Flight Safety Information SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 - No. 181 In This Issue Former Boeing official subpoenaed in 737 MAX probe won't turn over documents, citing Fifth Amendment EU regulator pushes Boeing on Max fixes Incident: France A332 near Gander on Sep 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight Incident: Southwest B738 at Baltimore on Sep 6th 2019, unusual odour on board Cayman Airways flight makes emergency landing in Orlando due to feared smoke condition Incident: Max B744 at Minna on Sep 7th 2019, engine failure and runway excursion Incident: Panama F50 at Panama City on Sep 5th 2019, engine shut down in flight Cessna 560XLS+ Citation XLS+ - Ground Collision (Italy) Door blows out during ground test on Boeing 777X jet Three Arguments For And Against Eliminating Airline Co-Pilots NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt talks about charter flight safety in Alaska Hundreds of firearms found each year in Texas airports at TSA checkpoints Russian and Italian stole GE Aviation trade secrets, feds charge FAA issues temporary flight restriction for Bahamian airspace ICELAND'S WOW AIR REVIVED BY US AVIATION FIRM Grounding the 737 Max Eases Turbulence for Airlines Here's Why Planes Fly at 36,000 Feet EgyptAir signs deal with Airbus to buy 27 new aircraft: CEO Airbus deliveries fall to 42 aircraft per month in August 2019 It's time to re-regulate airlines SpaceX's Plans With Starship Rocket Revealed By Leaked FAA Document Aviation Cybersecurity Survey The Northeast Aviation Leadership Workshop Aircraft Cabin Air - International Conference Advanced Aircraft Accident Investigation from SCSI TSI - Aviation Safety Risk Management Using BowTie - Course TSI - Instructor Qualification & Excellence Course International Conference on Unruly Airline Passenger Behaviour Former Boeing official subpoenaed in 737 MAX probe won't turn over documents, citing Fifth Amendment protection The final assembly area for the 737 MAX airplanes outside the Boeing factory in Renton in May. (Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times) A former Boeing official who played a key role in the development of the 737 MAX has refused to provide documents sought by federal prosecutors investigating two fatal crashes of the jetliner, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mark Forkner, Boeing's chief technical pilot on the MAX project, invoked the privilege in response to a grand jury subpoena issued by U.S. Justice Department prosecutors looking into the design and certification of the plane, the person said. Invoking the Fifth to avoid testifying, while a legal right, is sometimes interpreted as an admission of guilt. Its use to resist a subpoena for documents is less common and may only imply a dance between prosecutors and defense attorneys, legal experts say. Forkner, now a first officer for Southwest Airlines, referred questions to his attorney when reached by phone. His attorney, David Gerger, of Houston, did not respond to inquiries. Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment. Boeing also declined to comment. Prosecutors in the Justice Department's Washington, D.C., fraud section are conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the crashes that occurred Oct. 29 off Indonesia, and March 10 in Ethiopia, killing 346 people and leading to worldwide grounding of the plane. Their investigation includes the role of a new flight-safety control system called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which has been implicated in the crashes. Forkner, who worked at Boeing from 2011 to 2018, according to his LinkedIn profile, was frequently anxious about the deadlines and pressures faced in the MAX program, going to some of his peers in the piloting world for help, a person who worked on the project previously told The Seattle Times, speaking on condition of anonymity. The MCAS system, designed to move a powerful control surface at the tail to push the airplane's nose down in certain rare situations, played a critical role in the crashes when the planes nose-dived out of the sky. During the certification process, Forkner suggested to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that MCAS not be included in the pilot manual, according to previous Seattle Times reporting. The FAA, after internal deliberations, agreed to keep MCAS out of the manual, reasoning that MCAS was software that operates in the background as part of the flight-control system, according to an official familiar with the discussions. In addition, Boeing won the FAA's approval to give pilots just an hour of training through an iPad about the differences between the MAX and the previous 737 generation. MCAS was not mentioned. Boeing has said MCAS was only one link in a chain of events, and that MCAS was designed according to the standard procedures it has used for years. "The 737 MAX was certified in accordance with the identical FAA requirements and processes that have governed certification of previous new airplanes and derivatives," the company said in a previous statement. Gerger, in an earlier interview, said, "Mark never dreamed anything like this could happen. He put safety first." It isn't clear when Forkner received the subpoena or if the Justice Department, as part of the secret grand jury proceedings, has asked a judge to compel disclosure of the documents. Also unknown is whether Forkner and the Justice Department have discussed terms under which he might surrender the documents, and whether subpoenas have been issued to other individuals for records. While the Fifth Amendment protects people from testifying against themselves, it "usually does not apply to being required to produce documents because producing a document is not the same as being required to testify," said University of Washington law professor Jeffrey Feldman. But there are exceptions that allow the privilege to be asserted where "the mere act of producing the document" may be seen as an incriminating act, Feldman said. Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor, said documents may show a person "has them, knows about them or admits they exist." "This information can often be somewhat incriminating of that person and thus covered by his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination," Rothstein said. Some courts have held that broad document requests require the person to "use his or her mental processes to interpret and respond to the subpoena, and the production itself could be viewed as testimonial," said Peter Joy, a Washington University law professor. In Forkner's case, Feldman said, it could turn on the type of documents. "Are these the employee's personal documents? His diary or personal emails? Or are they Boeing's documents?" Forkner could ask for immunity from use of the information in the documents, or prosecutors could offer it, the experts said. "Such immunity means the revealed information cannot be used in any way in any investigation of him or any criminal prosecution of him," Rothstein said, noting that it is not a blanket immunity from investigation or prosecution based on evidence obtained elsewhere. It is "just an immunity from use of this particular evidence or information," he said. But prosecutors can independently seek other evidence, Feldman said. He said if there is a plausible assertion of the privilege, it would "not be unusual to see the government offer" of immunity. "It could just be the kind of waltz you often see in cases like this, by which individuals who are concerned that they may get swept up in a criminal matter try and obtain some protection and assurances to lower their risk," Feldman said. "Or it could be much more significant both for the individual or the company." https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/former-boeing-official-subpoenaed-in-737-max-probe-wont-turn-over-documents-citing-fifth-amendment-protection/ Back to Top EU regulator pushes Boeing on Max fixes Agency airs concerns even as FAA weighs jet's return SEATTLE -- Europe's aviation safety agency, which is conducting its own independent review of Boeing's grounded 737 Max, is not satisfied with a key detail of Boeing's fix to the jet. It wants Boeing to do more to improve the integrity of the sensors that failed in the two fatal crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, killing 346 people. And it's demanding that Boeing demonstrate in flight tests the stability of the Max during extreme maneuvers, not only with Boeing's newly updated flight-control system but also with that system switched off. These were among the disclosures in a presentation last week to the European Parliament by Patrick Ky, executive director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. Ky listed what appear to be more stringent agency requirements than those of its U.S. counterpart, the Federal Aviation Administration. Boeing has publicly said it hopes for FAA clearance for the Max in October so that it can return to passenger service in the U.S. this year. Typically, overseas regulators follow the FAA's lead. But after the Max crashes revealed shortcomings in the FAA's certification process, that's no longer certain. One of Ky's slides cited a letter the EU agency sent to the FAA on April 1, less than three weeks after the Max was grounded, that laid out four conditions for it to allow the Max to return to service. The first condition stipulated is, "Design changes proposed by Boeing are [EU-approved]." The second is that the EU agency complete an "additional and broader independent review" of the aircraft, beyond the specific design changes to the flight-control system that went haywire on the crashed flights. If the FAA moves ahead and clears the Max to fly while the EU agency holds off until later, it would create an unprecedented divergence in worldwide regulation that would gravely complicate the schedules of many airlines flying internationally. FAA approval would apply only to U.S. airlines flying domestically. European airlines flying the Max, such as Norwegian Air, require clearance from the EU agency. And it will put Boeing in a very awkward position if the FAA says the Max is safe to fly while others hold back approval. FLAWED SYSTEM Both Max crashes were initiated by faulty sensors that measure the plane's angle of attack, the angle between the oncoming airflow and the wing. That fault then activated a new flight-control system -- a piece of software known as the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system -- that on each of the crashed flights repeatedly pushed the nose of the jet down. Although Boeing has updated flight-control software so that it now takes input from both angle-of-attack sensors on the Max instead of only one, and won't operate if they disagree, Ky indicated his agency finds this insufficient. One of his slides states that while Boeing's proposal has improved the angle-of-attack system, there is "still no appropriate response to Angle of Attack integrity issues." On Thursday, the agency elaborated a little in an email: "We can confirm that [the EU aviation safety agency] is not yet satisfied with the proposed solution by Boeing on the improved architecture and logics for the [angle-of-attack] system," the agency wrote. "We are following a methodical approach to assess the overall safety of the flight control and associated functions of the aircraft, as well as the pilot interaction with the systems, to take account of the human factors involved." And the agency wants stringent flight tests that prove the Max's safety with or without the flight-control software. Boeing engineers designed the original system to smooth out the feel of the yoke in the pilot's hands during certain extreme high-speed turn and stall maneuvers. Before the Max is cleared to fly passengers again, both the EU agency and the FAA will require flight tests of the new updated software. In addition, Ky said, his agency will require Boeing to demonstrate the stability of the jet in flight tests that include high-speed turn and stall maneuvers with the flight control software switched off. INSTABILITY COMPLAINTS The latter requirement should go some way to satisfying one gnawing public concern about the Max. On the Internet, many Boeing critics have expressed concern that the jet is "inherently unstable" with engines that are too big, and that a software "Band-Aid" isn't good enough to fix that. The EU agency's requirement to fly safely without the flight-control software should demonstrate otherwise. On Wednesday, the FAA declined to clarify if the EU agency's requirements are stricter or in line with its own. "We aren't going to comment on specific details about ongoing discussions," the FAA said in a statement. "The FAA has a transparent and collaborative relationship with other civil aviation authorities as we continue our review of changes to software on the Boeing 737 Max ... Each government will make its own decision to return the aircraft to service based on a thorough safety assessment." While U.S. pilots have said they are satisfied that some computer-based training is sufficient, overseas regulators may require full flight-simulator training. The FAA official said that both the EU agency and India's aviation regulator have so far balked at agreeing to computer-based training alone. Ky said that the agency communicated to Boeing and the FAA in July a list of significant technical problems, which included system failures insufficiently monitored; forces needed to move the manual trim wheel too high; and a risk of crew confusion in some failure cases, especially an angle of attack single failure at takeoff. A slide presenting the "latest status" of the process indicates that the pilot training and angle-of-attack system remain in play. In a statement Wednesday, Boeing declined to comment on discussions with regulators. "We continue to work with the FAA and global regulators on addressing their concerns in order to safely return the Max to service," the company said in a statement. https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/sep/08/eu-regulator-pushes-boeing-on-max-fixes/ Back to Top Incident: France A332 near Gander on Sep 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight An Air France Airbus A330-200, registration F-GZCF performing flight AF-159 from Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was enroute at FL390 over the Labrador Sea about 450nm northeast of Gander,NL (Canada) when the crew shut the right hand engine (CF6) down due to low oil pressure. The crew declared PAN PAN and diverted to Gander for a safe landing about 75 minutes after the decision to turn around. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Gander about 41 hours after landing. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFR159/history/20190906/2050Z/KDFW/LFPG http://avherald.com/h?article=4cc9311a&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Southwest B738 at Baltimore on Sep 6th 2019, unusual odour on board A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-800, registration N8507C performing flight WN-1395 from Baltimore,MD to Los Angeles,CA (USA) with 125 passengers and 6 crew, was climbing out of Baltimore's runway 15R when the crew stopped the climb at 4000 feet reporting an unusual odour on board. The aircraft returned to Baltimore for a safe landing on runway 10 about 15 minutes after departure. The airline reported the aircraft returned due to an unusual odour. A visual inspection did not reveal any anomaly, nonetheless, a replacement aircraft was provided. A replacement Boeing 737-700 registration N250WN is estimated to reach Los Angeles with a delay of 90 minutes. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA1395/history/20190906/1510Z/KBWI/KLAX http://avherald.com/h?article=4cc7ce3b&opt=0 Back to Top Cayman Airways flight makes emergency landing in Orlando due to feared smoke condition Cayman Airways flight makes emergency landing in Orlando due to feared smoke condition originally appeared on abcnews.go.com Passengers on a Cayman Airways flight made a frightening, emergency landing in Orlando on Sunday evening after pilots detected a smoke condition on board. Flight KX792 departed Grand Cayman at 3:30 p.m. for New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport before diverting to Orlando International Airport, where it landed at 6:17 p.m., after a smoke indicator light came on showing smoke in one of the cargo holds. The jet deployed emergency slides on the runway "with the uncertainty of what was causing the indication," according to Cayman Airways. Cayman Airways said there is no evidence there was actually ever smoke in the cargo hold. There were 103 passengers and five crew members on board. "We are extremely mindful that this emergency landing and evacuation was a very distressing event," Cayman Airways CEO Fabian Whorms said in a statements. "On behalf of Cayman Airways, I offer a most sincere apology to our passengers for having to experience this emergency landing and evacuation, which was necessary in the interest of safety of our passengers and crew." The passengers were taken back to the terminal and put in a hotel before scheduling a flight for Monday. Jenn Chirico, who was on the flight, posted on Facebook that the passengers were waiting in the airport since they had to be processed by customs. "People in exit rows were to help, slides were deployed, we were instructed when on the ground to run as fast as we could from the plane," Chirico posted. "It was one of the scariest things I have ever experienced." No one was injured. The airplane was removed from service for repairs, which affected four flights on Monday. https://www.yahoo.com/gma/cayman-airways-flight-makes-emergency-landing-orlando-due-054018435--abc-news-topstories.html Back to Top Back to Top Incident: Max B744 at Minna on Sep 7th 2019, engine failure and runway excursion A Max Air Boeing 747-400, registration 5N-DBK performing Hajj flight NR-2092 from Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) to Minna (Nigeria) with about 550 people on board, was on approach to Minna when an engine (PW4056) failed. The crew continued for landing on runway 05 at about 05:00L (04:00Z), the aircraft however went off the runway and came to a stop off the runway. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained minor damage. Nigeria's Accident Investigation Board opened an investigation into the occurrence and dispatched 5 investigators on site. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Minna about 34 hours after landing. On Sep 8th 2019 the airline reported the aircraft landed in a heavy downpour and gusting winds, the ILS was "epileptic" with unreliable signals. The crew performed the approach using their wealth of knowledge about the terrain and environment and performed a safe landing and stop on the runway, one of the engine pods however did contact the runway surface and was slightly brushed. The slight brush of the engine was due to the complex landing maneouvers occasioned by a strong downdraft. The aircraft did not crash land or skid off the runway. http://avherald.com/h?article=4cc8752f&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Panama F50 at Panama City on Sep 5th 2019, engine shut down in flight An Air Panama Fokker 50, registration HP-1606PST performing flight 7P-972 from Panama City Gelabert to David (Panama), was climbing through 11000 feet out of Marcos Gelabert Airport when the crew needed to shut one of the engines (PW125) down. The aircraft diverted to Balboa Panama Pacific Airport for a safe landing. Panama's Autoridad Aeronautica Civil reported the aircraft landed at Panama Pacific Airport following a mechanical defect. Safety inspectors are investigating the causes. http://avherald.com/h?article=4cc7d1c4&opt=0 Back to Top Cessna 560XLS+ Citation XLS+ - Ground Collision (Italy) Date: Thursday 5 September 2019 Time: ca 23:00 Type: Cessna 560XLS+ Citation XLS+ Operator: Skyline Aviation Registration: OE-GES C/n / msn: 560-6036 First flight: 2009 Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Aircraft damage: Substantial Location: Milano-Malpensa Airport (MXP) ( Italy) Phase: Standing (STD) Nature: - Departure airport: - Destination airport: - Narrative: The Cessna 560XLS+ Citation XLS+ corporate jet sustained serious damage to the left-hand wing leading edge when an airport vehicle ran into it. The aircraft was parked in front of a hangar in night-time conditions. The vehicle fell over and the driver was injured. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20190905-0 Back to Top Door blows out during ground test on Boeing 777X jet The new Boeing 777X has the largest wings on any Boeing jet that fold at the tip to fit into airport gates. Boeing's new widebody jet, the 777X, suffered a setback Thursday afternoon during a high-pressure stress test on the ground when one of the airplane's cargo doors exploded outward. One 777X employee working in a nearby bay at Boeing's Everett plant said he heard "a loud boom and the ground shook." The accident happened to what's called the "static test airplane," one of the two airplanes in any new jet program that are built for ground testing only and will never fly. It was during the final test that must be passed as part of the airplane's certification by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The failure of the door will require careful analysis to find out why it happened, and it may mean Boeing will have to replace the door and repeat the test. The 777X program is already delayed due to a problem with development of the GE-9X engine that will power it. In July, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg revealed on a quarterly earnings call that the first 777X intended to fly, which rolled out of the Everett factory in March, will not make it into the air until next year. This ground test failure is another blow. The static test plane is the one that is deliberately stressed well beyond the limits of normal service. The airplane is surrounded by a metal framework while weights passing through pulleys are fixed to the wings and other parts of the airframe. During the ultimate load test, the wings are then pulled upward. To pass the test and be certified, the wings must bend without breaking until the load on them reaches at least 150 percent of the normally expected load. In addition, the skin panels that cover both the wings and the fuselage are pressurized to the maximum stress that would be expected at the edge of any extreme maneuver anticipated in service. The pressure is ratcheted up by pumping air into the cabin. Sometimes this final test is continued beyond the 150 percent load target until a wing actually breaks. But not always. The carbon-composite wings on the 787 Dreamliner are so flexible that when Boeing tested those in 2010 they bent upward by about 25 feet and, having comfortably surpassed the target load, Boeing halted the test without breaking them. The massively larger wings of the 777X are also carbon composite, with a folding tip, and during Thursday's test those must have flexed in a similarly impressive way to those of the 787. This time, however, though the wings did not give way; it was one of the doors that failed - an outcome that is definitely not supposed to happen. The entire area around the static airplane is typically cleared during this test, with all the measurements taken by monitoring equipment and with engineers watching anxiously on a video link as the load slowly inches up toward the target and the pressure increases. No one was injured in Thursday's door explosion, which happened shortly after 1:30 p.m., and everyone was able to exit the building. On Friday, according to Boeing employees, caution tape was attached to all the entry doors and no one was allowed into the building. After the incident was first reported Friday by KOMO News, Boeing confirmed that a serious incident had occurred but offered few details. "During final load testing on the 777X static test airplane, the team encountered an issue that required suspension of the test," it said in a statement. "The event is under review and the team is working to understand root cause." Boeing went on to emphasize that "the testing conditions were well beyond any load expected in commercial service" and that the plane used in the test "will never fly or be used in passenger service." Because the GE engine issue has already pushed the jet's flight tests into next year, it's possible Boeing may have time to analyze and redo the ultimate load ground test without a further hit to the schedule. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/door-blows-out-during-ground-test-on-boeing-777x-jet/ Back to Top Three Arguments For And Against Eliminating Airline Co-Pilots Stephen Rice I teach and conduct research in Aviation Human Factors at ERAU. Decades ago, there was a flight engineer present in the cockpit of commercial airplanes whose job was to monitor aircraft systems and diagnose problems. With the advent of integrated circuits and advances in computing power during the early 1980s, this job was eventually eliminated. Today, we almost universally see two pilots in the cockpit. However, there is serious talk of reducing that number to one. Airbus SE and Thales SA have stated that this could become reality as soon as 2023. A heated debate is under way over the issue. Airlines would like to balance safety with profits. The FAA is tasked with keeping the flying public safe through regulation, oversight and inspection. Pilots want to ensure safety and reasonable working conditions. And of course, the public ultimately drives this discussion with our pocketbooks. There are many different points of view, but for the sake of brevity, here are the three most common arguments that I keep hearing. Three Arguments in Favor 1) It will ease the pilot shortage It is no secret that the aviation industry faces a worldwide shortage of qualified pilots. The number of licensed pilots has decreased by about 30% over the past three decades. Numerous estimates cite the need to hire thousands of new pilots. Some air carriers reduce, or cancel, flight schedules as a result of these pilot shortages. In an effort to pilot their fleets, airlines have increased wages and signing bonuses, among other things. In their eyes, one of the easiest ways to address this problem of supply is to reduce demand. By eliminating the co-pilot from the cockpit, they can remove much of the problem. 2) It would save the airlines lots of money One obvious benefit of reducing the pilot pool is that you now also reduce the recurring salaries by the same amount. Airlines argue that they would save a lot of money by removing half of the pilots, as these are usually among their highest paid employees. It will also help the airlines cut costs because they will no longer have to increase wages and signing bonuses since there will no longer be a pilot shortage. They say this will help to reduce ticket prices and that consumers will also benefit. 3) It gives aircraft manufacturers more options If an aircraft manufacturer only has to accommodate one pilot in the cockpit, then they can start being more creative with their designs. Furthermore, they can start allowing the automation to do more, as they did when the flight engineer was removed many decades ago. Programmers generally argue that automation is superior to human pilots. Flights are smoother and more fuel-efficient, as the automation is able to make a million decisions per second, while a human is simply human. In fact, some airlines will not allow their pilots to fly manually during certain periods of flight. A survey of Airbus and Boeing pilots found that they manually fly about 3-6 minutes per flight; the rest of the time is in autopilot mode. Presumably, the amount of autopiloted flight would increase with the elimination of the co-pilot. Three Arguments Against 1) Automation is not perfect As we have seen from the Boeing 737 Max crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, disasters can occur from human-automation interaction in the cockpit. There is a laundry-list of accidents at least partially caused by breakdowns in the human-automation team. Some, like Air France flight 447 from Brazil to Paris, resulted in total loss of life on board. Even highly reliable automation can create problems by eroding pilots' manual flying skills and breeding complacency and lack of situational awareness. When automation fails, the pilot is often left struggling to figure out what went wrong. 2) There will be a loss of human redundancy From the time they enter the cockpit, the captain and first officer work as a team. They coordinate the prepping of the aircraft, go through the checklists together, and decide as a team when they are ready for flight. This procedure has huge benefits. First, it encourages accountability. Having someone present to verify that you have done your job increases compliance. Second, having a second pair of eyes helps to detect problems or issues as they arise. One pilot alone cannot see two things at once; they cannot both scan the outside while monitoring displays. Third, it offers huge benefits during emergencies and decision-making processes. A co-pilot is good for helping to maintain calm and professionalism. A co-pilot helps by going through the emergency checklist while the captain aviates. A co-pilot is good for bouncing ideas off when things get messy. One must wonder how difficult it would have been for Captain Sullenberger to land that airplane in the Hudson River without Jeff Skiles. 3) The flight is more likely to wind up completely pilotless Removing the co-pilot will mean that if the pilot becomes incapacitated, then you will be on an airplane with no one in control. Just like everyone else on board, pilots often fall asleep in airplanes, even when they are in the cockpit. A survey of pilots showed that more than half of them have slept while flying. The fatigue problem has gotten so bad that some airlines allow pilots to take naps in the cockpit. Second, if a pilot has a heart attack or other potentially fatal event, there will be no one there to notice, especially on a long-haul flight. Third, hypoxia (a loss of oxygen) affects people differently. One pilot might start experiencing symptoms before another one does, and the second pilot would notice this and remediate the situation. A pilot by herself could just pass out, leaving the aircraft pilotless. The rest of the flight crew and passengers would be completely clueless. Conclusions Clearly this is a hot button issue, and both sides take their arguments very seriously. A thorough discussion must occur before policies are made that could negatively affect aviation safety. Everyone deserves a seat at the table during this discussion, including you. What are your thoughts on reducing the number of pilots in the cockpit during commercial flights? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenrice1/2019/09/06/three-arguments-for-and-against-eliminating-the-co-pilot/#54cbba471b9b Back to Top NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt talks about charter flight safety in Alaska Robert Sumwalt, U.S. National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, was in Anchorage and hosted members of the aviation community at the University of Alaska Anchorage campus. Sumwalt wanted to learn how to make chartered flights - or Part 135 Flight Operations as they are formally known - safer around Alaska. Sumwalt said a lack of infrastructure is one of the big problems facing the industry "The weather reporting capability is lacking at most of the airports in this state," he said. The NTSB has investigated over 200 chartered flight crashes around the state since 2008. Those crashes claimed over 80 lives. "We need to ensure that the pilots who are operating those airplanes have adequate training for the mission, for the flight that they're planning, as well as any reasonable contingencies," Sumwalt said. The forum at UAA was the first of its kind, and the head of Ravn Alaska called it a good first step. "If we can do something, share information amongst all of us, work with the NTSB recommendations, it will ultimately raise the bar for safety for all of Alaska, we all benefit," said Ravn President and CEO Dave Flieger. "We've talked about problems, we've talked about solutions," Sumwalt said, as the trick now is how to turn all that talk into action. Improving Part 135 Flight Operations is one of NTSB's top priorities for 2019. https://www.ktva.com/story/41017213/ntsb-chairman-talks-air-safety-during-visit-to-alaska Back to Top Hundreds of firearms found each year in Texas airports at TSA checkpoints TSA has found 40 firearms in San Antonio airport this year While it may seem like a no-brainer, travelers across the country try to bring their firearms onto planes with them. At the San Antonio International Airport alone, Transportation Security Administration staffers seized 70 firearms in 2018, according to data provided by the agency. So far this year, 40 weapons have been found at the checkpoint. Every week, the agency finds hundreds of firearms at airports across the country. The seizures are featured on TSA's blog. Most of the firearms found are loaded and chambered, according to the website. More firearms were discovered at other Texas airports, too. The Dallas Fort Worth International Airport saw 219 firearms in 2018. This year, crews have already found 164 guns. At the George Bush International Airport in Houston, TSA staffers picked up 117 guns. This year, they've found 89 guns. Bringing a firearm to the security checkpoint can lead to a civil penalty of up to $13,333 and an arrest, according to the TSA. While firearms can make the trip, they must be loaded into a locked, hard-sided container in checked baggage only. Travelers must declare the firearm and ammunition to airline workers while checking in their bag. For more information on transporting firearms, visit TSA's website. https://www.ksat.com/news/hundreds-of-firearms-found-in-texas-airports-at-tsa-checkpoints Back to Top Russian and Italian stole GE Aviation trade secrets, feds charge Alleged Chinese spy charged with trying to steal US aviation trade secrets Trend Macro Chief Investment Officer Donald Luskin discusses the recent market selloff and how the U.S. detained an alleged Chinese spy, who is facing charges of trying to steal trade secrets from companies including GE Aviation. Two men conspired to steal an American business' trade secrets on behalf of a Russian state-owned aviation company, the FBI charged in a complaint unsealed this week. Italian national Maurizio Paolo Bianchi, 59, and Alexander Yuryevich Korshunov, a 57-year-old Russian national and former official in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have been charged in the scheme. Bianchi worked for a subsidiary of GE Aviation, where he was responsible for business in China, Russia and Asia, federal authorities said. When Bianchi left the company, he went to work for an Italian firm called Aernova, which contracted for Aviadvigatel, a branch of the Russian state-owned United Engine Corp. The U.S. Department of Commerce has listed UEC as acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the U.S. Korshunov worked for UEC and enlisted Bianchi to hire engineers from the GE Aviation subsidiary, authorities said. Between 2013 and 2018, Bianchi hired several former and current GE Aviation employees to work on jet engine components using trade secrets and intellectual property they took from GE Aviation, according to the complaint. The engineers contributed work on the Russian PD-14 engine, which has both military and commercial uses, and then worked on several larger engines for the Russian company and a Chinese company. Apparently wanting to avoid detection, Korshunov and Bianchi avoided referring to the engineers by name in emails, instead just calling them "the guys," according to the complaint. Korshunov paid the engineers to meet at air shows in Paris and Italy to discuss and revise their technical reports. MOSCOW REGION, RUSSIA - JULY 19, 2017: An Aviadvigatel PD-14 next generation turbofan engine on display at the MAKS-2017 International Aviation and Space Salon in Zhukovsky, Moscow Region. Sergei Bobylev/TASS One of the engineers, who's an American citizen, later provided the FBI with emails, contracts and other documents showing what had happened, an investigator said. Korshunov was arrested on Aug. 30 at Naples International Airport in Italy. If convicted of conspiring to and attempting to steal trade secrets, the men face up to 10 years in prison. This wasn't the only foreign effort to steal trade secrets from GE Aviation, according to federal authorities. An alleged Chinese intelligence officer was arrested last year on charges of economic espionage related to GE Aviation trade secrets. "The FBI is committed to protecting the economic and national security of the United States," said Todd Wickerham, special agent in charge of the FBI's Cincinnati office. "Schemes to steal technology and trade secrets threaten our economy across both public and private sector interests. These cases impact American workers, American businesses and the American economy. The FBI will continue its resolve to identify and address this threat wherever it is found." https://www.foxbusiness.com/industrials/russian-italian-stole-ge-aviation-trade-secrets-foreign-jet-engines Back to Top FAA issues temporary flight restriction for Bahamian airspace Dorian in Marsh Harbour, Great Abaco, Bahamas, September 8, 2019. REUTERS/Loren Elliott (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said on Sunday it had issued a temporary flight restriction for Bahamian airspace. "At the request of the Bahamian Government, the FAA has issued a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) for U.S. aircraft and pilots entering Bahamian airspace in Hurricane Dorian affected areas in order to reserve airspace for search and rescue and humanitarian assistance", the FAA said in a statement. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-dorian-faa/faa-issues-temporary-flight-restriction-for-bahamian-airspace-idUSKCN1VT0R6 Back to Top ICELAND'S WOW AIR REVIVED BY US AVIATION FIRM Iceland's defunct transatlantic carrier Wow Air has been revived by a US aviation firm. USAerospace Associates has taken over the airline, which ceased operations in March. Chief executive Michele Ballarin said flights between Icelandic capital Reykjavik and Washington DC would resume in October. Speaking at a press conference late last week, Ballarin confirmed the business had come to an agreement with Wow Air's representatives. USAerospace Associates will take just shy of a 50% stake, with investors in Iceland holding the rest of the capital to comply with EU airline ownership rules. Ballarin said Wow would be based at Dulles airport in Washington, with a presence at Keflavik airport in Iceland and in Reykjavik. Wow will initially relaunch with two aircraft, potentially rising to 10-12 next summer, said Ballarin. The airline collapsed in March following protracted search for fresh investment, which saw a number of potential partners - including Icelandair - pull out of a deal. https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/news/icelands-wow-air-revived-by-us-aviation-firm-19243 Back to Top Grounding the 737 Max Eases Turbulence for Airlines The grounding of Boeing Co.'s 737 Max after a pair of accidents killed 346 people might seem an unmitigated disaster for the world's airline industry. Look at flight data, though, and you can glimpse a grim benefit supporting carriers' bottom lines. To see why, it's worth remembering just how crucial the 737 and its arch-rival, the Airbus SE A320, are. Each plane family constitutes about a third of the roughly 24,000-strong global passenger airline fleet. Other aircraft put together - including all wide-body planes like the 747, 787, A330 and A380, turboprops and smaller jets like the Bombardier Inc. CRJ - make up the remaining third. According to Boeing, a 737 takes off or lands somewhere in the world every 1.5 seconds, and there are about 2,800 in the air at any one time. If anything, that probably underestimates their importance in terms of air traffic. Narrow-body aircraft like the 737 and A320 fly shorter distances and are turned around more times. In the U.S., they depart from airports roughly two to three times a day for every time a wide-body jet takes off, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Airline Data Project. By a very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate, the two aircraft together account for about 80% of global departures. That matters because one of the most important determinants of airline profitability is load factor, the share of seat capacity filled by paying passengers. Flying planes involves very high fixed costs, but once more than about 70% of seats are filled, the marginal cost of dealing with an additional passenger will be far outweighed by the revenue to be earned from selling the ticket - one reason that last-minute bookings can be such good value. Load factor, in turn, is largely a function of whether airlines have over-estimated or under-estimated the pace of passenger traffic growth, and how that relates to the capacity they're putting into the market by buying or leasing planes and using them more or less frequently. This year has been an uncertain one for carriers on that front. The impact of the trade war and general darkening economic outlook has meant that the International Air Transport Association's forecast from the end of last year of a 6% pace of passenger traffic growth is likely to be a significant overestimate. In the first six months of the year, the increase was just 4.7%. If capacity had matched the forecast pace of traffic growth, that would have pushed load factors down by about a percentage point to below 81%, around the levels where profitability starts to struggle these days.(1) But capacity has instead grown by just 3.3% from a year earlier in the most recent three-month period - in no small measure because of what's happening to the 737 Max. The worldwide grounding of the aircraft in March following accidents in Indonesia and Ethiopia took 387 aircraft out of service at a stroke. Had original plans to gradually increase production to 57 aircraft a month this year gone ahead and deliveries kept pace, there could have been nearly 900 in the skies by the end of 2019. As it is, Boeing is still struggling to fix software and clear regulatory demands, and operators are now drawing up their schedules as if it won't be flying until December or even next year. There is, to be sure, a certain amount of slack in the commercial-jet market. Some of those new 737s would have replaced older models that might have gone out of service altogether - but most older planes leaving airlines' fleets would have been sold on to leasing companies and rented, so there's still a marked tightening in the market. If the planes remain grounded through year-end, nearly 10% of the global 737 fleet that airlines expected to be in operation this year will be out of action. That appears to be tightening the supply of seats. Industry-wide load factors hit record seasonal highs in April, May and June, according to IATA. July load factors were the highest for that month in any year barring 2017, according to separate data compiled by Bloomberg, and short-haul load factors that month were the best ever. As a result, the industry appears to be riding out the ongoing fall in ticket prices which has pushed revenues per passenger, per kilometer, down 2.9% over the past year. The 737 Max scandal has been one of the darkest clouds the airline industry has flown through. So far, though, it's staying aloft. (1) Of 22 airlines with load factors of 81% or below in the most recent financial year, just seven reported more than a few million dollars of net income, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. To contact the author of this story: David Fickling at dfickling@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick McDowell at pmcdowell10@bloomberg.net This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/grounding-the-737-max-eases-turbulence-for-airlines/2019/09/07/c90e9060-d1d4-11e9-a620-0a91656d7db6_story.html Back to Top Here's Why Planes Fly at 36,000 Feet Airplane at 36,000 Feet It's a common situation for travelers. You fasten your seat belt, listen to the pre-flight safety demonstration (we hope), and prepare yourself for takeoff. After a few moments, the pilot comes on the overhead, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are now at our cruising altitude of 36,000 feet." It's time to kick back and wait for that refreshment cart to come around. But how many of us have stopped to wonder why planes go this high up in the first place? According to USA Today, the common cruising altitude for most commercial airplanes is between 33,000 and 42,000 feet, or between about six and nearly eight miles above sea level. Typically, aircraft fly around 35,000 or 36,000 feet in the air. To put that in perspective, the peak of Mount Everest measures at 29,029 feet. But this is why we have pressurized cabins: so you don't feel as if you're literally trying to breathe on top of Mount Everest. The area is called the lower stratosphere, which is just above the troposphere, lowest part of the atmosphere, according to the UCAR Center for Science Education. Flying in this area has many benefits that make flying one of the leading ways for travelers to get from one place to another. Fuel Efficiency The biggest reason for this altitude lies with fuel efficiency. The thin air creates less drag on the aircraft, which means the plane can use less fuel in order to maintain speed. Less wind resistance, more power, less effort, so to speak. Spending less on fuel is also great for airlines, for obvious reasons. Keep in mind though, a plane's engines also need oxygen in order to work, according to Traveller, since they need this molecule to create combustion, which also creates energy. So, flying too high can also cause problems. Plus, the higher a plane goes, the more fuel it has to burn in order to get there so there are some drawbacks with certain altitudes as well. Avoiding Traffic and Hazards Yes, there is "traffic" up in the air. Flying higher means planes can avoid birds (usually), drones, and light aircraft and helicopters, which fly at lower altitudes. According to Your Mileage May Vary, the direction in which your plane is traveling can also affect what altitude it will climb to. Planes flying eastward (including northeast and southeast) will fly at odd altitudes (i.e. 35,000 feet) and all other directions will fly at even altitudes. Routes going in the same direction are also often planned so that planes are 1,000 feet above or below each other to avoid a collision. Weather Have you ever wondered why the view outside your plane window can be sunny one moment and rainy the next upon descending into your destination airport? That has everything to do with the altitude. Most planes are flying above the troposphere, where weather events usually happen, according to Traveller. Turbulence Of course, turbulence still happens on airplanes, but you may be surprised to know that it happens a great deal less because of the high altitude of many commercial flights. According to The Points Guy, when planes run into air pockets and fierce winds, air traffic controllers can sometimes suggest different altitudes to avoid it. According to USA Today, flying higher can actually minimize turbulence. Emergencies A higher altitude can also give pilots one precious commodity when they're up in the air: time. According to Traveller, should something happen that would warrant an emergency landing, the high altitude gives pilots much longer to fix the situation or find a safe place to land than if they were on a light aircraft cruising at 10,000 feet. Different Planes, Different Altitudes Not all planes are made to cruise at the same altitude. According to Thrillist, a plane's altitude is determined by its current weight and the atmospheric conditions at the time of flight. A flights direction (as mentioned above), the amount of turbulence (based on reports by other pilots in the air), and flight duration are also factors. Who Makes The Call? Despite pilots being in control of the plane, they aren't the ones who decide on its altitude. Air dispatchers, instead, are in charge of planning and deciding a plane's route, including altitude, as well as tracking where an aircraft is in the air. According to Traveller, there are laws in place that dictate aircraft must not fly "below 1,000 feet over a built-up area, or 500 feet over any person, vehicle or structure." https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/why-do-planes-fly-at-36000-feet-cruising-altitude Back to Top EgyptAir signs deal with Airbus to buy 27 new aircraft: CEO CAIRO, Sept 8 (MENA) - EgyptAir company has clinched a deal with European aircraft manufactures Airbus to buy 27 new planes as part of the national carrier's plan to upgrade its fleet by getting state-to-the-art aircraft models, EgyptAir Holding Company Chairman Ahmed Adel said Sunday. EgyptAir is keen on upgrading its fleet of passenger and commercial aircraft as well as improving services offered to customers, the CEO said during a ceremony held at Cairo International airport to mark the delivery of the first Airbus 220-300 aircraft. He added that EgyptAir has sealed a deal with the European aircraft manufacturer to get 12 A220-300 planes by May 2020. Also, a deal was signed with Airbus to buy 15 A320neo aircraft, the first of which to be delivered by mid-2020, Adel noted. Today's delivery celebration was attended by the French and Canadian ambassadors to Egypt along with a galaxy of civil aviation officials. Egypt is the first country in the Middle East and North Africa to get the A220-300 aircraft, one of the world's most advanced planes, as part of the EgyptAir strategy for 2025 that seeks upgrading its fleet. Airbus is glad to take part in upgrading the fleet of EgyptAir till 2025, said Managing Director for Airbus Middle East Fouad Attar. https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/9/74586/EgyptAir-signs-deal-with-Airbus-to-buy-27-new-aircraft Back to Top Airbus deliveries fall to 42 aircraft per month in August 2019 Within the first eight months of the year, Airbus has delivered 66 more commercial aircraft than during the same period in 2018. In the first eight months of 2019, Airbus has delivered 500 commercial aircraft. But with the yearly delivery target set between 880 to 890, the effort seems to fall short of the goal. To reach its goal, Airbus has four months and 380-390 aircraft to be delivered, which translates to approximately 96 aircraft per month. While in some months this year the company was rather close to the target (with delivery rate of 70+ planes/month and even 81 in May), the setbacks in others but the average rate at 62 aircraft per month. Two months ago, presenting the first six months results, Airbus addressed delivery challenges, admitting that: "The second half of the year in terms of deliveries and in particular free cash flow continues to be challenging". And challenging they so far are. August was the second worst month this year in terms of deliveries. While in July the manufacturer delivered 69 aircraft, the rate fell to only 42 in August. In total, customers took three A220s, five A350XWBs, six A330-900s and 28 A320 Family aircraft. https://www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team/23911-airbus-deliveries-fall-to-42-aircraft-per-month-in-august-2019 Back to Top It's time to re-regulate airlines Imagine life with just one major airline, but it actually worked the way you want. Imagine what travel would be like with one major airline - especially if it actually operated the way it should. (Brian Stauffer/Special Contributor) In the airline industry, it's just one thing after another. If it isn't an act of God delaying flights, like weather, any number of other complicated variables can disrupt the smooth flow of operations. A maintenance problem, an air traffic control computer glitch, a crew scheduling snafu, a grounded airplane (like the 737 MAX), or a simple but disruptive problem like a broken passenger jet bridge, or one unruly passenger who has to be escorted off the plane by law enforcement, or a medical emergency that requires a diversion or special handling after landing. One problem can cascade across an airline's network, delaying flights and stranding passengers. And few industries are so perfectly correlated to the macro economy as airlines. Recession, trade disputes, fuel costs, monetary policy and wars all can do immediate and long-term damage to an airline's revenue, customer satisfaction rankings and stock price. (American Airlines seems to have picked up a jinx in this regard and is working hard to address it. Other carriers shouldn't gloat, however, as the same mix of problems has and likely will again visit their own backyards.) The airline industry may be among the most complex operational ballets to choreograph, and it never stops, never takes a break, and just barely slows down. And the stakes are unforgiving: There is an unrelenting obligation for absolute safety. The economic stakes are also large, both in national economic impact including employment and careers, and in investor and supplier risk in airline equity, debt, equipment leasing and a hundred other vital manufacturing and service businesses that make it all come together. The government also has a role as the nation's operator of our air traffic control system and in its congressional mandate as safety regulator. One would think that an industry so complicated, and one so vulnerable and sensitive to so many variables, couldn't possibly do anything to make matters worse for itself, all on its own. But in fact, the airline industry does just that. Pilots, mechanics and flight attendants can strike and temporarily shut or slow down a company; management can lose control of all the little details of quality management that make or break employee morale or the passenger experience. Bad decisions in fleet mix, route planning, scheduling, pricing, outsourcing, partnering, employee culture, corporate growth strategy and financial fitness standards, can, alone or together, produce either a robust carrier or a company flying on a proverbial wing and a prayer. Even if all the operational challenges are met perfectly, even if it's sunny every day and every employee has the attitude of a disciplined military combat unit, there is still one fundamental, overriding problem that keeps the airline industry in a constant state of disequilibrium: competition. That may seem counterintuitive or perhaps even absurd: airline deregulation, competition and the advent of low-cost carriers all serve the holy grail of consumer sovereignty. The market is so saturated with competitors and choices that no single firm can dictate price, and the consumer is left "sovereign" over options and costs. It's true that airfare options are broader than in the days before deregulation; competitive discounting and airline yield management (charging different prices at different times) can produce lower fares, if you book way in advance. They can also create higher fares, however. Ironically, the airline that invented the low-cost carrier, Southwest Airlines, charges among the highest economy fares in the U.S. today. What deregulators didn't anticipate was a growing population and number of travelers boosting demand, putting airlines in a position of sovereignty. That is, airlines have the ability to charge higher fares at peak periods; to dominate key routes or airports; and to gradually raise fares overall by highly sophisticated seat inventory management (and as a recent meeting U.S. airline chief executive with President Donald Trump underscored, by keeping foreign airlines out of domestic markets.) But forget airfares for a moment. Something much more fundamental happened: The service got worse. Today, after 40 years of competition, billions of dollars in losses and restructurings, new booking technology on the internet and a Passenger Bill of Rights, after all is said and done you book your flight, drive to the airport, park your car, check your bags, go through invasive security, stand in line for boarding, walk down the jet way, make it down the narrow aisle and cram your bag in the overhead bin, what you finally get when you try to squeeze into your seat is a product that barely conforms to the shape of a human body. What went wrong? There are many things consultants, lawyers and investors have recommended airlines do to improve operations and profitability. But one thing is in short supply: imagination. Flying is a commodity, no different than any other mass-transportation system like a commuter rail or subway (except that both are infinitely more comfortable). Just because airplanes happen to fly is no longer a reason to treat them any differently. Commercial airlines all fly the same airplanes with the same seats from the same airports in the same airspace. They land on the same runways, pull up to the same gates and drop your bags in the same carousels. They are a commodity. Travel has one basic utility: Get from one place to another in a fast, reliable, comfortable and efficient manner. It is very simple. Competition alone makes it complicated. Competition works great in many sectors: restaurants, cars, women's handbags, agriculture, software and even higher education. In some industries, however, especially ones with enormous fixed costs and intense operational complexity, it doesn't. Sometimes cooperation works better than competition. Imagine there were just one major airline, but it actually worked the way you want. This airline has regulated service standards (like comfortable seat pitch and shape), flat and predictable everyday fares like a commuter train, and a broad, comprehensive network. Can competition make it better than that? Not likely, unless you want to fly on a private jet. Who pays for such a system? There are several permutations to consider. Continuing to merge and consolidate the nation's major airlines is one (and they would still face enormous competition from discount carriers, foreign airlines and increasingly affordable private jet services). The efficiencies alone from rationalizing the assets and operations of American, Delta and United (that is, eliminating or reducing duplication and waste) would be a strong source of consumer welfare that can help reset costs and, thereby, prices. This will require relaxation of antitrust law, but that will also invoke trade-offs (that's what economics is all about), especially concessions to passengers including fundamental cabin reconfiguration in seat comfort and spacing, and fares. This makes the Big Three airlines into what they really are: a regulated natural monopoly with smooth, reliable financial performance. If airline executives were honest, most would be relieved. Taking this a step further would be more controversial: transitioning to a pure public mass transit system. There are much better places to invest money than in airlines. The nation's airspace and air traffic control system is owned and paid for by taxpayers, and nearly all airports are publicly owned and financed (including the military aviation system, itself an effective airline). Why should a "public" airline be considered unnatural or an exception? Airlines have enough to worry about in day-to-day operations, and passengers have better things to do with their time than to search for a flight that is both affordable and likely to arrive on the day it is scheduled. Leave "competing" for the things we do after we land, and instead, get off the airplane relaxed and ready to get to the real work of building, inventing and imagining. The future of air travel is modern, technologically sophisticated, comfortable and humane, and with one standardized class of service - fast. So take your pick: a war of endless competitive stress, financial losses, leaking planes, canceled flights, torture-by-cramped-seats and compromised health, or a new world of simplicity, efficiency, sophistication and continuous modernization. Frequent flyer points, Saturday night stay overs, cheap food and baggage fees won't get you there. A smartly regulated, modernized mass transit system can. Matt Andersson is an aviation consultant in Chicago and a former executive with an airline start-up. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/09/08/it-s-time-to-re-regulate-airlines/ Back to Top SpaceX's Plans With Starship Rocket Revealed By Leaked FAA Document In this handout image provided by NASA, A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket carrying 24 satellites as part of the Department of Defense's Space Test Program-2 (STP-2) mission launches from Launch Complex 39A, Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Four NASA technology and science payloads which will study non-toxic spacecraft fuel, deep space navigation, "bubbles" in the electrically-charged layers of Earth's upper atmosphere, and radiation protection for satellites are among the two dozen satellites that will be put into orbit. A document from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revealed SpaceX's various plans for its Mars-colonizing rocket Starship. The bulk of the document discussed the company's three-phase plan for the commercial space vessel. The document, which was obtained by Business Insider, is 23 pages long. It was drafted as part of the FAA's reevaluation of SpaceX's launch facility in Boca Chica, Texas. Back in 2014, SpaceX said that the Boca Chica site would serve as a commercial spaceport primarily for its Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9 rockets. However, through the years, the company's plans for the site changed. Currently, the Boca Chica facility is being used for the construction and launch tests for the Starship prototypes. Despite changing the function and purpose of the site, the FAA ruled that SpaceX is still operating within its original proposal. The agency reported that the site's safety and environmental impact is still the same. Aside from a reassessment of the launch facility, FAA's document also detailed SpaceX's three-phase plan for Starship. According to the document, Phase 1 involves carrying tests on ground and fueling systems. Phase 2, which is where SpaceX is at right now, is all about conducting "small hops" or launches for Starhopper, a Starship prototype. For this stage, SpaceX will work on launching the prototype 492 feet off the ground and eventually increasing it to 1.9 miles. Phase 3 would serve as the definitive stage for Starship's development. Here, SpaceX intends to launch the rocket 62 miles above Earth. Aside from this, the company plans to execute various maneuvers including flips, reentries and landing. According to SpaceX, the various test phases of Starship are necessary for achieving the company's goal of sending a human expedition to Mars. "SpaceX remains committed in its mission to colonize Mars," the company stated. "To achieve this mission, SpaceX is developing a new rocket called the Starship and Super Heavy. A key part of the mission is developing the Starship spacecraft." "In order to fully develop the vehicle, an experiment test program is needed," SpaceX added. "The proposed experimental test program involves testing a spacecraft - the Starship - which would serve as the second stage of the rocket." https://www.ibtimes.com/spacexs-plans-starship-rocket-revealed-leaked-faa-document-2824060 Back to Top Aviation Cybersecurity Survey Like many industries, the aviation industry is going through a technology transformation that stretches from satellites to aircraft to airports and supply chain and more. But with this transformation and increased digitisation and connectivity and across the aviation industry, the resilience and security of such systems becomes critically important. Adversaries have always seen the aviation sector as a key target; as it increasingly digitizes, understanding what this means for managing cybersecurity risk is of key importance. As a result, there is a great deal of work focusing on aviation cybersecurity globally, from the proposed ICAO Aviation Cybersecurity Strategy to regional and industry initiatives. But with such a complex and varied sector, it can be challenging to really hear and understand the different perspectives and concerns on the topic of aviation cyber security; ultimately, the more we understand the nature of the aviation cybersecurity challenge, the better we can develop strategies at all levels to protect ourselves and move forwards. To help understand the different perspectives on aviation cybersecurity, to help the entire sector understand the nature of the challenge; the first ever survey on aviation cyber security is being conducted by myself and the Atlantic Council Cyber Statecraft Initiative**, with funding by Thales. It is fully anonymous, focusses on learning about different viewpoints and will help us understand the 'now' of aviation cybersecurity; (it does not ask any questions on breaches, etc...!). The aviation industry and the roles and organisations that support it are diverse. For the purposes of this survey, we are defining Aviation Cybersecurity as being cybersecurity that relates to aircraft operations. This includes everything that involves safely and securely getting aircraft and passengers from A-to-B, along with the supply chain of products and services that enables this. We would love everybody in the aviation industry that has an operational role, cybersecurity role, support it with products and services or cybersecurity research to contribute to the survey. With the topic being a broad one, we are keen to get not just the perspectives of those working at the cross-over of aviation and cybersecurity but also anyone contributing to the aviation sector. The survey should take less than 15 minutes and the results of the survey will be free and published openly in mid-November 2019. If you would like, you are also able to request a copy of the final report and details of the launch. If you have any questions you can get in touch via cyber@atlanticcouncil.org The link to the survey is below. Please contribute, support and distribute the survey to your own colleagues, organisations and relevant contacts, the more that contribute to the survey, the better results and understanding we will get. Website; http://aviationcyber.atlanticcouncil.org/the-global-survey-on-aviation-cybersecurity/ Direct Link; https://www.research.net/r/Aviationcybersecurity If you have any questions, then please either get in touch with myself, or the contact details contained on the survey. Pete Cooper *Pete Cooper, MSc, FRAeS is a cyber strategy adviser across multiple sectors but with a focus on aviation. He has advised IATA and ICAO on cybersecurity strategy as well as nation states, and multi-national organisations. He is the author of 'Finding Lift, Minimising drag' which explored the cybersecurity challenges of the aviation sector and is the lead for the Aviation Village at DEF CON where he works to build bridges between the research community and the aviation sector in partnership with US DHS and the USAF. He is also the founder and Director of the Cyber 9/12 UK Strategy Challenge, which finds and develops the next generation of cyber security leaders. Before entering the commercial sector, Pete was a fast jet pilot and instructor in the Royal Air Force and then moved into cyber security where he held the role of strategic cyber operations adviser. He holds a post Grad from Cranfield University and is CEO of Pavisade. **The Atlantic Council Cyber Statecraft Initiative focus is to: 1) examine the nexus of geopolitics and national security with cyberspace; 2) continue to build out the new field of cyber safety in the Internet of Things; and 3) help build the next generation of cybersecurity and cyberspace policy professionals. Throughout all of its work, the Initiative focuses relentlessly on providing practical, innovative, and relevant solutions to the challenges in cyberspace. The Initiative brings together a diverse network of respected experts, bridging the gap between the technical and policy communities. Back to Top The Northeast Aviation Leadership Workshop Leading an aviation team or department presents challenges that many other leaders do not face. Your clients and customers rely on you not only for good service, but also for their safety. There is often little or no room for error which demands effective leadership at all levels. The Daedalus Group is pleased to partner with the Westchester Aircraft Maintenance Association to bring the 3-day Northeast Aviation Leadership Workshop to New York. This is an intensive exploration of proven techniques for better leadership in aviation. Designed specifically for aviation professionals, it is an opportunity for supervisors and managers in the aviation business to learn the skills and techniques that will make them more effective in this demanding environment. The workshop will present Planning to Excel™ and Leadership for Aviation Professionals™. These programs are certified by the National Business Aviation Association to satisfy all Professional Development Program (PDP) Leadership Objectives (L1 - L5). Whether you hold the Certified Aviation Manager credential and require PDP credits, are working toward certification, or just want to learn how to be an effective leader in the aviation business, this workshop will provide the skills to make you a more effective leader. The first day of the workshop, October 8, 2019 will explore Planning to Excel™ (PDP Objectives L1 and L2). This program takes a deep dive into planning and goal setting using a unique model to make the planning process logical, understandable, and easy to implement. Participants will: • Learn a proven method of planning and goal setting for their department or team. • Complete draft vision and mission statements for their department or team. • Define challenging goals and objectives. • Develop an implementation and follow-up plan. • Learn techniques to keep their plan relevant and front-of-mind. "Outstanding course. Perfect course to take to help develop effective goals. Facilitator's enthusiasm and professional knowledge made the course. Corporate Captain "Materials were good and discussion was pertinent to my situation. Opened up ideas of what to think about." Part 141 Pilot School General Manager Leadership for Aviation Professionals™ (PDP objectives L3 - L5) will be presented on October 9 - 10, 2019. This program examines leadership techniques and how to apply them to participant's unique situations in the aviation business. Participants will: • Use the MyHardWired™ Leadership Styles Assessment to learn their strengths and blindsides. • Develop a Personal Leadership Philosophy. • Understand and apply appropriate leadership theories. • Learn effective communication strategies. • Analyze team building techniques and challenges. • Understand leadership accountability. • Apply methods to achieve a motivational environment. • Explore methods of enhancing personal knowledge. • Analyze methods to lead and manage change. "Gives you the tools to become a better leader." Corporate flight department staff "Gives various perspectives of effective management tools and techniques" Corporate Pilot "Excellent assessment tools, good discussions and great experiences shared" Corporate Pilot You can register for only Planning to Excel™, or only Leadership for Aviation Professionals™. Register for both workshops and save $100 off the individual tuition. Register before September 15, 2019 and save 10%. Use code EARLY when registering. Your registration includes continental breakfast and lunch each day, a complete workbook, and the MyHardWired™ Leadership Styles Assessment (Leadership for Aviation Professionals™ only). Go to https://dleadershipgroup.com/nealw DISPAX World 2019 18 - 19 September 2019, The Riverside Venue, London, UK The 3rd International Conference on Unruly Airline Passenger Behaviour With only a few weeks to go, DISPAX World 2019 is fast approaching! We are delighted to be able to offer all subscribers to Curt Lewis a 20% discount on the delegate rate. To redeem this offer use the promotional code: CURT20 when registering on the conference website: www.unrulypax.com/registration/ Disruptive passenger incidents are a daily occurrence on board commercial flights around the world. Seemingly trivial issues can quickly escalate into explosive situations that endanger the safety of passengers and crew. The much anticipated 3rd edition of DISPAX World returns to London to explore the broad range of causes of such behaviour, the responses available and the legal implications for carriers and states. Looked at from diverse perspectives, including those of aircrew, passengers, regulatory authorities, industry associations, and law enforcement, DISPAX World 2019 will provide a comprehensive and authoritative programme over two days in one of the busiest airline hubs in the world: London. Speakers will include industry leaders, aircrew, airport operators, academics and law enforcement agencies. DISPAX World 2019 is a must-attend conference for: Flight attendant instructors Unions & staff associations Pilots Law enforcement agencies Airline Security Personnel Airport operators Government transportation regulators Security companies Aviation health professionals & psychologists Consumer bodies Academics & researchers International law firms For more information and to view the programme, please visit: www.unrulypax.com or contact the Event Manager, Lucy Rawlings, at lrawlings@avsec.com and don't forget to follow us on Twitter: @DispaxWorld Curt Lewis