Flight Safety Information - May 21, 2026 No. 099 In This Issue : Incident: Transavia B738 at Amsterdam on May 20th 2026, engine problem : Incident: Condor A320 at Berlin on May 17th 2026, bird strike into both engines : Incident: Allegiant B38M at Fort Lauderdale on May 18th 2026, cabin pressure problems : Detroit-bound flight diverted over passenger from Congo amid Ebola restrictions : UPS Flight 2976 ‘flew perfect’ on morning of crash, pilots expressed no safety concerns : JFK ATC Flippantly Dismisses British Airways 787 Pilot Visibility Concerns : Unintentional Parachute Opening Destroys Cessna 206 : Guyana to host global aviation safety forum in September : Autonomous aviation system aims for pilot-free cargo aircraft : Air France, Airbus found guilty over 2009 Rio-Paris flight crash : Graduate Research Request : Calendar of Events Incident: Transavia B738 at Amsterdam on May 20th 2026, engine problem A Transavia Airlines Boeing 737-800, registration PH-HSK performing flight HV-6675 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Tenerife South,CI (Spain), was climbing out of Amsterdam's runway 24 when the crew stopped the climb at FL290 due to high vibration indications on their left hand engine (CFM56). The aircraft returned to Amsterdam for a safe landing on runway 18R about 50 minutes after departure. A replacement Boieng 737-800 registration PH-HXN reached Tenerife with a delay of about 3:45 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Amsterdam about 15 hours after landing back. https://avherald.com/h?article=53977df8&opt=0 Incident: Condor A320 at Berlin on May 17th 2026, bird strike into both engines A Condor Airbus A320-200, registration D-AICI performing flight DE-4095 from Frankfurt/Main to Berlin (Germany), was on final approach to Berlin's runway 25L when a flock of small birds flew into the approach path. A number of birds were ingested in both engines, the aircraft however was able to continue safely to touch down, applied reverse thrust on both engines, slowed safely and taxied to the apron. The aircraft is still on the ground in Berlin 3 days later. https://avherald.com/h?article=53977bf3&opt=0 Incident: Allegiant B38M at Fort Lauderdale on May 18th 2026, cabin pressure problems An Allegiant Boeing 737-8 MAX, registration N811NV performing flight G4-3912 from Fort Lauderdale,FL to Atlantic City,NJ (USA) with 187 people on board, was climbing out of Laudeerdale's runway 10L when the crew stopped the climb at 10,000 feet due to problems with cabin pressure problems. The aircraft returned to Fort Lauderdale for a safe landing on runway 10L about one hour after departure. A replacement Boeing 737-8 MAX registration N819NV reached Atlantic City with a delay of about 5.5 hours. https://avherald.com/h?article=53976bff&opt=0 Detroit-bound flight diverted over passenger from Congo amid Ebola restrictions Flight to Metro Detroit diverted over passenger traveling from Ebola-affected country 01:58 An Air France flight from Paris to Detroit was forced to divert to Montreal on Wednesday due to U.S. flight restrictions linked to the Ebola outbreak after it was determined that one of the passengers was from the Democratic Republic of Congo, federal officials and the airline said. Air France boarded the passenger "in error on a flight to the United States," a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson told CBS News in a statement. "Due to entry restrictions put in place to reduce the risk of the Ebola virus, the passenger should not have boarded the plane," the CBP spokesperson said. "CBP took decisive action and prohibited the flight carrying that traveler from landing at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, and instead, diverted to Montreal, Canada." Ebola travel restrictions are making waves far beyond Africa, rerouting flights and raising questions about global response. Health officials stress ‘top of the iceberg’ case numbers while the U.S. scrambles for experimental treatments. US is ‘simply choosing not to stop’ Ebola outbreak after massive public health cuts, experts say CBP did not say when the person had last been in the Congo or whether they were showing symptoms of the virus. When reached about the incident, the Federal Aviation Administration directed CBS News to CBP. CBS News has also reached out to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for comment. Air France said in a statement to CBS News that it "confirms that, at the request of U.S. authorities, (the flight) was diverted to Montreal Airport after a Congolese passenger on board was denied entry into the United States. In fact, under new regulations, passengers arriving from certain countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, may only enter U.S. territory via Washington (IAD) Airport. There was no medical emergency on board, and like all airlines, Air France is required to comply with the entry requirements of the countries it serves." According to the flight tracking website FlightAware, Air France Flight 378 from Paris-Charles de Gaulle International Airport landed at Montreal Trudeau International Airport at 5:15 p.m. ET. The status of the passenger from the Congo was unknown. Deborah Mistor, a business class passenger aboard the flight, told CBS News in an interview Thursday night that the rest of the passengers were then flown from Montreal to Detroit aboard the same aircraft. Mistor revealed that the passengers were notified by the captain about four hours before they were initially due to arrive in Detroit that U.S. authorities were not allowing the plane to land in the U.S. and the flight was being diverted. The captain did not provide a reason, however. "I think enough people must have been questioning what was going on because 30 minutes later, he came back on and said that he wanted to confirm that there was nothing wrong with the plane, there were no technical difficulties, that it was strictly because of U.S. authorities not allowing us to land in the U.S.," Mistor told CBS News. She said that all the flight attendants then put on face masks. "They're telling you it's OK, it's not a mechanical issue, but everybody has a mask on," Mistor said. "Having a crew mask up when they were not informing us of what was going on is very concerning," she continued. "It lets your mind wander as to what the situation you're being placed in might be." On Monday, the CDC announced that people without U.S. passports who had traveled to Congo, Uganda or South Sudan in the past three weeks would be restricted from entering the country. Earlier Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of CBP, confirmed that beginning Thursday, it would require all U.S.-bound flights carrying foreign travelers who have been in Congo, Uganda or South Sudan at any point in the previous 21 days to fly into Washington-Dulles International Airport in Virginia. The rule, according to its language, is designed to funnel those travelers to an airport "where the U.S. government is focusing public health resources to implement enhanced public health measures." It's unclear how the DHS rule impacts the CDC's earlier order. An Ebola outbreak centered in eastern Congo was confirmed May 15 by the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday there were at least 600 suspected Ebola cases so far, including 139 suspected deaths from the virus. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/detroit-bound-flight-diverted-over-023345245.html UPS Flight 2976 ‘flew perfect’ on morning of crash, pilots expressed no safety concerns The morning of the crash, the doomed UPS plane had already made two trips. The pilots aboard spoke to NTSB, detailing flights without any cause for concern. LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WAVE) - UPS Flight 2976 closed its doors and pushed out and down the runway on November 4 at 5:02 p.m. Just 12 minutes later, it would experience a catastrophic failure of a pylon bearing, sending the left engine flying. The pilots could not get control of it and crashed off the runway and into a busy industrial corridor. Fifteen people died in the crash, including the three pilots on board. The pylon bearing that attaches the engine to the plane had fractured under stress, along with the lugs, deemed as a primary structural element of the plane’s design, leading to a complete failure. The damage is not obvious outside of a major, detailed inspection, and it would likely not have been something a pilot on a walk-around, pre-flight inspection or a line mechanic at UPS Worldport would have been able to see. That was the case the day of the crash. “Everything just worked” on trips aboard doomed plane morning of crash NTSB conducted several interviews after the crash of supervisors, pilots and mechanics, who all noted there was nothing of concern on UPS Flight 2976. The morning of the crash, UPS Flight 2976, referred to here as N259UP, had already made two trips, one to Baltimore and one to Ontario. Three pilots spoke to NTSB investigators in the days after the crash, detailing their experiences. The pilot on the Baltimore flight, who had flown for UPS for 25 years, said, “The airplane trimmed out. There was no unusual trim settings or anything. It flew perfect.” When asked if it had noticed any abnormalities, he said, “No. It was one of those, you know, this could be the best job and the easiest job in the world, and it could be the worst, hardest job. This was one of those pleasant days that everything just worked, and it was a good day.” A pilot who had flown to Ontario noted that they had had a bit too much fuel on the plane, but that it ran normal on takeoff and initial climb and had no unusual thrusting or vibrations that would have been cause for concern. “I really love that airplane in many ways. I don’t know what to say. Yeah, it’s a nice airplane to fly,” he said. “I mean, you have to respect the airplane, of course, in some ways, you know? If you don’t treat it well, it’s going to backlash to you.” A pilot who had flown on N259UP a few weeks told investigators the two trips he had were “vanilla,” and had “probably two of the smoothest landings” he had ever had on an MD-11. History of fractures to the MD-11’s pylon bearing All the pilots noted they, nor other pilots they had spoken with, had ever had a concern about the safety of the plane or the maintenance for it. However, investigators have since learned there were 10 reported instances of bearing fractures over the last two decades on the MD-11, only four of which were ever reported to the FAA. Boeing had deemed the fractures to not be a flight safety risk. The FAA testified to the NTSB that it was unaware the lugs were also fracturing during the migration of the pylon bearing on the aircraft. If they had known that was the case, as far back as 2002, they said they may have had a different take on whether it was a cause for flight safety concern. The lugs are supposed to function as a failsafe against something catastrophic. Why the failsafe failed was a question asked of the FAA Wednesday. “Failsafe means one of those lugs — it failed. The other lug can take limit load. What the accident proved is that the design failed, not that it wasn’t designed as failsafe,” the FAA’s Todd Martin said, emphasizing this was design failure, not necessarily a maintenance failure. The last major maintenance inspection on the plane had been done in 2021. It was not due for another until 2027. Engine failure warning It was not just the failure of the bearings the pilots would have been unaware of. Investigators also asked Boeing and the FAA representatives what alerts the pilots may have received after the loss of the left engine and subsequent fire. A Boeing engineer said the engine tearing off would have damaged wiring, prompting a fire alarm to trigger. However, the engineer explained that at this stage of flight, takeoff, audio warnings in the flight deck would have been suppressed. Visual warnings would have still illuminated. The engineer explained the auditory warning is suppressed during the first 25 seconds of flight and when the plane is below 400 feet. “The fire handles blink as well as the fire shut-off valve. Unless we’re in the take-off phase,” said Boeing engineer Steven Chrisholm. “So if if the airplane is below 400 feet or in the first 25 seconds of flight, the oral warning and the display are inhibited by intent because at that point, the pilot is to be focused on to be up and away and not distracted by a non-normal, uh, the fire handle and the fuel switch would still be illuminated, but there would be no aural.” 1979 crash versus 2025 crash NTSB board members brought up prior DC-10 crashes in 1979 and 1989. While the FAA rejected some safety recommendations in the past, Boeing said McDonnell Douglas had made changes. Specifically following the American Airlines Flight 191 crash at Chicago’s O’Hare airport in 1979, hydraulic systems were changed to prevent mechanical systems from also failing. In that crash, the NTSB found once the DC-10’s left engine fell off after takeoff, the damaged hydraulic system caused the leading edge slats to retract, contributing to the crash. Boeing said those slats remained extended in November, even after the plane’s left engine had ripped itself from the wing. Testimony between UPS and Boeing strained Unlike the first day of testimony, day two included UPS asking very pointed questions of Boeing. The questions prompted the board chair to remind participants this hearing was meant for fact-finding, not assigning blame. UPS asked Boeing to confirm why the MD-11’s were prohibited from being ferried to different airports following their grounding. A Boeing engineer explained it would not have been possible to verify any potential damage to the lugs if the bearings in the aft pylons had been damaged. UPS said they could have inspected the bearings every day and not been able to detect bearing failures. The board chair shut down the question, declaring it speculative. UPS Flight 2976 was not supposed to be the plane making the trip to Hawaii the day of the crash. However, a fuel leak on the original plane forced a change of plans. Following the crash, UPS inspected its fleet of 26 MD-11 aircrafts, finding three with a migration of the pylon bearing. What happens next? The end of the two-day hearing does not mean there will be a quick end to this process. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy explained they will consider the answers and documents as the NTSB analyzes the crash. A final report could take months or years to complete. There will be another public hearing once the NTSB is ready to publish its findings, complete with new safety recommendations. https://www.wave3.com/2026/05/21/ups-flight-2976-flew-perfect-morning-crash-pilots-expressed-no-safety-concerns/ JFK ATC Flippantly Dismisses British Airways 787 Pilot Visibility Concerns That famous JFK controller is at it again, though I find something about this interaction to be sort of funny… In this post: JFK ATC & British Airways pilot spar over terminology Bottom line JFK ATC & British Airways pilot spar over terminology YouTube channel You can see ATC has the audio and a visualization of an incident that happened around 11:30PM on May 9, 2026, involving a New York Kennedy (JFK) air traffic controller, and the pilots of a British Airways Boeing 787-10, which was bound for London Heathrow (LHR). Visibility was limited on this particular night, and as the British Airways plane was taxiing to the runway, the RVR (Runway Visual Range) was 1,000 feet. This caused the British Airways pilot to ask if LVO was in force (Low Visibility Operations), which is where things went downhill: British Airways pilot: “Kennedy, Speedbird 18A heavy, are you declaring LVOs?” British Airways pilot: “Kennedy, from Speedbird 18A heavy, are you declaring LVOs?” JFK ATC: “I’m not sure… I’m not… I’m not… I don’t understand the question, Speedbird 18A heavy.” British Airways pilot: “Roger, you just said RVR 1,000 feet. Are you declaring low visibility operations or not?” JFK ATC: “I’m not declaring anything, no.” British Airways pilot: “Roger, but you’ve given 1,000 feet RVR, correct?” JFK ATC: “That’s correct.” British Airways pilot: “Roger, that means that you have just said that you have low visibility. So please assure us that you have got LVOs in force or we cannot depart in less than 1,000 feet of visibility.” JFK ATC: “British Airways 18A heavy, I do not understand what you’re saying.” British Airways pilot: “Roger, it is very simple, sir. You have declared RVR of 1,000 feet. That means your visibility is low. LVO is the standard ICAO terminology. Have you got low visibility procedures in force or not?” JFK ATC: “No, sir.” When it was the British Airways plane’s turn to take off, they still didn’t have sufficient RVR, so they had to taxi off the runway and wait for a while longer. Eventually visibility improved, and the plane was able to take off. That being said, the confusion over feet vs. meters, plus the number of left turns needing to be made, makes for some good listening as well. Why were ATC & the pilot talking past one another? On the one hand, there’s nothing funny about two professionals who are fluent in the same language essentially talking past one another. This seems like very poor problem solving on the part of both parties, since they basically just keep saying the same thing over and over, rather than trying to find another way to get on the same page. On the other hand, there is a certain level of humor to the very serious British Airways pilot (who desperately needs a windscreen on his mic) and the JFK controller who would be hard pressed to act like he cares less. If you look at the comments on this interaction, they’re mostly in support of the British Airways pilot, and commending him for his focus on safety. That generally seems like the right take, and one might logically wonder “well if LVO is an ICAO term, how does the controller not have any clue what that is?” Here’s the best explanation I can find for the confusion that’s in support of the controller, just to present a different perspective: ICAO sets recommendations but does not have regulatory or policymaking authority. LVO is not in FAA lexicon. SMGCS is the term used on taxi charts when RVR is below 1200 ft. There is no requirement in any regulation or FAA-published guidance to state that “LVO is in force”. 7110.65 directs the protection of ILS critical areas below 800-2. An advisory circular guides airports to implement SMGCS procedures below 1200 ft RVR. These actions are required of ATC and airports, so unless they are routinely violating established procedure, I don’t see how adding the sentence “LVO in effect” to the ATIS increases the level of safety in any meaningful way. You simply assume you’re able to use published CAT II/III mins and lower-than-standard takeoff mins (if appropriately authorized) unless explicitly informed otherwise by ATC/NOTAMs/ATIS. Now, people can argue about whether the JFK controller should know the term, but I suspect this is the correct take in terms of the reality of why this played out the way it did. This particular JFK controller is notorious for using his own little phrases, and if you don’t happen to know what those are, that’s on you. And ICAO? As far as he’s concerned, what’s that? 😉 Bottom line A JFK air traffic controller and British Airways 787 pilot had an unusual exchange, when the pilot asked for assurance that low visibility operations were in force. The controller had no clue what that is, so just kept saying “no.” However, that didn’t stop the pilot from asking the same question over and over. https://onemileatatime.com/news/jfk-atc-flippantly-dismisses-british-airways-787-pilot-visibility-concerns/ Unintentional Parachute Opening Destroys Cessna 206 Wreckage of a destroyed Cessna U206 in a Butler, Missouri field following an in-flight parachute deployment. The pilot told investigators that during a skydiving flight, the first jumper scraped his emergency parachute handle while moving toward the jump door in the Cessna U206. The jumper’s emergency parachute deployed out of the airplane and drug him into the horizontal stabilizer. The pilot stated that he heard a loud “bang” and focused on maintaining control of the airplane. After the remaining jumpers exited the airplane, the nose of the airplane “dropped straight down.” The pilot was able to release his seat restraints, open a cargo door, and exit the airplane. The pilot noticed the airplane’s empennage was bent as it spiraled into a field. The pilot opened his emergency parachute and landed safely with the other jumpers. The first jumper sustained serious injuries. The airplane was destroyed when it crashed in a field near the airport in Butler, Missouri. According to the first jumper, his D-ring style emergency parachute handle was unknowingly caught on something. While he was positioning himself to the aft door, still unaware of the handle being caught, the ripcord was pulled about 4 inches, causing the emergency parachute to deploy and pull him into the airplane’s empennage. Probable Cause: The jumper’s unintentional deployment of his emergency parachute and subsequent impact with the airplane’s horizontal stabilizer. NTSB Identification: 194327 https://generalaviationnews.com/2026/05/19/unintentional-parachute-opening-destroys-cessna-206/ Guyana to host global aviation safety forum in September Guyana is set to host the prestigious joint International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Global Regional Safety Oversight Organisation (RSOO) and Regional Accident and Incident Investigation Organisation (RAIO) Forum for Aviation Safety later this year on September 29-30, 2026. Guyana is set to host a global aviation safety forum later this year The announcement was made during the official media launch, which was hosted at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, during which it was noted that the forum will be hosted from September 29-30. According to the Ministry of Public Utilities and Aviation, the forum is expected to place Guyana at the centre of global aviation discussions while strengthening the country’s growing reputation as an emerging aviation and transportation hub within the Caribbean and South American region. During brief remarks, Minister of Public Utilities and Aviation, Deodat Indar, stated that the event would attract international delegates, regulators, aviation experts, industry leaders and development partners from across the world. He stated that hosting the forum reflects Guyana’s commitment to advancing aviation safety and fostering stronger regional and international collaboration within the aviation sector. The minister also underscored that the event aligns with the vision of President Dr Irfaan Ali and the government’s broader national development agenda for aviation. Against this backdrop, Indar indicated that Guyana is committed to positioning itself as a constructive regional and global aviation partner through continued investments and engagement in the sector. The hosting of the ICAO/EASA forum comes as Guyana continues to expand and modernise its aviation infrastructure amid ongoing swift economic growth and increased international connectivity. https://guyanachronicle.com/2026/05/21/guyana-to-host-global-aviation-safety-forum-in-september/ Autonomous aviation system aims for pilot-free cargo aircraft A new frontier for autonomous flight appears to have been breached as Merlin, Inc. introduces its Merlin Pilot for Commercial Cargo AI-powered flight system that aims to eventually bring pilot-free flight to large cargo aircraft. In recent years we've seen autonomous flight make impressive strides to the point where the problem has shifted away from just making an aircraft that can fly without human supervision toward making them capable of operating safely in real-world airspaces alongside other aircraft and traffic control systems. That being said, most autonomous systems have been confined to smaller aircraft, with the largest conversions involving small to medium planes like the Cessna 150 or the Cessna 208B Grand Caravan. But the real future market is in heavy cargo aircraft like the Lockheed Martin Hercules. According to Boeing, demand for large cargo aircraft is expected to grow considerably over the next decade, with 2,800 airframe builds and conversions projected over the next 20 years. The trouble is that there is a crisis-level pilot shortage raising the question of where the crews will come from for all these aircraft. The same goes for passenger aircraft, but public opinion is still a long way from being willing to travel on an airliner without a human pilot in the cockpit. Cargo planes are another matter, which is where Merlin Pilot for Commercial Cargo comes in. Founded in 2018 in Boston, Merlin has been developing and testing its systems through several years of flight trials involving five distinct aircraft types. In addition, real-world tests have been carried out on commercial flight routes in Alaska and New Zealand. According to the company, Merlin Pilot – part of Merlin's new Condor product family for large, multi-crew aircraft – is designed to be aircraft-agnostic and capable of being retrofitted into existing airframes. It uses a multi-sensor suite including GPS, inertial guidance, radar and radio altimeters, as well as environmental sensors. Along with flight software that allows it to control the plane autonomously while safely avoiding other aircraft and obstacles, it also has an integrated natural language processing model trained to understand commands and queries from air traffic control and respond like a human pilot – hopefully with better articulation. Because obtaining official certification and regulatory clearance for autonomous systems is notoriously difficult, Merlin is opting for a staged approach to introducing the technology for large cargo craft and, eventually, military aircraft. This means first using the system as an advanced cognitive co-pilot alongside a human safety pilot. This not only makes the FAA smile, it also allows Merlin Pilot to gather data that can be used to obtain the necessary certification for fully autonomous flight. "The pilot shortage is structurally impacting operators and comes at a time when the conversion market is at record volume," said Matt George, CEO and Founder of Merlin. "The window to integrate autonomy, both during the Passenger-to-Freighter (P2F) conversion and in aircraft being currently built, is open, making this a particularly pivotal moment. Condor represents our approach to scaling autonomy across large, multi-crew aircraft, with the Merlin Pilot at its core. It’s being built to certify, advancing on real military aircraft with real regulators, and is designed to integrate into the aircraft operators already own. That’s what we’re building for commercial cargo." https://newatlas.com/aircraft/merlin-pilot-autonomous-large-cargo-aircraft/ Air France, Airbus found guilty over 2009 Rio-Paris flight crash Air France and manufacturer Airbus have been found guilty of negligent homicide in the appeal case regarding the 2009 crash of a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in which 228 people died. The Paris Court of Appeal on Thursday imposed a fine of €225,000 ($260,000) on each company, overturning an acquittal in the initial trial against the two French firms. The court ruled that the airline and the aircraft manufacturer were solely responsible for the crash and liable for damages. The Air France aircraft on flight AF 447 flew into a storm front on June 1, 2009 whilst en route from Brazil to the French capital, and disappeared from radar screens. The Airbus A330 crashed into the Atlantic. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/air-france-airbus-found-guilty-121034873.html Graduate Research Request candidate in Aviation with a specialization in Human Factors at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. With nearly 40 years of experience in aircraft maintenance and aviation safety, his dissertation research examines how Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (AMTs) experience and describe decision-making during troubleshooting, inspection, and repair activities in Part 121 and Part 135 operations. The IRB-approved study seeks currently employed Part 121 and Part 135 AMTs with at least one year of maintenance experience to participate in one confidential 60 to 75-minute virtual interview focused on real-world maintenance decision-making. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and no proprietary or company-specific information will be requested. Although employed by the FAA, this research is conducted solely in an academic capacity and is not affiliated with or conducted on behalf of the FAA. Individuals interested in participating or learning more may contact Steve Poiani at poianadf@my.erau.edu. https://sites.google.com/view/aircraftmaintenancestudy/home Steve Poiani Doctoral Candidate Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University poianadf@my.erau.edu CALENDAR OF EVENTS . ESASI 2026, 20-21 May, Dubrovnik . Safeskies Australia - Australia’s renowned Aviation Safety Conference - Canberra Australia 20 and 21 May 2026 . Aircraft Fire Hazards, Protection, and Investigation Course 7 to 9 July 2026; Woburn MA 01801 USA : APSCON/APSCON Unmanned 2026 – Ft. Lauderdale, FL - July 13-17, 2026 : Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference - 22-23 September 2026 . IATA World Maintenance & Engineering Symposium (23-25 June, Madrid, Spain) . ISASI - BOSTON 2026 - September 28, 2026 – October 2, 2026 . 2026 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) Oct. 20-22, 2026 | Las Vegas, NV Curt Lewis