pilots were not experienced in handling foreign aircraft. According to a report from Flight International, each pilot had an average of 900 hours logged on the Airbus A310, with training provided by Lufthansa. Aeroflot initially denied the presence of any children in the cockpit, and early reports claimed 64 passengers were booked onboard (only 63 showed up) hinting at a terrorist bomb plot - however, the cockpit voice recorder transcript was made public and the events leading up to the crash were revealed. Similar accidents As it happens, there have been multiple instances whereby cockpit carelessness has led to significant loss of life. Indeed, less than a decade before Aeroflot flight 593 crashed, another one of the carrier's aircraft was lost in similar circumstances. In 1986, a Tupolev Tu-134 (and 70 of its 94 occupants) were lost after its Captain bet the First Officer that he could land with the cockpit curtains closed. Meanwhile, in October 2004, a Pinnacle Airlines Bombardier CRJ200 operating a repositioning flight crashed after its pilots deliberately pushed the regional jet beyond its operational limits. This caused it to come down near Jefferson City, Missouri following a dual-engine flameout. Both pilots perished as a result. In 2017, two Air Algerie were suspended after allowing a 10-year-old orphan boy to fly a commercial plane. The boy's experience was reportedly funded by a charity and captured on film by a local TV station - one of the pilots would later confirm that the boy had partial control of the aircraft during the flight, and it wasn't just a stunt for the cameras. Inflight cockpit visits became a thing of the past after security was heightened following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, so a repeat of Aeroflot Flight 593 is unlikely. However, the Pinnacle Airlines flight was a positioning leg with no passengers that took place three years after 9/11. This reinforces the need to always fly professionally, even on sectors with no one onboard the aircraft but the pilots. Understanding the Effect of Increased Aviation Demand and Fatigue on Pilots Morris Plains, NJ --News Direct-- KISS PR Brand Story The COVID-19 pandemic has taken its toll on the aviation industry, with travel restrictions and flight cancellations severely impacting air travel over the past three years. Business aviation was one of the most impacted air travel sectors, as organizations opted for virtual meetings or found other ways to engage remotely with their clients and colleagues. Female aviator in uniform with her head down feeling fatigued and stressed. However, business travel has since rebounded, with many companies reporting that corporate travel budgets have returned to pre-pandemic levels despite the increased cost of airfare, according to Morgan Stanley. Executives at Airbus Corporate Jets anticipate that 2023 will see a higher number of business professionals choosing to fly on private or chartered flights. While surely welcome, what impact does this resurgence of flight demand have on the well-being of pilots? Pilot Shortages and Fatigue Even before the pandemic, it was predicted that a shortage of pilots was forthcoming, as members of the baby-boom generation neared the federally mandated retirement age of 65. At the same time, the costs and time required to obtain a pilot certification have continued to rise, serving as a major deterrent for individuals considering aviation as a career choice. The broader airline industry estimated a shortage of nearly 8,000 pilots in 2022. Unfortunately, this shortage is likely to persist. Analysts predict that the industry will be faced with a shortage of nearly 24,000 pilots by the year 2026, which is equivalent to the elimination of approximately 23% of the current pilot workforce. With decreasing availability of qualified labor and rising air travel demand, the industry is acutely feeling the challenge. And pilots are carrying the burden with more work hours, declining productivity and increased fatigue. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects the airline industry as a whole to post a net profit of $4.7 billion in 2023. Perhaps this inflow of capital will help stimulate new investments to help tackle the problem of pilot fatigue. Ultimately, it is up to air operators to create safer working conditions for pilots and attract the skilled personnel needed to meet air travel demand safely and reliably. The Causes of Pilot Fatigue While the persistent shortage of pilots plays a significant role in pilot fatigue, there are other factors to consider. Flight delays due to antiquated IT systems and scheduling issues are also to blame. In April 2022, the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association reported record-setting fatigue levels. According to the organization’s president, Casey Murray, “A lot of our delays and issues that we’re having have to do with scheduling and connecting pilots with airplanes. It is inefficient scheduling processes that are affecting when we work in a very dynamic environment.” This is becoming not only a problem for aviation in the United States but globally. According to the Australian Transport Bureau, a third of pilots have reported removing themselves from duty because of fatigue, an action they unfortunately felt was looked down upon by superiors. On top of scheduling practices, an often overlooked source of pilot fatigue is individual factors. A new baby at home. Online courses. A medical condition that makes it difficult to achieve high-quality sleep. The list of what can influence a pilot’s ability to get adequate rest each day is long and varied, but the fact remains: Arriving for duty rested and alert is as much a function of what’s going on at home as it is linked to the schedule at work. Just losing 30 to 60 minutes of sleep a night can quickly create a sleep debt that contributes to pilot fatigue. Managing Pilot Fatigue Amid Increasing Air Travel Demand As part of their overarching commitment to safety, air operators have a duty to remain aware of the dangers of pilot fatigue and take the necessary steps to mitigate risk. A key step toward this objective is to implement a comprehensive Fatigue Risk Management Program (FRMP). An FRMP employs multi-layered defensive strategies to manage fatigue-related risks regardless of their source. It includes data-driven, ongoing adaptive processes that can identify fatigue hazards as they appear, perform risk assessments, implement and evaluate controls and mitigation strategies and monitor performance. A successful FRMP allows the organization to conduct operations not only more safely, but also more efficiently. This flexibility is crucial to help the organization meet rising demand with resources that are fixed or expanding more gradually. A guide for utilizing fatigue risk management systems created in partnership with IATA, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) can help aviation businesses implement these invaluable tools. Pulsar Informatics helps air operators develop and implement a complete FRMP that integrates fatigue risk management directly into their workflows. Our products are designed to enable operators to actively manage fatigue to not only improve safety and save costs but also manage growing demand and help meet evolving regulatory requirements. Contact us today to learn how an FRMP can deliver benefits to your organization. About Global Aerospace SM4 Aviation Safety Program The Global Aerospace SM4 Safety Program has revolutionized the way insurance specialists help their clients achieve higher levels of operational safety. SM4 was built on the concept of integrating four critical safety components: planning, prevention, response and recovery. Its mission is to help organizations manage risk, enrich training efforts, strengthen safety culture and improve safety management systems. https://sm4.global-aero.com/ Global Aerospace's SM4 Aviation Safety Program Provides Insight on the Effects of Increased Demand and Fatigue on Pilots A Grumman G-1159 Gulfstream II landed with the nose gear retracted. Date:27-JUN-2023Time:c. 16:15 LTType: Grumman G-1159 Gulfstream II Owner/operator:Fiscalía General de la República (FGR)Registration:XC-LPYMSN:161 Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 6 Other fatalities:0 Aircraft damage:MinorLocation: Santa Lucía-Felipe Ángeles International Airport (NLU/MMSM) - Mexico Phase:LandingNature:Executive Departure airport:Monterrey-General Mariano Escobedo International Airport (MTY/MMMY) Destination airport:Mexico City-Benito Juárez International Airport (MEX/MMMX) Confidence Rating: Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources Narrative: A Grumman G-1159 Gulfstream II, operated by the Attorney General of Mexico, landed at Santa Lucía-Felipe Ángeles International Airport (NLU/MMSM) with the nose gear retracted. The aircraft, with six occupants on board, had taken off from Monterrey International Airport (MTY/MMMY) and was en route to Mexico City International Airport (MEX/MMMX) when it experienced problems with the nose landing gear extension. The aircraft made an approach to MMMX and subsequently diverted to Santa Lucia where it landed on runway 22C without injury to the occupants. Curt Lewis