Flight Safety Information - June 11, 2026 No. 114 In This Issue : Incident: American B738 at Miami on Jun 7th 2026, loud noise outside the aircraft : Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3A - Off Field Landing (Nigeria) : Airbus A320-214 - Bird Strike (India) : FAA proposes $104,000 fine against Private Jets, Inc. : The furious dispute over what caused Air India flight 171 to crash : Boeing Awaits Air India Flight 171 Report As Safety Risks Loom : Southwest Airlines Reverses Flight Attendant Only Jumpseat Policy in Major Win For Non-Rev Employees But Crew Are Enraged : Delta Air Flight Diverts After Passenger is Accused of Slapping Female Crew Member’s Bottom Because She Skipped Him During Beverage Service : Boeing lands double-digit aircraft order from Uganda Airlines : Moses Lake AirPlant Opens As First U.S. Commercial Facility To Make Jet Fuel From CO2, Electricity : Gulfstream delivers 100th G700 and completes 100th speed record : Jet Linx Aviation maintains Wyvern Wingman Pro Certification : What an airline passenger encounters when they try to storm a cockpit : Overhead Bins Could Start to Be Locked During Flights Thanks to Passengers Ignoring Safety Rules : Graduate Research Request : Calendar of Events Incident: American B738 at Miami on Jun 7th 2026, loud noise outside the aircraft An American Airlines Boeing 737-800, registration N346PR performing flight AA-1641 from Miami,FL (USA) to Guatemala City (Guatemala), was climbing out of Miami's runway 08R when the crew stopped the climb at FL230. The crew declared PAN PAN reporting a loud noise outside the aircraft. The aircraft returned to Miami for a safe landing on runway 09 about 40 minutes after departure. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 2.5 hours, thn departed again and reached Guatemala City with a delay of 2.5 hours. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a544ea&opt=0 Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3A - Off Field Landing (Nigeria) Date: Wednesday 10 June 2026 Time: c. 07:50 LT Type: Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3A Owner/operator: Best Aircraft Deals LLC Registration: N989BC MSN: 5021 Year of manufacture: 1988 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 4 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: None Location: Ogwashi-Uku area, near Asaba, Delta - Nigeria Phase: Landing Nature: Passenger - Non-Scheduled/charter/Air Taxi Departure airport: Lagos-Murtala Muhammed International Airport (LOS/DNMM) Destination airport: Asaba International Airport (ABB/DNAS) Confidence Rating: Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources Narrative: A Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3A made a precautionary landing on a road in the Ogwashi-Uku area, near Asaba, Delta, after a failed approach to Asaba International Airport (ABB/DNAS). The aircraft later took off at 11:02 LT without prior authorization with destination Lagos-Murtala Muhammed International Airport (LOS/DNMM). The NCAA suspended the operator’s AOC as a result. https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/572140 Airbus A320-214 - Bird Strike (India) Date: Wednesday 10 June 2026 Time: c. 04:50 LT Type: Airbus A320-214 Owner/operator: Air Arabia Registration: A6-ANL MSN: 5276 Year of manufacture: 2012 Engine model: CFMI CFM56-5B4/P Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 166 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Unknown Location: near Thiruvananthapuram International Airport (TRV/VOTV) - India Phase: Initial climb Nature: Passenger - Scheduled Departure airport: Thiruvananthapuram International Airport (TRV/VOTV) Destination airport: Sharjah Airport (SHJ/OMSJ) Confidence Rating: Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources Narrative: Air Arabia flight G9449, an Airbus A320-214, experienced a bird strike on departure from runway 32 at Thiruvananthapuram (TRV). The flight returned to TRV, landing 21 minutes after takeoff. https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/572142 FAA proposes $104,000 fine against Private Jets, Inc. Bethany, Oklahoma, Part 135 operator Private Jets, Inc., is responding to FAA allegations that it violated pilot qualification regulations. The Federal Aviation Administration wants to fine Private Jets, Inc. $104,000. The proposed civil penalty against the Bethany, Oklahoma-based charter operator alleges it violated pilot qualification regulations. According to the FAA press release, a company employee failed to take or pass the required testing to pilot several flights in April 2025. The FAA alleges the person lacked ratings to serve as pilot-in-command or second-in-command, or for the type of aircraft operated, in the 12 months before the flights. Private Jets, Inc. has 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency. Receive an apples-to-apples comparison of programs that meet your needs from more than 500 jet card and fractional options covering 65 points of differentiation and over 40,000 data points. “Private Jets, Inc. is committed to maintaining the highest standards of safety and regulatory compliance, as our safety record of over 30 years indicates,” President Eric Wells tells Private Jet Card Comparisons. Wells adds, We are addressing the FAA’s findings immediately.” He says, “Our team is confident our internal verification procedures ensure total alignment with all federal aviation standards.” Wells concluded, “We look forward to a positive outcome in the near future.” About Private Jets, Inc. The FAA’s most recent update shows it has 11 aircraft on its charter certificate. The fleet includes five Learjets and a pair of King Air turboprops. On its website, Private Jets, Inc. boasts, “At Private Jets, Inc., safety is our number one priority. We maintain stringent safety programs that exceed FAA requirements, and our pilots are put through a rigorous training and certification process.” The company’s history dates to 1987. The company did not respond to a request to comment. https://privatejetcardcomparisons.com/2026/06/10/faa-proposes-104000-fine-against-private-jets-inc/ The furious dispute over what caused Air India flight 171 to crash It was a hot and dry afternoon on 12 June last year, when Air India Flight 171 left the terminal at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Airport in Ahmedabad in the western Indian state of Gujarat. Settling into their seats for the nine-and-a-half-hour journey to London were 230 passengers - including 169 Indian nationals and 53 Britons. Looking after them were 10 cabin crew. On the flight deck were Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a pilot with decades of experience, and his younger colleague, first officer Clive Kunder. Just 32 seconds after take-off the plane crashed, killing all but one of those on board. Another 19 people on the ground were also killed. It disappears from view behind buildings and trees. Seconds later a huge cloud of flame and black smoke appears, and the magnitude of the disaster becomes apparent. What is not at all clear from the footage, however, is what actually caused the crash. The crash killed all but one of those on board, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh Finding out why so many people died is the job of India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), part of the country's Ministry of Civil Aviation. Under international law, as set out in Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the country in which an accident occurs is directly responsible for the official investigation. Other parties, including the country where the aircraft or its engines were built, can also take an active part as "accredited representatives". In the case of AI171, that means the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB sent a delegation which included technical experts from Boeing, which made the plane itself and GE Aerospace, which built the engines, as well as the US aviation regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration. According to Annex 13, "the sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents or incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability". Nevertheless, there is a great deal at stake. For Boeing, a company already reeling from years of safety scandals, it is about the integrity of one of its premium products: the 787 Dreamliner, an aircraft with a hitherto impeccable safety record. Air India, a loss-making airline belonging to the Tata Group, can ill-afford to see its brand tarnished. Families of those who died, meanwhile, want to know what really happened to their loved ones. The final conclusions of the investigation have yet to be published, although more could become apparent in the coming days. But it has already generated intense controversy, which has exposed deeper questions about the way inquiries into major air incidents are carried out. So can national authorities be trusted to conduct investigations that critics say are vulnerable to perceptions of political pressure and corporate influence? The inquiry backlash In theory, the inquiry should be impartial and informative – a learning process focused solely on improving passenger safety. But in the case of AI171, the information revealed by the investigation so far has triggered a major backlash from safety campaigners, pilots' groups and lawyers acting for the bereaved relatives. A key factor in this has been the preliminary report issued by the AAIB a month after the accident. The 15-page document did not draw any conclusions about the causes of the crash, or make any recommendations. Nonetheless, just two short paragraphs generated a great deal of controversy. First, it was noted that according to the aircraft's flight data recorder, the two fuel cutoff switches - normally used when starting the engines before a flight and shutting them down afterwards – transitioned from the run to the cutoff position seconds after take-off. This would have deprived the engines of fuel, causing them to lose thrust rapidly. The report then says: "In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so." This brief statement, provided without a transcript or any indication of who was speaking, sparked intense speculation about the actions of the pilots. Newsweek, for example, focused on the "troubling possibility: that a seasoned captain may have deliberately doomed his jet – and nearly 250 lives". Former NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt told CBS News the report showed "this was not a problem with the airplane or the engines. Instead…somebody in the cockpit shut the fuel off to those engines." A few days later, The Wall Street Journal weighed in. Citing people familiar with the matter, it claimed that recordings of dialogue between the pilots suggested it was the Captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, who had flipped the fuel switches. It is important to note that this was merely a preliminary report, and within days, the AAIB issued a statement condemning "selective and unverified reporting" in the international press as "irresponsible". It urged the public and the media to "refrain from spreading premature narratives that risk undermining the integrity of the investigative process." By then, arguably, the damage had already been done. "When a pilot is alive he can defend himself" says Capt. CS Randhawa, president of the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP). "When the pilot is dead, all the agencies can collude – and they put the blame on the pilot, to save the manufacturer. And this is seen the world over. It's not the first time". His organisation, which represents around 6,000 pilots, condemned the preliminary report as "irrevocably compromised". Together with Sumeet Sabharwal's 91-year-old father, Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, they took their concerns to India's Supreme Court, demanding a judicial investigation into the crash. Safety campaigners in India and the US have pushed back vigorously against the pilot suicide theory Former UK air accident investigator Tim Atkinson agrees that there is always a temptation to blame a dead pilot for a serious accident. "It's incredibly, incredibly convenient for all concerned," he says. "You know, the regulator's off the hook, the operator's off the hook, the manufacturer's off the hook. And that's why you have to push back against it so hard." However, he personally believes that in this case, there is no other credible explanation – a view that is common among aviation professionals. "I am in absolutely no doubt this is a homicide-suicide. And if you set out to investigate one of those, and try to show it is an aviation accident, you'll fail – because it isn't", he explains. Nevertheless, safety campaigners in India and the US, along with the FIP, have pushed back vigorously against the pilot suicide theory. They point to reports alleging prior faults with the aircraft, as well as apparent anomalies in the timelines set out in the preliminary report, as evidence that the crash could realistically have been caused by a serious electrical failure. The plane – registered as VT-ANB – was delivered to Air India in 2014. According to the Foundation for Aviation Safety, a US body led by the former senior Boeing manager turned whistleblower, Ed Pierson, it suffered from a series of serious electrical problems throughout its lifetime. Air India denies this. Documents seen by the BBC show an incident of "burning" in one of the plane's main power panels in 2022. Air India says repairs were "carried out in accordance with Boeing-approved maintenance procedures" and that "the aircraft was returned to service only after applicable airworthiness requirements had been satisfied". The preliminary report, meanwhile, notes that the aircraft had been permitted to fly with a known fault in its "core network", a framework that links the aircraft's computers and associated electronics and is often described as the "central nervous system" of the plane. Boeing has referred all questions about what happened to the Indian AAIB. Competing theories A key theory put forward by campaigners is that the crash may have occurred because a major electrical failure caused the aircraft's main flight computers to reboot seconds after takeoff. They say this created a situation where the aircraft's systems briefly believed the plane was actually on the ground, even though it was in the air. A safety system detected dangerous levels of engine thrust, assumed a malfunction, and ordered the fuel supply to be cut off, the theory goes. Under this scenario, fuel switches in the cockpit were not actually touched – the flight data recorder may instead have registered the electronic command to cut the fuel supply, rather than the physical movement of switches. Rachel Chitra, an investigative journalist who has published a series of technically detailed articles in India, has promoted this theory. In her work, she points out a series of inconsistencies in the preliminary report. Among these is an account of how the engines attempted to relight after their fuel supply was restored. The report indicates that "Engine 1's core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration…". But Chitra claims her research, which she says is backed up by engineering documents, suggests that any such relight would have been physically impossible at the speed the aircraft had reached and with the power sources available. Meanwhile, lawyers acting on behalf of victims' families have focused on the moment at which an emergency power system began to operate. The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) is a small propeller which can rotate in the airstream to provide electricity and hydraulic pressure when other systems in the plane fail. On AI171, CCTV footage shows that the RAT had deployed immediately after take-off. According to the preliminary report, the RAT was providing hydraulic power within five seconds of the fuel switches being cut off. However, simulator tests, the results of which have been shared with the BBC, appear to demonstrate that it would actually need 14-18 seconds. This would imply that it had actually deployed far earlier, potentially while the aircraft was on the ground, and well before the fuel was cut off. Lawyers acting on behalf of victims' families have focused on the moment at which an emergency power system began to operate Mike Andrews is an attorney with the Beasley Allen law firm which represents the families of 135 victims of the crash. He says the findings raise important questions, which cast doubt over the pilot suicide narrative. "The RAT deployment is a symptom of something else going on," he explains. "In order for it to be out, something has happened…if it is out prior to the fuel switch allegation, our question still is: why? "It is a symptom of something that has gone wrong". Safety consultant and author Eckhard Jann thinks such controversy in a case like this is inevitable. "We have gotten used to safe airline travels," he says, and as the reason for the B787 crash in Ahmedabad is unknown, it "rattles the world". Former investigator Tim Atkinson thinks the "incredibly complex multiple electrical failure scenario" is unrealistic. He believes the physical architecture of the plane's systems would not allow it to happen. For him, the controversy over AI171 comes down to "just the difficulty we all have talking about homicide and suicide". Under Annex 13, those investigating a serious air accident are meant to publish a final report within 12 months if they can. However, this is not always possible. If a final report cannot be issued, an interim report must be published on the anniversary of the accident. This means India's AAIB must publish an update of some kind by Friday, 12 June. There is now widespread doubt that it will be conclusive. In May, India's civil aviation minister muddied the waters when he told reporters the investigation into the crash was into its "last stage", and that the final report would "mostly…come after a month". Controversy and cynicism Whatever report is published, it looks highly unlikely to reverse the wave of controversy and cynicism that has already engulfed the AI171 investigation. A great deal of that stems from perceptions that the companies involved are being protected from blame. Boeing, certainly, can ill-afford to see questions raised about the safety of the 787. Although it suffered severe teething problems in its early days, including a major battery fire on one aircraft at Boston airport in 2013, the 787 has since racked up a very impressive safety record. AI171 was the first time a 787 had been lost due to an accident. However, production of the plane has proved deeply problematic over the years with reports of defects and manufacturing problems, while whistleblowers have drawn attention to what they considered to be dangerous practices on the production line. Boeing has consistently denied allowing potentially dangerous planes to enter service. Reuters A firefighter stands next to the crashed Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner aircraftReuters Air India flight 171 crashed less than a minute after taking off from Ahmedabad airport The manufacturer's corporate culture has, however, come under fire thanks to a series of issues involving the smaller 737 Max - including two fatal crashes. It has been forced by regulators to implement a comprehensive safety and quality improvement plan. Air India, meanwhile, has struggled for years, racking up heavy losses. After being under government ownership until 2022, it was then taken over by the giant Tata Group. This was meant to herald a turnaround, but it has continued to struggle in what has been a difficult environment for the industry as a whole. It can not afford further damage to its brand. This is not the first time the current system for investigating major air accidents has faced criticism. It has however highlighted ongoing concerns about the integrity of high-profile and often politically sensitive inquiries. According to the non-profit Foundation for Aviation Safety, asking the country where the accident occurs to oversee an investigation "can trap the process within local bureaucracies or political pressures. Even more troubling, manufacturers' technical experts, while ostensibly assisting investigators, may face intense pressure to deflect corporate culpability." "Diagnosing an extremely complex airplane with an outdated playbook is impossible," says the Foundation's executive director, Ed Pierson. Eckhard Jann points out that the current system is still largely founded on principles set out in 1944. In today's more globalised world, he thinks "investigating authorities are having more and more difficulty fulfilling their duties: to investigate independently and make solid recommendations in order to improve aviation safety." The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the UN agency which oversees international air travel, is well aware that investigations can be vulnerable to conflicts of interest. In March, it set out a series of changes to Annex 13. These include giving countries the right to delegate investigations to a third party, as well as a number of steps to improve transparency. The new rules will take effect in late 2028. But according to Jann, this is just a sticking plaster. "Whatever ICAO is trying to change and improve is only trying to reduce the symptoms, but global aviation, global manufacturers and global airlines demand a global answer," he says. Such an answer, he believes, would be "a global investigation authority with enough power to demand changes based on their recommendations." But others question whether such investigations are even worthwhile in the modern era, given the tremendous cost and effort involved, among them, former investigator Tim Atkinson. "This cycle of an accident happens, you investigate it impartially, make recommendations, prevent future occurrences… it doesn't really happen any more. "The things that prevent people dying these days are nothing to do with that. They're to do with better technology." However, if investigations are to continue, he says, much more transparency is needed, with information being provided much more freely at an early stage. "I've always believed that", he says. "And I've never seen negative consequences of it". https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyk9exxp2qo Boeing Awaits Air India Flight 171 Report As Safety Risks Loom Boeing (NYSE:BA) is approaching the anniversary of the fatal Air India Flight 171 crash. The full official accident investigation report is expected to be released soon. The findings are likely to be closely watched by regulators, airlines and investors focused on aviation safety. The timing of this report coincides with Boeing trading at a share price of $214.51 while it remains a core stock in the global aviation supply chain. Recent returns have been weak, with the share price down 9.6% over the past 30 days and 5.8% year to date. For investors, this new safety-related catalyst sits alongside existing attention on deliveries, production and valuation for NYSE:BA. Once released, the investigation report on Air India Flight 171 could influence how regulators and airline customers assess Boeing's commercial aircraft programs and safety practices. Readers may want to watch for any operational changes, regulatory responses or shifts in airline ordering behavior that are directly linked to the report's conclusions. This event may also affect how markets account for safety, legal and reputational risks for the company over the medium term. Is Boeing's balance sheet strong enough for future acquisitions? Dive into our detailed financial health analysis. The upcoming Air India Flight 171 report sits squarely in Boeing’s regulatory and legal risk bucket. Unlike routine operational updates, a fatal 787 crash investigation can feed directly into how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation and other regulators judge Boeing’s safety culture and engineering decisions. Depending on the findings, investors may need to weigh the possibility of extra inspections, tighter oversight or model specific restrictions that could affect delivery schedules and customer confidence. At the same time, Boeing is handing over new 787s to customers such as Riyadh Air and working through 777X certification testing, so any recommendations that touch widebody design, software or maintenance practices will be watched closely across the fleet. For a stock already dealing with production, certification and balance sheet questions, this report is less about one aircraft and more about whether regulators conclude that Boeing’s internal changes on safety and quality are sufficient. How This Fits Into The Boeing Narrative The focus on safety and regulatory findings directly links to the existing narrative that Boeing needs cleaner execution and stronger quality controls to turn its commercial backlog into sustained cash generation. If investigators highlight shortcomings in design, documentation or safety oversight, that would challenge assumptions that production ramp ups for the 737 and 787 can progress without further regulatory setbacks. The narrative pays more attention to demand and backlog strength than to the detailed legal and reputational impact of a major crash investigation, so any lawsuit exposure or compensation discussions tied to Flight 171 may not be fully reflected. Knowing what a company is worth starts with understanding its story. Check out one of the top narratives in the Simply Wall St Community for Boeing to help decide what it's worth to you. The Risks and Rewards Investors Should Consider ⚠️ The Flight 171 report could trigger additional regulatory scrutiny, leading to higher compliance costs, tighter oversight and potential delivery disruptions for key programs if corrective actions are required. ⚠️ Legal and reputational fallout from a fatal crash may weigh on airline purchasing decisions and investor confidence, especially if investigators identify systemic issues in Boeing’s safety processes. 🎁 Clear findings that do not require broad design changes could reduce uncertainty around the 787 program and help regulators, airlines and investors recalibrate perceived safety risk. 🎁 Transparent cooperation with investigators and measured follow through on any recommendations may support Boeing’s efforts to rebuild trust relative to competitors like Airbus, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. What To Watch Going Forward From here, focus on three areas once the Flight 171 report is released: whether regulators call for model specific fixes or broader process changes, how quickly Boeing outlines and implements any required actions and how airline customers respond in terms of new orders, deferrals or contract terms. Updates from the FAA and other regulators on certification timelines for the 737 and 777X will help show if this report slows progress or is treated as a contained event. Investors may also want to track any disclosed legal provisions or settlements related to the crash, since these flow directly into cash flow and financial flexibility. https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/capital-goods/nyse-ba/boeing/news/boeing-awaits-air-india-flight-171-report-as-safety-risks-lo Southwest Airlines Reverses Flight Attendant Only Jumpseat Policy in Major Win For Non-Rev Employees But Crew Are Enraged Southwest Airlines has reversed its flight attendant jumpseat-only policy, which banned non-rev employees from other parts of the business from using a spare jumpseat when all the normal passenger seats on a flight were taken. The policy was introduced in March following a long campaign from the TWU 556 union, which represents flight attendants at the Dallas-based airline, who argued that banning anyone apart from flight attendants and pilots from using spare jumpseats was necessary to enhance safety. Southwest Airlines flight attendants had argued that spare jumpseats should only be occupied by trained aircrew. Free or deeply discounted flights are one of the best perks of working for an airline, but non-revving, as it is known in the airline industry, is based on a strict space-available basis. If a flight is fully booked, non-rev airline employees will hang around the gate until the very last moment in the hope that a regular passenger doesn’t show up. If all the regular passengers do show up on schedule, then non-revs are cast aside and left to figure out another way to get to their destination. There is, though, one last opportunity to get on board: Using a spare jumpseat by one of the cabin doors. Depending on the length of the flight, sitting in a jumpseat as a non-rev passenger is either a minor inconvenience or an incredibly uncomfortable marathon slog. But if a flight is fully booked, it’s the jumpseat or nothing. Southwest Airlines has long allowed employees from across the company to sit in a spare flight attendant jumpseat, but for several years, the TWU 556 urged the airline to change this policy, saying non-crew jumpseaters disrupt the in-flight duties of flight attendants and could be a detriment to safety, especially in the case of an evacuation. Non-rev employees will now be required to complete a CBT course on how to use a jumpseat harness if they want to be considered for a jumpseat. The AMFA 18 union, which represents Southwest Airlines mechanics, however, challenged the policy, pointing to a specific article in their contract which states: “Employees covered by this Agreement will be treated no less favorably than other Employee groups in prioritizing space available access to jumpseats.” The mechanics union was set to go to arbitration this week over the issue, but before the hearing could take place, Southwest Airlines reversed the policy, not just for AMFA 18 members, but for every employee group at the carrier. In an attempt to keep flight attendants happy about the policy reversal, Southwest Airlines is introducing a mandatory Computer-Based Training module for any employee who wants to be considered for a jumpseat when non-revving. The short module will cover how the harness on a flight attendant jumpseat works, best practices for how they should be around flight attendants, and what to do in case of an emergency evacuation. Unfortunately, this CBT module has done little to quell the temper of the flight attendant union, which has made it clear that it isn’t happy about jumpseats being open to all non-revving policies. The union does, though, claim this isn’t about trying to secure jumpseats for its members ahead of other employees, especially given the fact that nearly a third of all flight attendants at Southwest commute to work by air. Rather, the union claims its position is “about safety for everyone on the airplane.” “Flight Attendants are aviation’s first responders in the cabin, trained and recurrently qualified in emergency procedures, evacuations, and cabin safety,” the union said. “We know that an aircraft is safest when every person occupying a jumpseat has the required level of training and operational familiarity that Flight Attendants do.” Jumpseat policies can vary massively from one airline to the next. At some carriers, even non-employee non-rev passengers are allowed to occupy a spare jumpseat if there’s no other seat available, whereas at Persian Gulf carriers like Emirates, even the mere thought of opening up a spare jumpseat for a non-rev employee is a non-starter. https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2026/06/10/southwest-airlines-reverses-flight-attendant-only-jumpseat-policy-in-major-win-for-non-rev-employees-but-crew-are-enraged/ Delta Air Flight Diverts After Passenger is Accused of Slapping Female Crew Member’s Bottom Because She Skipped Him During Beverage Service A Delta Air Lines flight from Fort Lauderdale to Los Angeles ended up making an unscheduled landing at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport after a passenger allegedly slapped a female flight attendant’s bottom after she accidentally skipped him during the beverage service. The incident occurred on May 9, but is only now coming to light after a Georgia Grand Jury charged the suspect, Cody James Maluck, with interference with flight crew members – a federal crime that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000. Delta flight DL-800 departed Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport at around 7:50 am on May 9 for what should have been a five and a half hour cross country flight to Los Angeles. Aboard the Airbus A321 aircraft, a female flight attendant, who has only been identified as P.L.L by law enforcement, had just wrapped up a buy-on-board service and was beginning the complimentary beverage service. P.L.L was facing towards the rear of the aircraft and was slowly moving from row to row, asking the passengers what they wanted to drink. When she got to Maluck’s row, she thought he was sleeping, so she passed his seat and continued to serve passengers in the row behind him. Without warning, she suddenly felt a forceful slap on her buttock. So forceful, in fact, that she told an FBI investigator that her whole body jolted forward. She spun around to find Maluck holding his hands in the air, before she exclaimed: “I didn’t do anything.” The flight attendant immediately removed herself from Maluck’s presence and informed the lead crew member, who, in turn, told the pilots. The Captain then decided that it was “in the best interest of safety and security” to divert the flight to Atlanta. Once on the ground, Maluck was removed from the plane by law enforcement and read his Miranda Rights before being interrogated. Maluck told investigators that he hadn’t been sleeping but had been wearing headphones so couldn’t hear the flight attendant when she asked if he wanted a beverage. When she then skipped his row, Maluck admits to touching the flight attendant’s buttock area but denied slapping her. Maluck also told investigators that it was “not his intention to harm or disrespect” the flight attendant and that he was simply trying to get her attention. As of the date of his arraignment, Maluck remains in custody, awaiting trial. The issue of passengers touching flight attendants went viral last month when the Washington Post published an article on the matter. According to the article, some flight attendants have handcrafted their own pin badges and signs imploring passengers not to touch or poke them. On the other side of the fence are passengers innocently trying to get the attention of flight attendants, not realizing that their actions can be considered disrespectful and demeaning. As a flight attendant, I’ve found the occasional poke or prod by passengers an occupational hazard. It’s annoying, but I understand that no harm is meant by it. https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2026/06/10/delta-air-flight-diverts-after-passenger-is-accused-of-slapping-female-crew-members-bottom-because-she-skipped-him-during-beverage-service/ Boeing lands double-digit aircraft order from Uganda Airlines Boeing has received a double-digit aircraft order from Uganda Airlines worth $985 million, as the carrier looks to expand both passenger and cargo operations. On June 10, 2026, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni met with Anbessie Yitbarek, Boeing’s Vice President of Commercial Sales and Marketing for Africa, to finalize the agreement. Uganda Airlines committed to purchase eight unspecified new passenger aircraft and two cargo planes, a 767 Converted Freighter and a 737 Boeing Converted Freighter. Unconfirmed local media reports stated that the passenger aircraft includes four Boeing 787 Dreamliners and four 737 MAX. The signing ceremony was held at the State House in the presence of senior government officials, US Embassy officials, members of the Board of Directors of Uganda Airlines, and representatives of Boeing. Boeing Uganda Airlines order “This marks a major step in expanding Uganda’s aviation capacity and strengthening global connectivity,” Minister of Finance Planning, Henry Musasizi, said. “The fleet expansion, covering both passenger and cargo aircraft, will boost trade, tourism, and investment, and position Uganda as a key aviation hub in the region.” In a statement, Uganda Airlines said the new aircraft will “significantly increase” its ability to serve regional, continental and international markets while supporting the country’s economic transformation agenda. “The additional aircraft will facilitate trade, tourism, investment, and cargo development, directly contributing to Uganda Vision 2040 and the country’s aspiration to achieve sustainable middle-income status,” Uganda Airlines said. The carrier added: “This milestone commemorates the beginning of a long-term partnership between Uganda Airlines and Boeing.” The agreement also includes support from Boeing with technical expertise, training, and capacity building initiatives that are “critical for sustainable success”. According to ch-aviation, Uganda Airlines currently operates an active fleet of five aircraft including one wet leased Boeing 737-800, an Airbus A330-800 and three Bombardier CRJ-900s. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-lands-double-digit-aircraft-order-from-uganda-airlines Moses Lake AirPlant Opens As First U.S. Commercial Facility To Make Jet Fuel From CO2, Electricity MOSES LAKE — A new Moses Lake facility is now producing commercial-scale sustainable aviation fuel made from carbon dioxide, renewable electricity and water, marking what company officials say is a first for the United States. Twelve officially opened AirPlant One on Wednesday, June 10, in Moses Lake. The company said the facility is the first commercial-scale plant in the country to produce E-Jet fuel, a power-to-liquid sustainable aviation fuel made from CO2 and renewable electricity. The facility will also produce E-Naphtha, a chemical building block used in products such as plastics, packaging, solvents and synthetic fibers. The ribbon cutting was held at the Moses Lake facility with Alaska Airlines and Microsoft, two major partners in the project. Twelve said the opening marks the beginning of commercial-scale production and sets the stage for U.S. commercial flights powered by jet fuel made from air. AirPlant One is producing jet fuel that meets ASTM International certification standards for use in commercial aircraft, according to Twelve. The company said the fuel can be used without modifications to aircraft, engines or existing airport infrastructure. The fuel is being delivered and sold for commercial aviation use. Alaska Airlines is expected to operate regular domestic flights using E-Jet sustainable aviation fuel manufactured at the Moses Lake facility. “We broke ground on AirPlant One with a simple thesis: that the fuels powering the global economy could be made from renewable electricity and air, anywhere in the world,” said Nicholas Flanders, Co-Founder and CEO of Twelve. “Today, that thesis is operational and Alaska Airlines will fly on fuel made right here in Washington State. This is what American industrial electrification looks like.” Twelve said E-Jet fuel is different from bio-based sustainable aviation fuel because it does not rely on agricultural feedstocks, which can be limited by land and supply constraints. Instead, the company’s process uses captured CO2, water and renewable electricity to create hydrocarbon fuel molecules through an electrolyzer. The company said the resulting fuel is chemically identical to conventional jet fuel and can deliver up to 90% lower lifecycle CO2 emissions compared to conventional jet fuel. Twelve also said the production model could provide airlines with more predictable long-term fuel costs because the process is tied to electricity-based inputs and power contracts rather than crude oil markets. Alaska Airlines and Microsoft jointly committed in 2022 to purchase output from the facility, a move Twelve said helped make financing and construction possible. Alaska Star Ventures also participated in Twelve’s $645 million funding round. “As Seattle’s hometown airline, we are committed to supporting in-state production of sustainable aviation fuel, which is currently the best technology for the airline industry to reach net-zero carbon emissions”, said Ryan Spies, Alaska Airlines Managing Director of Sustainability. “Our partnership with Twelve and Microsoft demonstrates the power of innovation and collaboration to successfully advance SAF, while creating new jobs, diversifying fuel supply chains and strengthening energy security.” Microsoft supported the project through a strategic investment from its Climate Innovation Fund and a sustainable aviation fuel offtake agreement. The agreement uses a book-and-claim accounting model, which Microsoft said will allow the company to reduce its reported emissions associated with business travel. “Climate progress depends on collaborations that send signals to investors and innovators to move markets,” said Melanie Nakagawa, CVP and Chief Sustainability Officer, Microsoft. “Our investment in Twelve helps scale energy solutions while laying the groundwork for cleaner aviation at a global scale. We look forward to sourcing future gallons of Washington-produced SAF to help reduce our business travel emissions.” In addition to aviation fuel, AirPlant One will produce E-Naphtha, which Twelve describes as a drop-in substitute for traditional naphtha. The company said the product can be used by manufacturers to make CO2-based materials for everyday goods. Twelve said it has already delivered proof-of-concept projects with companies including Mercedes-Benz, PANGAIA and Procter & Gamble. The company said AirPlant One demonstrates that power-to-liquid fuel production is commercially viable in the United States and positions Twelve to expand production to additional sites, airline partners and fuel and chemical products. https://www.yoursourceone.com/columbia_basin/moses-lake-airplant-opens-as-first-u-s-commercial-facility-to-make-jet-fuel-from/article_b3f2af7a-df23-4b01-b4d6-bd0c65d932d7.html Gulfstream delivers 100th G700 and completes 100th speed record The G700 can fly 7,750nm/14,353km at Mach 0.85 On 10 June, Gulfstream Aerospace announced its 100th customer delivery as well as the 100th city-pair speed record for the Gulfstream G700. “The G700 has once again set a new benchmark, firmly establishing itself as the business aviation industry flagship,” said Mark Burns, president, Gulfstream. “As deliveries have increased, so has customer demand. Thanks to the investments Gulfstream and our parent company, General Dynamics, have made in next generation manufacturing technology and facilities, the G700 quality and maturity are second to none. I am incredibly proud of the Gulfstream team, whose dedication and expertise continues to create and deliver the world’s finest aviation experience.” The 100th G700 city-pair speed record connected Savannah with San Jose, California, in 4 hours and 36 minutes at an average cruise speed of Mach 0.91. The aircraft then flew from San Jose to Teterboro, New Jersey, making that record-setting flight in 4 hours and 14 minutes, also at Mach 0.91. The G700 is produced at Gulfstream’s advanced manufacturing campus in Savannah, which enhances operational efficiency through high technology tooling, advanced robotics and precision assembly methods. With Gulfstream’s next generation Symmetry Flight Deck, the G700 features active control sidesticks and touch-screen technology paired with Phase of Flight intelligence, which reduces pilot workload to help enhance safety. Additional safety features include Gulfstream’s Combined Vision System on dual head up display, merging Enhanced Flight Vision System and Synthetic Vision System into a single image to increase pilot situational awareness and open access to more airports. More than 700 pilots have been trained and type rated by FlightSafety International, a further testament to the widespread appeal of the Symmetry Flight Deck’s innovative technology and pilot-centric design. The G700 has earned certification in more than 20 countries and is in service with customers around the world. Featuring a spacious cabin, the G700 can fly 7,750nm/14,353km at Mach 0.85 or 6,650nm/12,316km at Mach 0.90 and has a maximum operating speed of Mach 0.935. The Gulfstream Cabin Experience with 100% fresh air, abundant natural light from 20 Gulfstream Panoramic Oval Windows, and low cabin altitudes at the highest elevations significantly reduces jet lag over the ultralong-range routes the G700 was designed to fly. https://www.businessjetinteriorsinternational.com/news/orders-deliveries/gulfstream-delivers-100th-g700-and-completes-100th-speed-record.html Jet Linx Aviation maintains Wyvern Wingman Pro Certification Top 10 fractional/charter operator has maintained its top tier status with safety ratings service Wyvern Ltd. Jet Linx Aviation, LLC has successfully maintained its Wyvern Wingman Pro Certified Operator designation. It is Wyvern’s highest rating. Jet Linx also holds top rating status from ARGUS International and IS-BAO. The top-10 private jet operator also participates in Wyvern’s quarterly monitoring and coaching. Jet Linx CEO Jamie Walker says, “We look at Wyvern as a true thought partner.” NetJets Praetor 500 Find the perfect solution for your private aviation needs Receive an apples-to-apples comparison of programs that meet your needs from more than 500 jet card and fractional options covering 65 points of differentiation and over 40,000 data points. He adds, “Having that essential set of eyes outside the walls of Jet Linx allows us to view our operation through a completely different lens.” Walker continues, “For us, the real value of the Wingman Pro program isn’t in a one-time audit or simply earning a certification; it’s the continuous coaching.” Certification is awarded to operators that demonstrate exceptional performance across all elements of their safety management system, effectively manage human factors and organizational safety culture, and consistently comply with international standards through robust internal audit processes, per Wyvern. COO Andrew Day says, “Through its ongoing participation in the Wyvern Flight Leader Program, Jet Linx has demonstrated a proactive approach to strengthening its safety management system, fostering a resilient safety culture, and embracing continuous coaching as a catalyst for operational advancement.” Earlier this week, Jet Linx held its annual Safety Summit. https://privatejetcardcomparisons.com/2026/06/11/jet-linx-aviation-maintains-wyvern-wingman-pro-certification/ What an airline passenger encounters when they try to storm a cockpit Washington — Cruising above the clouds at 32,000 feet in the air, chaos erupted in the cabin of a Frontier Airlines flight from Puerto Rico to Chicago last month. A 51-year-old passenger tried to open an exit door and now was trying to force his way into the cockpit. According to court records, Juan Gabriel Reyes, began “shoving his shoulder aggressively on the pilot’s door” and later attempted to choke an off-duty flight attendant before he was eventually restrained. The disruption caused the flight to divert to Miami International Airport where Reyes was taken into custody by the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office and is facing two charges in federal court. CNN reached out to Reyes’ attorney for comment, but she did not respond. The incident came just a few days after a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Minneapolis diverted to Madison, Wisconsin, after a passenger made “multiple attempts to try to breach the cockpit,” according to air traffic control audio reviewed by CNN. Law enforcement onboard a United Airlines plane that diverted to Madison, Wisconsin due to an unruly passenger. The man in a blue shirt helped interpret during the incident. He is not the suspect. The recent disturbances are among 687 reports of unruly passengers the Federal Aviation Administration received so far this year, just as the busy summer travel season begins to ramp up. No one has successfully stormed the cockpit of a commercial aircraft flying in the United States since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and multiple steps have been taken to keep a would-be attacker – or simply an out-of-control passenger – from doing so, but some experts say more could be done. Reinforced cockpit doors The doors to the cockpit that recent passengers tried to breach were locked and reinforced to prevent anyone from getting inside. After the 9/11 attacks, airlines were required to install permanent reinforcements to all existing cockpit doors, and include them in newly-built aircraft, by April 2003. Many airlines and manufacturers opted to use bulletproof material, composites, reinforced door jambs and locks. “Somebody is not going to knock down the door with their shoulder,” said John Pistole, former Transportation Security Administration administrator. “(They) might knock down their shoulder, but the door should stay intact.” Prior to 9/11, the FAA had required cockpit doors to be able to be easily kicked open in case the crew became trapped. Reinforced doors only work when they are closed, however — and on many long flights that is not possible for the entire trip. What happens when the door opens When a pilot needs to use the lavatory, get a meal, or switch seats with a relief pilot on a long flight, the reinforced door must be opened. The potential security vulnerability has been a concern for years, and airlines use procedures including flight attendants blocking the aisle with drink carts to protect the cockpit. A 2023 FAA rule required new planes have a secondary barrier that can be locked in place when the cockpit door must be opened. Southwest Airlines’ newest jets are now flying with a barrier that can protect the cockpit when pilots need to open the door during flight. Southwest Airlines’ newest jets are now flying with a barrier that can protect the cockpit when pilots need to open the door during flight. Southwest Airlines Typically looking more like a gate than a solid door, the barriers are placed just in front of the first row of passengers and allow a pilot to exit the cockpit and visit the lavatory or the galley without leaving an unsecured path between passengers and the cockpit. The rule was supposed to apply to newly manufactured commercial aircraft starting in the summer of 2025, but the FAA agreed to delay implementing the requirement until this August. The agency told CNN it granted temporary relief to airlines, allowing time to facilitate FAA certification, install barriers and train crewmembers. “Most exemptions will expire on July 31, 2026,” FAA spokesperson Ian Gregor told CNN in an email. “The FAA is considering extension requests for a few exemptions for airplanes with unique interior configurations.” Aviation labor unions have opposed the delays and long argued that secondary barriers are needed. “It’s just one of the most easy, clear security enhancements that you can have on an airplane,” said Capt. Dennis Tajer, a spokesperson for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines’ pilots. “A quarter of a century, and we are still fighting to get a second layer of security on that flight deck door. This is unacceptable, unpatriotic, and just downright disrespectful to aviation security.” However, Pistole warns that added costs for airlines could increase passenger ticket prices, and questions if the barriers are essential. “If there’s been a 0% success rate for a bad person to get to cockpit in the US post-9/11… is it necessary? Would it be nice? Would it be good? Well, sure,” Pistole said. “(If) the airlines do it, then presumably ticket prices will go up for the economy, and so I don’t see a mandate.” Currently, there are no approved secondary barriers for retrofitting older planes. What are airlines doing about it? Despite the delays in requirements, some new planes already have the new barriers in place. Southwest Airlines’ newest jets are currently flying with the secondary barrier. Spokesperson Lynn Lunsford told CNN the barriers are put into use “immediately” and approximately 45 planes already have it installed. The secondary cockpit barrier shown open on a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737, allowing passengers and flight attendants to access the passenger cabin, galley and the forward lavatory. The secondary cockpit barrier shown open on a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737, allowing passengers and flight attendants to access the passenger cabin, galley and the forward lavatory. Southwest Airlines American Airlines spokesperson Alex Dixon told CNN the airline “remains on track” to meet the FAA’s requirement this summer. Over 30 aircraft on American’s fleet already have secondary barriers installed. Tajer said he has seen a video of it but has not flown with one yet. United Airlines confirmed that beginning last year, all new planes were delivered with secondary barriers. Delta Air Lines said secondary barriers are in place “on a growing number of aircraft.” Despite the significant problems posed by disruptive passengers, they are only a tiny fraction of all flyers. Even so, every airline pilot and flight attendant undergoes extensive training to make sure they’re ready if there is a crisis onboard. “The safety and security of our passengers and employees is always our highest priority, and airlines comply with all federal rules and regulations,” a spokesperson for Airlines for America, the lobbying group representing airlines said in a statement. Delta, American and Southwest airlines all confirmed they train their crew members to respond to unruly passengers. Delta, for example, trains flight attendants to prioritize safety and use their judgment to respond appropriately based on each situation, a spokesperson told CNN in an email. “They undergo extensive, ongoing training to manage a wide range of onboard scenarios,” the spokesperson said in a statement. Southwest said it has “robust training programs and procedures” so crew members can “respond appropriately if interactions with passengers become confrontational.” Airlines often prioritize de-escalation techniques to calm passengers who may be angry, suffering mental health episodes, or are intoxicated. Staff are also trained to limit supplying alcohol if a person appears intoxicated. In some cases, it’s the passengers who lend a hand. On the flight from Puerto Rico that diverted to Miami, a former professional MMA fighter with Jiu-jitsu experience named Josh Longood, who held down Reyes, the disruptive passenger. “I grabbed him, controlled him, safely restrained him, put him back in the row he was in and kind of held him down,” Longood told CNN in an interview. For more serious disruptions, including terrorism, some pilots volunteer to carry guns in the cockpit as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program established after 9/11. These pilots complete a week of training and a twice-a-year review “to use firearms to defend against an act of criminal violence and air piracy while attempting to gain control of an aircraft,” the TSA said. An average of a million flights a year are flown with armed pilots, according to the Air Line Pilots Association. Some flights also include armed air marshals, trained federal agents who fly undercover to protect flights. The exact number is classified, but CNN has reported there are about 2,000 to 3,000 total. Serious consequences for unruly passengers Crimes aboard aircraft, like attempts to breach the cockpit, are subject to federal charges, and unruly passengers are often met at the gate by local law enforcement, or even the FBI. “The FAA pursues legal enforcement action against any passenger who assaults, threatens, intimidates, or interferes with airline crewmembers, and can propose civil penalties up to $37,000 per violation,” according to the agency. Last year, 1,621 reports of unrully passengers were reported to the agency and 130 enforcement actions were taken, totaling $2.3 million in fines. The total is below the record number of 5,973 reported to the FAA in 2021 when travel was rebounding after the Covid-19 pandemic. https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/11/us/what-happens-storm-cockpit Overhead Bins Could Start to Be Locked During Flights Thanks to Passengers Ignoring Safety Rules A new study revealed four in 10 passengers would not leave their baggage behind in the event of an emergency evacuation Aviation experts have observed a concerning increase in passengers retrieving their luggage in the event of an emergency evacuation A study found 40% of passengers didn't know they should leave belongings behind in an emergency Experts warn stricter measures like locking overhead bins may be implemented if behavior doesn't improve A major convenience on commercial flights may soon go away if passengers continue disobeying commonsense safety rules, experts have warned. A concerning trend of passengers retrieving baggage instead of evacuating aircraft in an emergency is concerning the aviation industry. A new campaign from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), entitled “Save a Life, Not a Bag,” is attempting to better educate the traveling public to leave all baggage behind, and move quickly to the nearest usable exit. However, if the educational campaign fails, industry experts say more drastic measures may need to be taken. “The approach of the industry at first will be let's see if we can educate and see if that changes behavior,” IATA's senior vice-president of operations, safety and security Nick Careen said at the organization's annual meeting in Rio de Janeiro on June 8, per U.K. newspaper The Times. “If we don't see the type of behavior changes that we're expecting then we'll have to be a little draconian which could be penalties and could be something as simple as a hard locking mechanism on the overhead bin.” He added: “Penalties are somewhat effective but unless they're implemented on a consistent basis then they lose their effectiveness.” The campaign comes after IATA commissioned a study which revealed four in 10 passengers did not realize it is an expectation to leave their belongings behind. The survey was conducted among passengers from the U.S., the U.K., Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. The study further found that 80% of passengers claim to know what to do in an emergency, but only 61% correctly said they should leave everything behind. “Even just a passenger or two taking a few extra seconds to gather personal items can endanger lives,” Careen said in a press release. “That's why it's essential to build good habits for all travelers, like paying attention to safety demonstrations each time and keeping essential items, such as passports, money, and medication on person.” The campaign further advises that using phones to film or photograph events could create dangerous congestion and distract other passengers. Officials also recommend keeping all aisles and exits clear for everyone on board. Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. The campaign is supported by both the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “Safety is a shared responsibility, and informed, attentive passengers help ensure a faster, safer evacuation for everyone on board,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said in a press release. https://people.com/overhead-bins-may-be-locked-during-flights-if-passengers-continue-ignoring-safety-rules-11995385 Graduate Research Request Dear Pilots, My name is Giada Palusci, and I am a Master’s student in Clinical and Health Psychology at the University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy. As part of my thesis, I am conducting research on Fatigue Risk Management, with a particular focus on the relationship between sleep, jet lag, and work rosters among commercial pilots. Aviation safety depends heavily on the human element, and direct insights from flight crews are essential to better understand current operational challenges. If you are a commercial pilot, I would be extremely grateful if you could spare a few minutes to complete this short, anonymous, and confidential survey. Survey Link: https://qualtricsxmbhmnrhr9l.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_esP9sU63Y7tM9LM Upon completion of the study, I will be happy to share the final results with Dr. Lewis and the broader aviation community. Thank you very much for your time and for your continued commitment to advancing aviation safety. Kind regards, Giada Palusci CALENDAR OF EVENTS .2026 FAA-EASA International Aviation Safety Conference — June 16-18, 2026, in Chantilly, Virginia, with the theme “Safety Together: Innovation, Integration and Trust.” https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/events/2026-faa-easa-international-aviation-safety-conference . 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 . EAA AirVenture Oshkosh - July 20–26, 2026 . ICAO/EASA Third Global RSOO/RAIO Forum for Aviation Safety — September 29–30, 2026, in Georgetown, Guyana., https://www.icao.int/events : 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 . Global Aviation Conference Frankfurt- 29-30SEP2026 - Frankfurt, Germany . 2026 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) Oct. 20-22, 2026 | Las Vegas, NV . 2027 ACSF Safety Symposium - April 6-8, 2027 - ERAU Daytona Beach, FL Curt Lewis