February 21, 2024 - No. 08 In This Issue : Emergency AD Issued For PT6 Turbine Blade Failures : California FBOs Told To Stop Selling 100LL, Switch To G100UL : NTSB Disputes FAA $741.28 Million Estimate On 25-Hour CVR Rule : V-22 OSPREY IS FACING AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE DESPITE ITS UNIQUE CAPABILITY : Several customers are interested in restarting C-17 Globemaster III production, Boeing says : Murphy’s Law and the search for an unleaded fuel for general aviation : United A321s’ “no smoking” signs work too well : Ellsworth AFB moves B-1 bombers to Texas amid crash probe : https://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/job/grand-prairie/proposal-analyst/694/61277314960 : Snake gets tangled around tailwheel of Coast Guard helicopter in Florida Emergency AD Issued For PT6 Turbine Blade Failures By Amelia Walsh Published: February 17, 2024 Updated: February 18, 2024 Transport Canada issued an emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) on Feb. 15 mandating the grounding of aircraft equipped with certain Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) PT6 turboprop engines until turbine blade replacements are conducted. The move comes as there have been reports of three PT2 blade failures, which were all contained. P&WC says it is investigating the root cause of the failures but in its preliminary investigation, the power turbine modules in all event engines contained newly manufactured part number blades from the same raw material. All had also accumulated less than 25 hours air time since new. According to the AD, “Failure of PT2 blades could lead to engine power loss or in-flight shut down, potentially resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.” P&WC parent company RTX said the order affects some 160-180 PT6A and PT6E turboprops. Affected PT2 blades are listed in the AD and “have accumulated less than 50 hours air time since new, or since shop visit, or since second-stage power turbine repair.” Operators are required to replace the affected blades “prior to the next flight,” according to the AD. California FBOs Told To Stop Selling 100LL, Switch To G100UL By Russ Niles Published: February 17, 2024 Updated: February 19, 2024 Lawyers for a California environmental group say most if not all FBOs in California will be required to replace 100LL with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI’s) G100UL starting in the first half of 2024 thanks to a nine-year-old court ruling. That consent judgment, issued in favor of the Center for Environmental Health in December of 2014 by the California Superior Court in Alameda, says that as soon as there’s an approved commercially available replacement for 100LL, FBOs have to stop selling 100LL. CEH’s lawyers have sent notice to all California FBOs to switch to G100UL as soon as it becomes commercially available to them. If they don’t, they could be found in contempt and face heavy fines. GAMI head of engineering George Braly said Vitol Aviation, the producer/refiner now licensed to produce G100UL, is scheduled to produce large batches of the fuel later in the spring. Braly said it will “take a few months” to ramp up production and to supply all of the dozens of fuel sellers covered by the order, after which it will be able to maintain a steady supply to them. CEH filed a lawsuit in 2011 against all the 100LL fuel sellers in California for exposing people to lead, and three years later settled the case. The settlement required anyone selling 100LL to post signs explaining the lead content and attendant risks. It also requires that “Settling Defendants distribute and sell the airplane fuel with the lowest lead content that is Commercially Available.” In its December 2023 letter to the FBOs and other fuel distributors, CEH lawyer Mark Todzo said G100UL fulfills those requirements. “It can and should therefore serve as a lower lead replacement for the 100LL fuel you are presently distributing,” the letter says. “Production of G100UL has now begun such that it will be available to [those named in the order] for distribution and sale in California by early 2024.” We have contacted major FBO chains by email for comment but may not hear from them until after the long weekend. As we reported last week, GAMI signed a production agreement with Vitol late last year and became the first licensed producer of the fuel. The company has received all the necessary approvals to make and distribute G100UL. Braly said the raw cost of the components in the fuel vary with the price of crude oil but over the past year have averaged 85 cents to $1.15 per gallon more to make than 100LL. It’s not clear how that will translate to the price at the pump after going through wholesale, distribution and retailing steps in the supply chain. Aircraft operators will also have to buy an STC for each airplane using G100UL and the cost depends on the horsepower of the engine(s) on the aircraft. AOPA and a major California flight school, California Aeronautical University, are demonstrating the fuel in a pair of Beech Barons at the Buckeye Air Fair in Arizona over the weekend. NTSB Disputes FAA $741.28 Million Estimate On 25-Hour CVR Rule Marisa Garcia Senior Contributor Feb 14, 2024,06:20am EST PORTLAND, OREGON - JANUARY The National Transportation Safety Board has once again urged the Federal Aviation Administration to mandate that all aircraft equipped with a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder can record 25 hours of audio. The current standard only records two hours and then overwrites the recording. This means critical information could be lost, as was the case in the recent Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX accident. The FAA has announced plans to require 25-hour CVRs but limited the rule to newly built aircraft, citing cost estimates of $741.28 million if the rule were to include a retrofit requirement. The NTSB believes the rule should extend to existing airplanes equipped with CVRs and flight data recorders and disputes the FAA’s cost analysis. 25-Hour CVRs Required Internationally First introduced in 1966 with 30 minutes of taped recording time, the technology of Cockpit Voice Recorders has improved significantly. The most recent models use advanced solid-state memory that can be easily expanded. They also have a unique recording system with a built-in battery so they can keep working even if the plane's electrical system fails. Given international requirements for extended CVR recording, many companies are already making CVRs that can record for 25 hours. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency and the International Civil Aviation Organization have set a minimum recording time of 25 hours for heavier long-haul aircraft made after January 1, 2021, specifically those with a maximum certificated takeoff mass of more than 27,000 kg long-haul planes. The FAA's proposed rule would align with these standards for 25-hour CVRs, but because the FAA issues rules by operation type rather than aircraft type, the requirement would apply more broadly. The FAA is required to perform a cost analysis on any significant rule it might introduce. To avoid a significant economic impact of the 25-hour CVR rule, the FAA has limited the proposed rule to new planes manufactured one year after the rule goes into effect. At Least 14 Accident Investigations Hampered By Limited CVR Recordings In its comments to the FAA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the 25-hour CVRs, the NTSB says investigations into at least 14 accidents, including the January 5 Alaska AirlinesALK +3.7% accident, were hindered by the lack of CVR data to analyze flight crew actions and decision-making processes. The FAA argues that requiring a retrofit of existing planes would pose an excessive cost burden. “Applying a $25,000 CVR unit cost spread across the estimated 29,651 current fleet would result in roughly $741.28 million (undiscounted) in equipment cost compared to the $195.62 million (undiscounted) in incremental upgrade costs from the proposed rule. Retrofitting current aircraft would also incur additional costs, such as aircraft downtime and labor hours required to replace the CVR unit, which would further increase the total cost,” the FAA states in the NPRM. However, the NTSB disputes that figure, saying if the retrofit rule applied only to aircraft that are required to have both a CVR and FDR, then the affected fleet would be 13,500 airplanes. “The 5-year retrofit period would also allow operators the flexibility to schedule replacement of 2-hour CVRs during regular CVR maintenance, which would further reduce compliance costs,” the NTSB states in its comments to the FAA. Consequently, the NTSB urges the FAA to revise its cost-benefit analysis and consider a rule including new and existing aircraft to ensure comprehensive coverage and enhanced safety outcomes. Lost Audio On Alaska Airlines Investigation NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy emphasized the importance of preserving CVR audio for understanding the challenges faced by flight crews during emergencies. “In the recent Alaska Airlines door plug blowout accident, our investigators don’t have the CVR audio to fully understand all of the challenges the flight crew faced in response to the emergency,” Homendy said in an NTSB statement. “Any investigation in which the CVR audio is overwritten and unavailable to us, means that we may miss opportunities to address safety issues identified on recordings. And that’s unacceptable.” The NTSB first recommended the FAA mandate 25-hour CVRs in 2018, prompted by a near-collision at San Francisco International Airport involving an Air Canada flight in 2017 where the time-limited recording led to overwritten CVR data. “CVRs are among the most valuable tools for accident investigation because they provide contemporaneous information on flight crew intentions and coordination as well other factors, such as procedural compliance, workload, fatigue, and situational awareness,” Tim LeBaron, director of the NTSB’s Office of Aviation Safety said in the NTSB statement. “This information is critical to our ability to conduct more thorough investigations and target safety recommendations more effectively.” V-22 OSPREY IS FACING AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE DESPITE ITS UNIQUE CAPABILITY GEAR & TECH, SPECIAL OPERATIONS BY STAVROS ATLAMAZOGLOU FEBRUARY 14, 2024 The first ever take-off of a V-22 Osprey aboard the USS Ashland (LSD-48), underway in the Leyte Gulf, Philippines. Aviation Boatswain's Mate Handling Airman Jennifer L. Confer, of Buffalo, NY, directs the first-ever launch of this type aircraft aboard. ABHAN Confer is the Landing Signalman Enlisted member chosen to direct this operation.(U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist AllenOnstott/RELEASED) The CV-22 Osprey, one of the most unusual but fascinating aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, is looking to get back into action after another fatal mishap. A tiltrotor aircraft used to support special operators and Marines, the V-22 Osprey has been in active service for almost 20 years. However, its future is uncertain after a series of mishaps. The grim casualty total is 50 troops since the aircraft started its designing and production journey. Alarmingly, in the past two years, 20 troops, or almost 50 percent of the total casualties, have been killed in four V-22 Osprey mishaps. BACK IN ACTION, BUT FOR HOW LONG? In November, an AFSOC CV-22 Osprey crashed off the coast of Japan, killing all eight Air Commandos on board. That was the final straw for the Pentagon, which grounded the entire V-22 Osprey fleet until experts determine the causes of the November mishap. The crash was the latest incident in a long history of accidents for the V-22 Osprey family. “There is a strong desire to return to fly because that is a capability we want to have, but we want to be able to return to fly with as much knowledge as we possibly can so that we can ensure that we are safely taking care of our crews as it goes forward,” Lieutenant General Tony Bauernfeind, the commander of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), said at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Warfare Symposium conference this week. AFSOC’s commander said that the CV-22 brings an important capability to the table and right now fulfills a role that no other special operations asset can. However, there is palpable concern in the special operations community about the aircraft. The Osprey fleet, after all, has been grounded three times in the past year. The head of AFSOC highlighted that safety is his number one priority. “I can tell you right now, nothing is more important to me than the safety of our air commandos. And when the time is right, when we make that decision to return to fly, it will be with me having the full confidence not only in our training, but our crews, as well as the platform and the new mitigation measures that we have in place,” Bauernfeind said. “We’re very confident in the mitigation steps that we’ve done,” the head of AFSOC concluded. “People are more important than hardware. That’s one of our SOF Truths. Going off that, if we need to retire the Osprey, then we should do it and move on to a new platform that won’t be so dangerous,” an Army Special Forces non-commissioned officer told Sandboxx News. The special operations community needs a reliable fleet of transport helicopters. Although the Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR) is shouldering much of the special operations transport duties with its MH-47 Chinooks and MH-60 Black Hawks, it can’t do everything by itself. The Pentagon likely intends the Bell V-280 Valor as a replacement for the V-22 Osprey. Also, a tiltrotor aircraft, the V-280 Valor, is still under development. Related: Part-time commando makes history by breaking 3,000 flight hours in the Osprey THE V-22 OSPREY IS AN UNUSUAL AIRCRAFT Marines with Expeditionary Operations Training Group prepare for Helicopter Rope Suspension Techniques from a Japan Ground Self Defense Force V-22 Osprey at Stone Bay, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Feb. 12, 2020. The JGSDF trained with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204 to expand mission capabilities. EOTG is a part of II Marine Expeditionary Force. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Ethan Pumphret) The V-22 Osprey isn’t your run-of-the-mill helicopter. Instead of one main rotor on top of the fuselage, the V-22 has two on its wings. Further, these main rotors aren’t static but can be used in an upward mode (like a rotary-winged aircraft) or forward mode (like a fixed-wing aircraft). The idea behind the V-22 Osprey was to have a platform with the capabilities of both a helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft: Designers sought to combine the speed, range, and operational ceiling of a fixed-wing aircraft with the flexibility of a helicopter. The development of the CV-22 Osprey began with the Joint Services Advanced Vertical Lift Aircraft (JSAVL) program back in the early 1980s and the prototypes first flew in 1989. But as the program continued to develop in the 1990s and early 2000s, repeated setbacks, including fatal crashes, caused problems with the aircraft’s development. Despite these setbacks, the Air Force and Marine Corps accepted their first operational aircraft in 2006. The V-22 Osprey has a crew of four and can carry up to 32 fully-equipped troops, which translates to almost two Army Special Forces A-Teams or a Marine rifle platoon. There are three versions of the Osprey aircraft: the MV-22, which is the conventional version of the aircraft; the CMV-22, which is the naval version; and the CV-22 the special operations iteration. In total, more than 400 Ospreys are in service across the U.S. military; they have accumulated over 600,000 flight hours in 15 years. The Marine Corps uses the most Ospreys. Besides the U.S. military, the Japanese self-defense forces use the V-22 Osprey as the only foreign partner. Several customers are interested in restarting C-17 Globemaster III production, Boeing says By Dario Leone Feb 14 2024 In this article: • C-17 Globemaster III production • Customers interested in restarting C-17 Globemaster III production • P-8A Poseidon could be the next C-17 • The C-17 Globemaster III C-17 Globemaster III production A Boeing senior official recently said that almost half a decade after it delivered its last new-build C-17, the company still receives enquiries about potentially reviving production of the strategic transport. As reported by Flight Global, due to lack of orders, Boeing decided in 2013 to end production and completed output at its at Long Beach, California final assembly facility by building several “white tails” ahead of securing contracts from customers. The last example was transferred to the Indian air force in August 2019. Customers interested in restarting C-17 Globemaster III production Boeing’s vice-president and general manager services Torbjorn Sjogren said at the World Defense Show near Riyadh in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 5, 2024 that “There are a number of other customers who wish they had acquired it at the time.” “The C-17 is a product that does come up quite often. If we still had a lukewarm production line there are a number of customers who have expressed interest,” he explained. “There are discussions periodically about could you restart the line, where would you restart the line, what would it cost. We go through those reviews, but restarting a production line that has been dormant for quite some time is extremely expensive,” Sjogren added. “To get new aircraft like that into the market is going to take some time,” he explained. P-8A Poseidon could be the next C-17 Sjogren said that, thanks to the support of the type via a global performance-based logistics deal provided by Boeing, the mission readiness of the operational C-17 fleet “is amongst the highest in the world.” Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (three of the six Gulf Cooperation Council member nations) operate the C-17. As told by Sjogren Saudi Arabia also came “very close” to confirming an order prior to production ending. Noteworthy the company’s P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft could be “the next C-17:” in fact Vince Logsdon, Boeing Defense Space & Security vice-president risk of potential customers missing out when production of the 737NG-based model comes to an end. The C-17 Globemaster III The C-17 Globemaster III made its maiden flight on Sep. 15, 1991, and the first production model was delivered to Charleston Air Force Base, now identified as Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina, on Jun. 14, 1993. The first squadron of C-17s, the 17th Airlift Squadron, was declared operationally ready Jan. 17, 1995. The Air Force originally programmed to buy 120 C-17s. Due to the unrivaled success of the C-17 to accomplish various mobility missions, additional aircraft were acquired, resulting in a final fleet of 223 aircraft. The C-17 is operated by Air Mobility Command from Travis AFB, California; Dover AFB, Delaware. Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington; Joint Base Charleston, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Pacific Air Forces operates C-17s from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, and Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. The Air National Guard operates C-17s from Jackson, Mississippi, Stewart ANG Base, New York, Memphis, Tennessee, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Charlotte, North Carolina. The Air Force Reserve Command operates C-17s at March Air Reserve Base, California, and Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio. Air Force Materiel Command has one C-17 on loan from JB Charleston, S.C., to conduct tests at Edwards AFB, California. Air Education and Training Command performs C-17 aircrew training from Altus AFB, Oklahoma. Murphy’s Law and the search for an unleaded fuel for general aviation By Ben Visser February 12, 2024 When I was working for Shell, I had a sign hanging on my office wall that quoted Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” Under it I hung another sign that said “Murphy was an optimist.” This brings me to a much-asked question about the unleaded replacement for 100LL: What could possibly go wrong? There are many things that could go wrong in just the supply and production of the product. But from a technical aspect, I think that there are three main concerns: 1. Knocking 2. Component incompatibility 3. Exhaust valve recession Many people think that as long as the new unleaded fuel meets the 100 lean rating specification (spec) it will have equal performance in the field as 100LL. The problem here is that an octane rating is not a physical property of a fuel. It is a number based on how well the fuel did in a test engine. And a fuel may not perform the same in a single cylinder test engine at 900 rpm as it does in a 2000 cubic inch super charged radial at 2800 rpm. For example, when 100/130 fuel was replaced by 100/130LL, there where numerous knocking complaints, especially from the radial engine people. Many of them had to reduce the maximum boost pressure allowed on takeoff to eliminate the knocking. This, in turn, reduced the useful load allowed and the profitability of the aircraft. A Continental R-670-5 220-hp radial engine on a Boeing PT-17 Stearman. (Photo by Daderot via Wikimedia) The other problem is how does one determine when an aircraft engine is knocking before it does any engine damage? If it is a big radial engine mounted out on a wing, it is making so much noise and vibration that a pilot cannot usually tell if it is knocking or not. The people at General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI), which developed G100UL, an unleaded alternative to 100LL, have done an excellent job of studying the knock characteristics of their product in flat engines. We will have to see how that translates to large radials and others. GAMI officials note that when the company received its approval from the FAA for its unleaded fuel, the Approved Model List covers “every spark ignition piston engine and every airframe using a spark ignition piston engine in the FAA’s Type Certificate database,” including all of the World War II engines and all of the post-World War II radial engines. Then there is component compatibility problem. This is one of the reasons that ASTM has not been able to develop a new specification for unleaded fuel. The present ASTM D 910 spec is written around fuels that are a blend of aviation alkylate and some toluene concentrate, the lead in low lead. Writing a new spec that covers any and all possible fuel candidates to be used in every old and new aircraft ever produced is an almost impossible task. I have written about exhaust valve recession before (What causes exhaust valve recession in an engine?). In a four-cycle spark ignition engine, you have the suck, squeeze, bang, and blow cycles. Following the bang or power stroke, the exhaust valve is opened and exhaust gases that are more than 1,000°F are forced pass the open valve. This heats up the valve edge significantly. To cool that area, heat is transferred up the stem to the guide and the seat when the valve is closed. The lead by-products of combustion tend to coat the seat area and improve the heat transfer. When the lead is removed, the heat transfer rate is reduced and the seat temperature is elevated, which increases the erosion rate of the seat. When the automotive world went to unleaded fuels in the early 1970s, exhaust valve recession was a problem, especially in gasoline-powered trucks. To solve the problem, manufacturers installed hardened exhaust valve seats in cars and pick-up trucks. Most of the trucks switched to diesel and the few farm tractors that still used gasoline were not affected too much because of their lower operating rpms. Aircraft engines operate at higher rpms, high load factors, and they are air cooled, so the seats run hotter. That means recession could be a problem when flying with unleaded fuels. Years ago, Lycoming started using hardened exhaust valve seats in all of its engines. Now I understand that Continental is also using hardened exhaust valve seats. My question is: Who is going to approve and make sure all of the orphan engines that are being rebuilt are also using hardened exhaust valve seats in their engines? This would be a good project for the folks involved in the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative to take up. Failure to do that could lead to significant problems and have a negative effect on general aviation as a whole. United A321s’ “no smoking” signs work too well 12 FEBRUARY 2024 BY SETH MILLER United Airlines cannot turn off the “no smoking” signs on its A321neo aircraft. That should not be a problem, given that the flights they operate today have prohibited smoking for more than 30 years. But it is. The aircraft require an exemption from 14 CFR § 25.791(a) in order to operate with the indicator set to always on. It appears they do not currently have such an exemption on file with the FAA. In a filing Monday afternoon the company requested the exemption, noting: [T]he A321 aircraft is equipped with the lighted “No Smoking” passenger information signs software enabled to stay illuminated at all times. This supports 14 CFR §121.317(c), which states in pertinent part, that when smoking is prohibited by part 14 CFR §252, “No Smoking” signs must be illuminated during the entire flight. United further notes that it holds similar exemptions for its B737, B757, B767, B777 aircraft, all of which “are equipped with the lighted “No Smoking” passenger information signs hardwired to stay illuminated at all times.” Still, the A321neo type must also have the exception granted. Which it will. But it sure looks like someone missed some paperwork before these planes entered service last year. That’s a failing on both United and the FAA. In a statement, United Airlines confirms the issue: We are removing our five Airbus A321neo aircraft from service while we seek FAA approval for the “No Smoking” sign to remain automatically illuminated rather than operated from the cockpit. We’re working to minimize the disruption for customers and we expect to cover all of today’s A321neo flying with other aircraft types, resulting in no cancellations due to this issue today. We hope to have these aircraft flying again shortly. UPDATE: 10:30p EST 12 Feb 2024 The FAA has approved return of United’s aircraft to service. United issued the following statement: The FAA has given us permission to keep operating our A321neo aircraft while they evaluate our exemption request. As the FAA noted, this is not a safety of flight issue. Our five A321neos were briefly out of service on Monday while we worked through this issue with the FAA, resulting in a handful of delays but no cancellations as we swapped that flying to other aircraft types in an effort to minimize disruption for our customers. Presumably, given that it is not a safety of flight issue, the Allegiant and Frontier planes referenced below will also remain in service while awaiting the paperwork to be processed. UPDATE: 5:48p EST 12 Feb 2024 Allegiant Airlines and Frontier Airlines have filed similar requests (Allegiant filing, Frontier filing) for their Airbus fleets within the past few days. For its part, Frontier appears to be acknowledging non-compliance with its existing fleet: Allegiant’s application contains similar phrasing, though never explicitly mentions non-compliance. The FAA also confirmed the issue to PaxEx.Aero, noting the Agency “is working to quickly resolve a non-safety issue that United Airlines discovered with some of its Airbus A321 Neo aircraft.” It did not offer any details on the potential for a grounding of Allegiant or Frontier aircraft. Ellsworth AFB moves B-1 bombers to Texas amid crash probe By Courtney Mabeus-Brown Thursday, Jan 25 A B-1B Lancer assigned to the 37th Bomb Squadron arrives at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, from Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, Jan. 25, 2024. The bombers will temporarily join the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess, where they will conduct joint operations and training sorties amid a crash investigation at home. (Airman 1st Class Alondra Cristobal Hernandez/Air Force) Ellsworth Air Force Base is moving some of its B-1B Lancer bombers from South Dakota to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, as investigators continue to look for clues into what caused the nonfatal crash of a Lancer earlier this month. Ellsworth began relocating its bombers around 9:30 a.m. local time Thursday, and the mission continued throughout the afternoon, 28th Bomb Wing spokesman Steve Merrill told Air Force Times. Merrill said “several” aircraft were part of the move, but declined to provide an exact number. About 250 aircrew, maintainers and logistics support personnel accompanying the jets are expected to work at Dyess for “several” weeks, said Capt. Hannah Durbin, a spokesperson for the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess. “It’s not out of the ordinary to have jets from different squadrons included in training packages, whether we are operating at home or deployed,” Col. Seth Spanier, commander of the 7th Bomb Wing, said in a statement. “But anytime we have the opportunity to share knowledge and experiences across squadrons is extremely valuable and contributes to the overall readiness and lethality of the conventional bomber force.” Flight operations at Ellsworth, which features a single runway, have been halted since Jan. 5, the day after the crash. They were slated to resume Jan. 19, but investigators are still working at the scene, Merrill said. The move allows airmen to continue to train and maintain readiness. Merrill told Air Force Times Thursday that the downed aircraft remains along the runway. The base worked with investigators to open the airfield to enable the flights and closed it again Thursday. “This clearly shows the Raiders of the 28th Bomb Wing are capable of executing our mission and remain ready at a moment’s notice to respond to any tasking we are given when called upon,” Col. Derek Oakley, 28th Bomb Wing commander, said in a statement. “It also reassures our allies and partners that we are steadfast in supporting them when needed, and also reminds our nation’s adversaries of the capabilities we are able to bring to any fight, anywhere around the globe.” “We consider our airfield a weapon system,” Oakley added. “While our airfield operations are currently on hold as part of the investigation, today, we proved that this weapon system is mission capable.” The downed B-1 was one of two Lancers participating in a local training mission on Jan. 4. The first aircraft landed safely, while the second crashed on approach in low visibility and freezing conditions around 5:50 p.m. local time. Firefighters extinguished a blaze at the crash site. All four crew members ejected safely; three were treated at the scene while a fourth was taken to a local hospital. The man has been released and is recovering, Merrill said Thursday. The service’s B-1 fleet, housed at Dyess and Ellsworth, has shrunk from about 100 to 45, including the Lancer that crashed. The B-1 is a supersonic bomber capable of carrying conventional weapons. The first Lancer was delivered to the Air Force in 1985 and first deployed in combat in Iraq in 1998. Working at Lockheed Martin Proposal Analyst Grand Prairie, Texas APPLY NOW Job Responsibilities JOB ID: 660975BR Date posted: Feb. 13, 2024 Description:Develops, plans & schedules proposals in accordance with estimating policy, Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) & Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFARS) requirements, USG Bus. System Requirements & other govt. regulations. Shapes, develops & matures bus. case analyses & cost methods resulting in a comprehensive bid/price strategy. Develops initiatives to increase profitability & cashflow. Acts as the estimating lead on proposals compiling cost, schedule, & technical elements to development proposals in accordance with Request For Proposal (RFP) specs. Basic Qualifications: Bachelors degree (i.e finance, accounting or business) or equivalent experience/combined education Advanced Excel skills Analyzing data and cost drivers Must be experienced in Microsoft Office applications Desired Skills: Estimating knowledge and understanding Advanced MS Office skills Solid customer relation skills Ability to analyze historical data/trends Excellent oral/written communication skills Ability to present to internal/external customers Tableau software experience Clearance Level:None Other Important Information You Should Know Expression of Interest:By applying to this job, you are expressing interest in this position and could be considered for other career opportunities where similar skills and requirements have been identified as a match. Should this match be identified you may be contacted for this and future openings. Ability to Work Remotely:Full-time Remote Telework: The employee selected for this position will work remotely full time at a location other than a Lockheed Martin designated office/job site. Employees may travel to a Lockheed Martin office for periodic meetings. Work Schedules:Lockheed Martin supports a variety of alternate work schedules that provide additional flexibility to our employees. Schedules range from standard 40 hours over a five day work week while others may be condensed. These condensed schedules provide employees with additional time away from the office and are in addition to our Paid Time off benefits. Schedule for this Position:4x10 hour day, 3 days off per week Pay Rate: The annual base salary range for this position in California and New York (excluding most major metropolitan areas), Colorado, or Washington is $47,800 - $91,500 . Please note that the salary information is a general guideline only. Lockheed Martin considers factors such as (but not limited to) scope and responsibilities of the position, candidate's work experience, education/ training, key skills as well as market and business considerations when extending an offer. Benefits offered: Medical, Dental, Vision, Life Insurance, Short-Term Disability, Long-Term Disability, 401(k) match, Flexible Spending Accounts, EAP, Education Assistance, Parental Leave, Paid time off, and Holidays. (Washington state applicants only) Non-represented full-time employees: accrue at least 10 hours per month of Paid Time Off (PTO) to be used for incidental absences and other reasons; receive at least 90 hours for holidays. Represented full time employees accrue 6.67 hours of Vacation per month; accrue up to 52 hours of sick leave annually; receive at least 96 hours for holidays. PTO, Vacation, sick leave, and holiday hours are prorated based on start date during the calendar year. This position is incentive plan eligible. Pay Rate: The annual base salary range for this position in most major metropolitan areas in California and New York is $54,900 - $103,400. Please note that the salary information is a general guideline only. Lockheed Martin considers factors such as (but not limited to) scope and responsibilities of the position, candidate’s work experience, education/ training, key skills as well as market and business considerations when extending an offer. Benefits offered: Medical, Dental, Vision, Life Insurance, Short-Term Disability, Long-Term Disability, 401(k) match, Flexible Spending Accounts, EAP, Education Assistance, Parental Leave, Paid time off, and Holidays. This position is incentive plan eligible. Lockheed Martin is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, protected veteran status, or disability status. The application window will close in 90 days; applicants are encouraged to apply within 5 - 30 days of the requisition posting date in order to receive optimal consideration. At Lockheed Martin, we use our passion for purposeful innovation to help keep people safe and solve the world's most complex challenges. Our people are some of the greatest minds in the industry and truly make Lockheed Martin a great place to work. With our employees as our priority, we provide diverse career opportunities designed to propel, develop, and boost agility. Our flexible schedules, competitive pay, and comprehensive benefits enable our employees to live a healthy, fulfilling life at and outside of work. We place an emphasis on empowering our employees by fostering an inclusive environment built upon integrity and corporate responsibility. If this sounds like a culture you connect with, you’re invited to apply for this role. Or, if you are unsure whether your experience aligns with the requirements of this position, we encourage you to search on Lockheed Martin Jobs, and apply for roles that align with your qualifications. Experience Level:4 yr and up College Business Unit:MISSILES AND FIRE CONTROL Relocation Available:No Career Area:Finance Type:Full-Time Shift:First https://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/job/grand-prairie/proposal-analyst/694/61277314960 Snake gets tangled around tailwheel of Coast Guard helicopter in Florida Kaycee Sloan 1 day ago CLEARWATER, Fla. (WFLA) – You’ve heard of “Snakes on a Plane,” but what about a snake on a helicopter? Well, that was the case for Coast Guard crews in Florida. Last week, the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater found a snake had trespassed onto its chopper. “This unexpected stowaway was found napping on a Jayhawk tailwheel,” USCG Clearwater wrote in a Facebook post. “He reluctantly departed the scene when confronted 💀😱.” (Photo courtesy of Petty Officer 2nd Class Cole Lindvall) According to the Miami Herald, the red-colored reptile was found on Feb. 9 while Petty Officer 2nd Class Cole Lindvall was doing a post-flight inspection of the MH60 helicopter. These Florida beaches are ranked among Lonely Planet’s top 100 in the world The snake was later identified as a 2-foot-long corn snake. The snake species, which are native to Florida, can grow up to be 4 feet in length and are also referred to as chicken snakes and red rat snakes. They are not venomous. According to the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, corn snakes can typically be found “in wooded groves, rocky hillsides, meadowlands, woodlots, rocky open areas, tropical hammocks, barns and abandoned buildings.” Curt Lewis