Flight Safety Information - September 12, 2025 No. 183 In This Issue : Incident: Easyjet Europe A320 at Basel on Sep 8th 2025, rejected takeoff : Incident: Transavia France B738 near Barcelona on Sep 8th 2025, possible smoke problem in cabin : Southwest plane leaving Hollywood forced to divert and land in nearby Los Angeles after engine failure : Airlines are cracking down on portable chargers: What to know before your next flight : New details emerge about turbulence that injured 18 on Delta flight : 737 MAX vs 737 NG: a pilot’s perspective : Aer Lingus A330 Pilots Violates New York JFK ATC’s Taxi Instructions : Trump Nominates American Airlines Pilot for NTSB : Almost all German pilots admit to napping during flights, survey finds : Boeing ‘Clearly Behind’ On 777-9 Certification, Ortberg Says : Aviation watchdog wraps up Pakistan safety review, verdict on direct flights to US pending : EASA OKs Falcon 6X for Enhanced Flight Vision System Ops : When And Where Lightning Strikes Occur : Silk Way West Airlines secures ISO 14001 environmental certification : Calendar of Event Incident: Easyjet Europe A320 at Basel on Sep 8th 2025, rejected takeoff An Easyjet Europe Airbus A320-200, registration OE-IJR performing flight U2-7272 from Basel/Mulhouse (Switzerland/France) to Palma Mallorca,SP (Spain), lined up Basel's runway 15 at 10:09L (08:09Z). The aircraft commenced takeoff at 10:11L (08:11Z) but needed to reject takeoff at high speed (about 112 knots over ground). When OE-IJR crossed the hold short line to line up the runway, an arriving Easyjet Airbus A320-200, registration HB-JYA performing flight U2-1212 from Budapest (Hungary) to Basel/Mulhouse (Switzerland/France), was on final approach to Basel's runway 15 about 6nm before the runway threshold descending through 1940 feet AGL. When OE-IJR began to accelerate HB-JYA was about 1nm ahead of the runway threshold descending through about 370 feet AGL, shortly afterwards the crew initiated a go around at about 350 feet AGL. OE-IJR rejected takeoff about 5 seconds later. The airline reported the captain of OE-IJR performed a routine takeoff procedure, however, needed to reject takeoff on ATC instruction and returned to the apron. Passengers of OE-IJR reported their crew told them they needed to reject takeoff due to an arriving aircraft that came too close. Their aircraft was able to depart later and reached Palma with a delay of about one hour. OE-IJR returned to the hold short line and departed runway 15 about 25 minutes after the rejected takeoff and reached Palma with a delay of about 30 minutes. https://avherald.com/h?article=52ccca55&opt=0 Incident: Transavia France B738 near Barcelona on Sep 8th 2025, possible smoke problem in cabin A Transavia France Boeing 737-800, registration F-GZHO performing flight TO-7305 from Oran (Algeria) to Nantes (France), was enroute at FL380 about 100nm northwest of Barcelona,SP (Spain) when the crew reported a possible smoke problem in the cabin and decided to divert to Barcelona. The aircraft landed safely on Barcelona's runway 02 about 30 minutes later. Passengers reported the aircraft had departed Oran with a delay of 90 minutes due to some technical problems. Enroute the problems worsened, the crew indicated they were diverting to Barcelona. The passengers were left at the airport without further support. Spanish ATC reported the aircraft diverted due to a possible smoke problem in the cabin. The aircraft remained on the ground in Barcelona for about 17 hours, then continued to Nantes and resumed service. https://avherald.com/h?article=52ccc0b5&opt=0 Southwest plane leaving Hollywood forced to divert and land in nearby Los Angeles after engine failure A Southwest plane leaving Hollywood was forced to divert and land in nearby Los Angeles Thursday morning after suffering engine failure, an airline spokesperson told The Independent. The Boeing 737 jet departed from Hollywood Burbank Airport and was bound for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement to The Independent. But it then had to divert “safely” to Los Angeles International Airport “after experiencing an apparent engine failure” the Southwest spokesperson said. The flight landed in Los Angeles at around 8:15 a.m. local time, according to the FAA. “Following the uneventful landing, the aircraft taxied to a gate at LAX, where we accommodated our Customers on the next flight to Phoenix,” the airline spokesperson said. “We appreciate the professionalism of our Pilots and Flight Attendants in safely handling the situation,” the spokesperson continued. “Nothing is more important to Southwest than the Safety of our Customers and Employees.” The FAA said it will investigate the incident. A United Airlines flight headed to Munich suffered an engine failure in July, causing the crew to turn around and return to Dulles International Airport in the Washington, D.C. area. The pilot said the Boeing 787-8’s left engine had failed and they were “declaring an emergency, mayday, mayday, mayday,” according to cockpit and air traffic control audio shared on the YouTube channel “You can see ATC.” The plane, which was carrying 219 passengers and 11 crew members, “returned to Washington Dulles shortly after takeoff to address a mechanical issue,” United previously told The Independent. “The plane landed safely, and all passengers deplaned normally at the gate,” the airline continued. “The flight was subsequently canceled and we arranged alternate travel arrangements to take customers to their destination as soon as possible.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/southwest-plane-leaving-hollywood-forced-204654586.html Airlines are cracking down on portable chargers: What to know before your next flight Read this before you fly with a portable power bank Why are airlines restricting portable chargers? Portable power banks keep devices charged on the go. So why are airlines banning and restricting them? Unfortunately, portable chargers are becoming a source of growing concern for airlines and aviation authorities worldwide. A critical safety issue is associated with the technology powering these devices: lithium-ion batteries. While the majority of flights proceed without incident, a series of fires and near-catastrophic events have turned power banks from a travel necessity into a regulated hazard. The danger stems from thermal runaway, a violent and self-sustaining chain reaction within a lithium-ion battery. Damaged or defective batteries may overheat, causing the battery's flammable electrolyte to ignite, leading to an intense and dangerous fire in the sealed, pressurized environment of an aircraft. Smoke can quickly fill the cabin, and conventional fire extinguishers may not be enough to suppress the blaze, as the fire can flare up repeatedly. Portable chargers may catch on fire Charging a mobile phone from a powerbank. Charging the gadget. Powerbanks have been catching fire on planes The risk isn’t just hypothetical. Recently, a portable charger caught fire on a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines flight. The smoke-filled aircraft was able to land safely, and fortunately, no one was harmed. It wasn’t an isolated incident. Investigators also believe that a portable battery was to blame for a fire on a Virgin Airlines flight earlier this year. The consensus among experts is that while lithium-ion batteries are generally safe, the market for power banks is less regulated than for devices like laptops or phones, meaning some cheaper or poorly-made models may lack the internal safeguards to prevent thermal runaway. As a result, airlines have developed specific, and often strict, policies regarding portable chargers. Each carrier has different rules, so check your airline’s policies. Domestic Airline Policies Each airline has their own policies In the United States, regulations are guided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and are generally consistent across major carriers. United Airlines: United permits up to two spare lithium batteries, including power banks, with a maximum capacity of 160 watt-hours (Wh) per battery. These must be carried in carry-on baggage only. Any power bank with a capacity between 101 and 160 Wh requires approval from the airline. Delta Airlines: Delta's policy is similar, requiring all power banks to be in carry-on luggage. They allow batteries up to 100 Wh without special approval. For batteries between 101 and 160 Wh, passengers can carry up to two with prior airline approval. Delta also advises that power banks must be switched off during take-off and landing. American Airlines: American's rules are in line with FAA guidelines, requiring power banks to be carried in the cabin. Batteries with less than 100 Wh are permitted without restriction, while those between 100-160 Wh require airline approval. Southwest Airlines: In addition to the standard carry-on requirement, Southwest requires that when a power bank is in use, it must be out of any bag and remain in plain sight. This policy is a direct response to a rise in safety incidents and aims to allow crew members to quickly spot and respond to any signs of a problem. International Airline Policies An Emirates Airbus A380-861 plane, registration A6-EDN, landing from the north of Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport as flight EK416 from Dubai. This plane is 14 years old, with the “DN” in the serial number indicating it was in the first 20 produced for Emirates. This image was taken from New Link Road, Mascot on a hot and cloudy afternoon approaching sunset on 21 April 2025. Be familiar with your carrier's policies International carriers, often guided by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), have similarly strict and sometimes even more restrictive policies. Emirates: Effective October 1, 2025, Emirates has implemented a ban on using any kind of power bank onboard its flights. Passengers are still permitted to carry one power bank in their carry-on luggage, as long as it is under 100 Wh and not placed in the overhead bin. The airline's rationale is that by prohibiting their use, they are significantly reducing the risk of a fire. Singapore Airlines: Singapore Airlines also has a no-use policy for power banks. They must be carried in cabin baggage and are not allowed to be used to charge devices or be charged themselves via the aircraft's power source. They follow the standard 100 Wh and 101-160 Wh approval guidelines. British Airways: British Airways' policy is representative of many international carriers. Power banks must be in carry-on baggage and powered off for the entire duration of the flight. They cannot be used to charge devices. The airline forbids power banks that exceed 160 Wh and those with an unclear or missing power rating. These rules, both domestic and international, are in place to keep passengers safe. So while that power bank may come in handy, it's vital to follow the rules of your carrier. https://www.yahoo.com/creators/lifestyle/story/airlines-are-cracking-down-on-portable-chargers-what-to-know-before-your-next-flight-154310660.html New details emerge about turbulence that injured 18 on Delta flight Passengers who weren't buckled aboard a Delta Air Lines flight to Europe were violently thrown into the ceiling and back down to the floor in July when the plane encountered severe turbulence in a thunderstorm over Wyoming, according to a new report on the incident. The National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday that passengers endured 2.5 minutes of turbulence that caught the pilots by surprise on July 30 even though they had already altered their route to try to avoid the storms. The seat belt sign was off so passengers, flight attendants and drink carts were thrown around the plane. The flight took off from Salt Lake City and was bound for Amsterdam, but it diverted to Minneapolis, where 24 people were evaluated by paramedics and 18 were taken to hospitals. Two crew members sustained serious injuries and five sustained minor injuries. The preliminary report said during the turbulence the passengers felt a gravitational force up to 1.75 times their body weight. "That's a lot of force. That's like a muscle man grabbing you by the shoulders and with all of his strength trying to pull you up," said aviation safety consultant Jeff Guzzetti, who used to investigate crashes for the NTSB and FAA. "If you're standing and you experience those types of forces, you're going to be thrown upward into the ceiling and then back down again onto the floor with a lot of force." Guzzetti said that enduring turbulence that lasted that long would seem like "an eternity" for the passengers feeling those forces. The NTSB also said the plane's wing dipped down as much as 40 degrees at one point, and Guzzetti said that would have alarmed passengers. That fits with what passengers described afterward. Passenger Leslie Woods told CBS News Minnesota she felt a drop and the drink cart went flying. She said the intermittent turbulence lasted for about a minute. "There was a little girl across the aisle from me that was just terrified. She's screaming, 'We're going to die, we're going to die, we're going to die,' so I was trying to keep her calm, and I really thought we were going to die. It was that scary," Woods said. "It was like an earthquake. It was just, the plane was shaking so hard and it would stop and it would start again, so it was kind of traumatizing." Other passengers had similar experiences. "They hit the ceiling, and then they fell to the ground," Leann Clement-Nash told ABC News. "And the carts also hit the ceiling and fell to the ground and people were injured. It happened several times, so it was really scary." The report said that the pilot had turned off the seatbelt sign and flight attendants had begun drink service shortly before the plane encountered the turbulence. The pilots likely believed they were in the clear after asking air traffic controllers to route them around the storms. But the NTSB charted the plane's flight path over a radar report from the National Weather Service that showed the plane flew directly into a bright red section of the map showing the worst of the storm. Guzzetti said the NTSB will investigate whether the pilots and crew did enough to avoid the storms and whether the pilot made a good judgement in turning off the seatbelt sign. Serious injuries from in-flight turbulence are rare, but scientists say they may be becoming more common as climate change alters the jet stream. Several turbulence incidents have been reported this year, which only added to the concerns about aviation safety after the worst aviation disaster in years. In January, a midair collision over Washington, D.C., killed 67 people. A plane also flipped over as it crashed in Toronto in March. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/details-emerge-turbulence-injured-18-101312719.html 737 MAX vs 737 NG: a pilot’s perspective Editor’s note: We were interested in the differences between operating the Boeing 737 NG and the 737 MAX. A pilot for a European airline with experience in the 737 NG and 737 MAX shares this report. New generation aircraft such as those of the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo families are vital to the continued profitability of the airlines that operate them, as well as the industry’s overall drive towards a lower carbon footprint. The Boeing 737-8, -8-200, -9 and the upcoming -7 and -10 are examples. The MAX family are modified variants of the successful Boeing 737 ‘Next Generation’ aircraft line, a group of aircraft that are amongst the most prolifically utilized and widely sold commercial aircraft in history. The MAX features a raft of upgraded features, the most notable being the aircraft’s new CFM LEAP 1B high-bypass turbofan engines. These new powerplants drive a significant increase in fuel efficiency – notably a reduction in fuel burn of around 14% compared to the 737-800 (according to Boeing). Whilst these two aircraft have their subtle (and not so subtle) differences, they are covered by a common type rating, meaning existing 737 NG pilots only need to undertake ‘differences training’ in order to fly the MAX. That said, there are some notable differences that pilots have to take into account when flying each type of aircraft on the line. Let’s take a look at some of those differences from a pilot’s perspective, and what actions crews take to trap and mitigate any potential errors brought about by those differences. The brakes, the cabin, and the turnaround The construction and the logic of an aircraft’s systems frame the way the aircraft is managed when on the ground between flights (referred to as the ‘turnaround’). Turnaround time is a key factor to the day to day operations of an airline, and some budget carriers have targeted turnaround times as low as 25 minutes. Brakes are one system that can have a significant influence on that time. The Boeing 737 MAX is fitted with carbon fibre brakes. These provide superior performance at high temperatures and cool down faster than the steel brakes fitted standard to the Boeing 737-800 (some -800s have optional carbon fibre brakes. That faster cooling time means less time spent on the ground and more cost savings for the airline, one of many cost savings that are passed on to the flying public in the form of lower ticket prices! In fact, carbon brakes offer higher energy absorption, take on average 2,200 landings between overhauls (almost double that of steel), and reduce brake set weight by up to 320 kg per aircraft. When pilots calculate their landing performance in flight, their onboard performance calculation will show the most appropriate brake setting to leave the runway at the point that will give them the shortest taxi route (again, saving time and money). When flying a Max, you will have a shorter brake cooling time and potentially a faster turnaround than a 737-800. Another key consideration on the ground is weight and balance. An aircraft’s cabin is divided into ‘zones’ containing a set number of rows and seats. Passengers are seated in each zone to ensure the aircraft’s center of gravity is within the limits set out in the aircraft manual (that’s why it’s important to take your assigned seat when boarding!). The 737 has 3 cabin zones – forward, middle and aft. The 737-800 typically defines the forward cabin zone as rows 1–5, with the aft covering the rear third of the cabin. On the 737-8-200, the forward and aft zones now include the first and last 6 rows. When calculating the loading, weight and balance for the aircraft, pilots must ensure that an appropriate number of passengers are placed in these zones, and account for any last minute changes (such as passenger no-shows). During the preflight walkaround, the MAX’s Advance Technology (AT) Winglets also require inspection for unintentional ground damage. Types of aircraft winglets and how they work Better engines, taxi, and takeoff performance One of the most visible differences between the 737 NG and the 737 MAX is the engines. From a pilot’s perspective, this changes some key indications we expect to see from the engines, as well as tweaks to the way they are operated. The CFM56 engines fitted to the NG are rated up to 26,000lbs of thrust, whereas the LEAP 1B fitted to the -8200 are rated up to 27,000. In practice, this means the 737-8-200 has a small but useful increase in available thrust, providing improved takeoff performance or allowing the same performance to be achieved at a further thrust derate, reducing engine wear and fuel burn. The LEAP-1B actually requires a slightly longer start sequence during engine start, as the engine control system carries out additional checks and a process called ‘bowed rotor motoring’. Once stabilized, the engines perform reliably, but start-up times must be factored into pre-flight planning. Another difference is idle thrust. On the ground, the LEAP-1B produces more thrust at idle than the CFM56, which means the aircraft can often accelerate to taxi speed without additional power. This has the benefit of reducing fuel use during taxi, but requires careful handling in congested areas. Pilots consider this during their pre-taxi briefings as part of threat and error management (TEM), identifying it as a predictable factor that must be controlled during ground operations. Positive rate, gear up! Pilots transitioning between the two aircraft quickly notice one significant cockpit change: the landing gear lever. On the 737-800, the lever has three positions: Down, Up, and Off. After takeoff, crews typically move the lever to Off, which depressurises the gear hydraulics. On the 737-8200 however, the lever has only two positions: Down and Up. Hydraulic pressure is removed automatically about ten seconds after the gear is selected Up. 737 NG flight deck This may seem like a small difference, but highlights a potential area of risk that pilots tackle with threat and error management.. A pilot accustomed to moving the 737-800’s landing gear lever to off could instinctively move the lever, which on the 737-8200 would actually lower the gear. This is a clear example of where threat and error management comes into play. Crews brief this hazard in advance and monitor the lever closely during takeoff. Should a problem arise, memory items would be actioned immediately. Checklists and decision-making Checklists form the backbone of safe flight operations, and here the similarities between the two aircraft outweigh the differences. Memory items (the steps pilots must recall and carry out immediately from memory in an emergency) are largely unchanged between the 737 NG and 737 MAX. This consistency helps pilots move between the types without additional workload in high-stress situations. Where the differences appear is in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH). A number of the “read and do” checklists that pilots complete step-by-step using the handbook have been modified to account for changes in system logic or alerts. While the variations are relatively minor, they still require discipline. Once memory items are complete, crews apply structured problem-solving frameworks based on mnemonics such as TDODAR or PIOSEE. These models encourage the crew to slow down, analyze the situation, and decide on the best overall course of action, ensuring procedural differences do not compromise safety. Approach, landing, and system indications As the aircraft returns to the airport environment, a few further differences come into play. The speed brake system on the 737 MAX includes updated logic. In addition to the conditions that trigger the amber ‘Speed brake extended’ light on the 737-800, the MAX also monitors thrust lever position. If the thrust levers remain above idle for several seconds with the speed brakes armed, the warning light will illuminate. This extra protection can be useful, but it can also introduce new cockpit indications during a busy phase of flight, something pilots prepare for in their approach briefing. Braking performance is again influenced by the use of carbon brakes. Unlike the standard steel brakes of the 737-800, carbon brakes do not lose as much effectiveness at higher temperatures. Additionally, manual braking using carbon brakes requires a slightly different technique, requiring gentle on-off application of brakes. When operating in winter operations, there are also some changes to anti-ice indications. On the 737-800, valve lights illuminate blue when operating normally. On the 737-8, those lights instead illuminate amber when a fault is detected or a valve disagrees with its commanded position. This requires close attention, as the absence of a light now indicates both normal operation and certain other conditions, a subtle but important shift that is accounted for during cold-weather operations. From the flight deck, the Boeing 737-8 operates and flies in much the same way as the 737-800, and pilots transitioning between the two find the flying qualities largely unchanged. The differences come in the details: from brakes and cabin zoning to engine characteristics, landing gear operation, checklist logic, and system indications. This is by no means an exhaustive list. These changes are addressed through differences training and reinforced every day on the line through the use of effective threat and error management. Should abnormal situations arise, structured decision-making models such as TDODAR and PIOSEE provide a consistent framework for crews to analyse the problem, assess their options, and select the safest course of action. In this way, operational safety and consistency are maintained across both aircraft types. For passengers, these technical nuances are largely invisible, but for airlines they represent improvements in efficiency, turnaround performance, and ultimately cost control – factors that support the continued competitiveness of modern single-aisle fleets. Tracking the Max on Flightradar24 Interested in getting a view of all the 737 MAX family aircraft in the air right now? Filters on Flightradar24 are the answer. Filters are available on your app or Flightradar24.com. Select filters, add a custom filter, and search ‘MAX’ in aircraft type. Selecting the aircraft you want to see will show you all the aircraft we are currently tracking. https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/aviation-explainer-series/737-max-vs-737-ng-a-pilots-perspective/ Aer Lingus A330 Pilots Violates New York JFK ATC’s Taxi Instructions At airports like JFK, where traffic density and parallel runway operations are complex, such events are closely monitored to prevent operational risks. NEW YORK- An Aer Lingus (EI) Airbus A330-300, operating as flight EIN107 from Dublin Airport (DUB) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), was instructed to call Air Traffic Control after a taxiway misstep. The widebody aircraft, registration EI-FNG, had just landed at JFK when the crew mistakenly entered taxiway G instead of holding short as instructed by the Tower. The situation was quickly corrected without incident. An Aer Lingus (EI) Airbus A330-300, operating as flight EIN107 from Dublin Airport (DUB) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), was instructed to call Air Traffic Control after a taxiway misstep. Aer Lingus Violates ATC Instructions After landing on runway 22L, EIN107 was directed by Tower to taxi via Juliet (J), Zulu (Z), and hold short of Golf (G). Instead, the crew turned onto taxiway G and stopped short of runway 22R. This created a potential conflict point since 22R is an active parallel runway at JFK. The controller immediately identified the deviation, clarified the instructions, and confirmed that the crew had acknowledged the original clearance to hold short of G. When the pilots apologized for the error, Tower instructed them to remain in position and later provided a phone number to call after taxi. Aer Lingus pilots get a phone number after violating taxi instructions at JFK Airport. Real ATC Tower’s Response and Crew Communication ATC maintained control of the situation by ensuring the aircraft stopped before crossing 22R. Once the position was confirmed as safe, Tower re-cleared EIN107 to cross runway 22R via Golf, taxi right on Bravo, and hold short of Fox. During the exchange, Tower reiterated the importance of the original instruction and emphasized that the crew’s readback had been correct, highlighting a breakdown in cockpit execution rather than miscommunication. As is standard procedure, Tower provided the flight crew with the contact number for a follow-up discussion. In cases where taxi or runway instructions are not followed correctly, ATC typically requests the crew to call the Tower after landing or taxi-in. This does not automatically indicate disciplinary action but serves as a way to debrief the situation, clarify events, and reinforce safety protocols. Runway and taxiway deviations are taken seriously by both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and airlines. At airports like JFK, where traffic density and parallel runway operations are complex, such events are closely monitored to prevent operational risks. ATC and Aer Lingus Pilots Comms Here’s a detailed transcript of communications between Aer Lingus pilots and New York JFK ATC as recorded by LiveATC.net and flagged by You Can See ATC: {ts:28} ATC (Tower): 107 heavy, turn right Juliet, taxi via Zulu, hold short of Golf, remain this frequency till you land. Pilot: Right Juliet, Zulu, hold short of Golf, maintain… where you going? Right. {ts:49} ATC: Also hold short 22 right, sir. ATC: No, I instructed you to hold short of Golf, and that’s what you read back. You don’t remember that? Pilot: Uh, apologies sir. Uh, uh, it’s wrong. {ts:56} ATC: Shamrock 107 heavy, hold your position. I’m going to have a number for you. Pilot: Yeah, no problem. {ts:64} ATC: Shamrock 107 heavy, cross runway 22 right at Golf, taxi right on Bravo, hold short of Fox. Pilot: 22 right on Golf, right at Bravo, hold short of Fox. {ts:81} ATC: Shamrock 107 heavy, advise when you’re ready to copy the number down. Pilot: Go ahead, Shamrock 107. {ts:94} Pilot: Who are we asking for? ATC: No, you’re not going to be asking for anybody, sir. It’s the tower number. Aer Lingus Operations at JFK Aer Lingus (EI) operates multiple daily transatlantic services to New York, primarily using Airbus A330 aircraft. Flight EIN107 is a regular service from Dublin (DUB) to New York’s JFK Airport, a route that connects two major hubs with heavy passenger traffic. While the event did not affect the flight’s arrival or passenger safety, it underscores the challenges crews face at high-traffic airports and the importance of strict adherence to ATC clearances. https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/09/12/aer-lingus-a330-pilots-violates-jfk-atc-taxi-instructions/#google_vignette Trump Nominates American Airlines Pilot for NTSB John DeLeeuw picked to fill vacant seat on National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB investigators National Transportation Safety Board team members survey the wreckage recovered from the Bell 206 L-4 helicopter that crashed into the Hudson River on April 10 near New York City. [Courtesy: NTSB] President Donald Trump on Thursday nominated an American Airlines pilot to serve on the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). According to a Reuters report, Senate records showed Trump has selected John DeLeeuw to take the place of President Joe Biden’s NTSB appointee, Alvin Brown. Brown, who was removed by the Trump administration in May, is suing Trump over the dismissal. DeLeeuw is the managing director of safety and efficiency at American Airlines. He has also taught aviation safety courses at the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering (USC Viterbi). According to his USC Viterbi profile, DeLeeuw has logged over 19,000 accident- and incident-free flight hours over the course of his over-30-year flying career. He is also a 787 Dreamliner captain. “John’s going to be an excellent addition to the board, if confirmed,” NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy told Reuters. “We’re very excited about the nomination, and we’ll be working with him through the process.” https://www.flyingmag.com/trump-nominates-american-airlines-pilot-for-ntsb/ Almost all German pilots admit to napping during flights, survey finds Pilots surveyed by a German union blamed fatigue, exhaustion and staff shortages for needing to sleep in mid-air Almost all German pilots have admitted to napping during flights due to exhaustion caused by staff shortages and overworking, a survey has found. The Vereinigung Cockpit union surveyed more than 900 of its members and found that 93 per cent had napped on a flight in the past few months. The union said that 12 per cent admitted to napping every flight, 44 per cent napped regularly, 33 per cent napped occasionally and 7 per cent could no longer count how often they had napped. Just 3 per cent napped as a one-off. Katharina Dieseldorff, Vice President of the Cockpit Association, said: "Pilots report to us that they complete their missions despite being extremely fatigued. The reasons are tight schedules, staff shortages, and increasing operational pressure. "Napping has long been the norm in German cockpits. What was originally intended as a short-term recovery measure has developed into a permanent remedy for structural overload.” The majority of the survey’s participants were from German airline Lufthansa The union said that pilots were working in a corporate culture that had ignored the tiredness of its staff, which worsened even more in the summer months. It said that it had tried to draw attention to the problem for years, along with other unions. "A short nap is not critical in itself. However, a permanently exhausted cockpit crew poses a significant risk," Mrs Dieseldorff said. The union mostly surveyed pilots from German airlines, more than half of which were from Lufthansa. It also surveyed 64 participants from Irish airline Ryanair and three from British airline easyJet. A Lufthansa spokesperson said: “Lufthansa has a comprehensive set of rules and parameters for flight and duty plans to ensure sufficient rest and preparation for cockpit and cabin crew members and to adhere to the highest safety standards. “On top of this, Controlled Rest on the flight deck is a preventive measure with clear policies and regulations regarding its usage. Its intent is to increase alertness and flight crew performance in the interest of safety.” In the context of the survey, ‘napping’ referred to controlled rest periods, the union said, and not sleep during takeoff or landing. Of those who had admitted to napping, 44 per cent said it was on short-haul flights, and 56 per cent said it was on long-haul flights. The union said it demanded decisive action from airlines, authorities, and politicians. It has asked airlines to recognise fatigue as a safety factor, better monitor compliance with flight time limitations, and use a science-based Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) which is not solely driven by commercial interests. Joji Waites, Head of Flight Safety at the British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA), said: “In the post-Covid norm, pilots are working longer and harder than ever so it’s no surprise to hear that our German colleagues are raising concerns over fatigue, which is a genuine flight safety risk.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-pilots-nap-flight-union-survey-lufthansa-b2824530.html Boeing ‘Clearly Behind’ On 777-9 Certification, Ortberg Says Boeing’s 777-9 certification program is falling behind, CEO Kelly Ortberg said, suggesting the issues could be significant enough to warrant a formal change to its current first-delivery timeline. “We still don’t have authorization from the FAA for a good portion of the certification program,” Ortberg said at the Morgan Stanley Laguna conference Sept. 11. “So, we’re working through that right now with the FAA, but we were clearly behind our plan in getting the certification done.” Boeing’s notional timeline has both FAA approval and first deliveries coming in 2026. Ortberg did not change this, but said senior leadership are evaluating the issue to determine potential ramifications. “I’ve asked [CFO] Jay Malave ... to spend some time as we come through this quarter, really looking at this schedule slip and understanding what the implications are and our go-forward plan,” he said. Ortberg emphasized that the latest delays are not linked to technical issues. “Both the airplane and the [GE Aerospace GE9X] engine are really performing quite well,” he said. He alluded to an increasingly deliberate FAA approach to aircraft approval as the major obstacle. “We can go fly, but we can’t actually get the certification credit until we get” type inspection authorization (TIA)—formal FAA testing clearance—for the required tests, Ortberg said. The FAA broke the 777-9 TIA into phases, which give Boeing approval to conduct required tests in specific batches. Before approving each TIA phase and allowing its pilots on the aircraft, the FAA must be convinced that the design conforms to the applicable regulations. Phased TIAs are not new. What has changed is the FAA’s level of scrutiny. Some of the new process is linked to requirements, such as new limits in delegating certification work to industry, in 2020 legislation that reformed FAA certification. It also reflects the post-737 MAX crisis environment in which the agency is simply asking more, and sometimes more complex, questions before allowing applicants to progress to a certification program’s next step. The changes came with Boeing in the midst of its 777-9 certification program as well as efforts to earn approval for the last two 737 MAX variants, the 737-7 and 737-10. All three programs have been hit with multiple delays—some technical, and some linked to new certification protocol—and are years behind as a result. The 737s are currently on track for 2026 approvals, provided that a required redesign of the engine anti-ice system earns FAA approval. “At the last earnings call [in July], we slipped the completion of the certification from the end of the year into next year,” Ortberg said. “The good news is we’ve made really good progress on the design of the engine anti-ice since that time. I feel pretty good that we’re nailing that design.” “We’re in the process right now of working with the FAA on the certification of that design, what tasks need to be done,” he added. “We’re still planning on getting that cert done next year, getting aircraft delivered next year.” Going forward, Ortberg sees room for improvement without compromising safety. “The certification process [is] way too slow,” Ortberg said. “We’ve got to work with the FAA in swinging the pendulum back and making that a process that’ll work. I can’t imagine that we can do a new airplane without having that process refined.” https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/boeing-clearly-behind-777-9-certification-ortberg-says Aviation watchdog wraps up Pakistan safety review, verdict on direct flights to US pending FAA team concludes week-long safety audit of Pakistan’s aviation regulator Outcome to decide resumption of direct flights to United States after five years KARACHI: The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has concluded a weeklong assessment of Pakistan’s aviation safety system in Karachi, the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (PCAA) said on Friday, a review that Islamabad hopes will pave the way for the resumption of direct flights to America after five years. The audit, conducted with the PCAA, examined Pakistan’s legal, regulatory and operational framework. The FAA delegation will now return to Washington to deliberate on its findings before issuing a formal outcome. “While the outcome of this assessment cannot yet be predicted, the track record of DG CAA Nadir Shafi Dar and his team — particularly their success in restoring direct routes to the European Union and the United Kingdom — provides reason for cautious optimism,” the PCAA said in a statement. The five-member FAA delegation, accompanied by officials from the US Embassy, held extensive discussions with PCAA counterparts during the week. The review included verification of regulatory documents, evaluations of safety oversight mechanisms and briefings on compliance with international standards. A second FAA team is expected later this year to evaluate airport and airspace security protocols in Pakistan. The visit is part of Pakistan’s bid to regain access to the US market, from which national carrier Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has been barred since June 2020. The ban followed a deadly Karachi plane crash that killed nearly 100 people and a subsequent scandal over fake pilot licenses. Earlier this year, European and British regulators lifted their restrictions on PIA after nearly five years, allowing the airline to resume flights to those markets. A favorable outcome by the FAA could restore PIA’s US routes, reducing travel times for the nearly 700,000 Pakistani expatriates living in America and boosting confidence in the country’s aviation sector. Muhammad Umair, a Karachi-based aviation analyst, told Arab News earlier this week that the FAA visit marked “the first major step” toward restoring the routes but warned the process could take months. “They will review all safety and security protocols, identify any gaps, and ask the Pakistani authorities to address them,” he said. https://www.arabnews.pk/node/2615034/pakistan EASA OKs Falcon 6X for Enhanced Flight Vision System Ops Approval allows operators allows 100-foot decision height on approaches in all conditions Dassault's FalconEye combined vision system head-up display has been developed to improve situational awareness for pilots when flying approaches in all conditions. (Dassault Aviation) EASA has approved Dassault’s Falcon 6X for enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) operations based on the manufacturer’s FalconEye head-up display (HUD) technology. The FalconEye combined vision system was developed to improve situational awareness for pilots making lower-altitude approaches in all weather conditions, day or night, making runway obstacles visible through fog and mist. The European air safety regulator added the amendment to the large-cabin jet’s type certificate on September 3, allowing operations down to 100 feet above the threshold on Cat 1 approaches using localizer performance with vertical guidance and barometric vertical navigation. Nonprecision continuous descent final approach techniques are also now permitted. Initially, the EFVS approval covers a single HUD configuration. In the near future, Dassault said it aims to achieve authorization for a dual HUD setup in which both pilots benefit from the same synthetic vision inputs based on a combination of terrain and infrastructure information from a database, and infrared and low-light camera imagery. Meanwhile, on September 5, Swiss private aviation group Albinati Aeronautics flew the first Falcon 6X into Cannes Mandelieu Airport (LFMD) in the south of France. The operator has worked with Dassault and local authorities to get approval for movements, taking into account the airport’s 5,282-foot runway, geography, and noise restrictions. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2025-09-10/easa-clears-falcon-6x-enhanced-vision-operations When And Where Lightning Strikes Occur Patrick Veillette, Ph.D. September 12, 2025 The weather that existed for departure from London’s Heathrow Airport (LHR) on Oct. 10, 2014, was moderate rain from a layer of stratus clouds with tops at 10,000 ft. The weather could hardly be considered threatening for experienced pilots flying a modern transport category aircraft designed and certified to the extensive standards of Federal Aviation Regulation Part 25. The United Airlines Boeing 787 was only six minutes into its flight from LHR to Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) when the aircraft was struck by lightning from a seemingly innocuous stratus cloud layer, causing a cacophony of failures resulting in the aircraft making an emergency return to LHR with key components disabled. The lightning strike caused three of the five primary display units to blank. The captain’s forward windshield heat was inoperative. Let’s step back from the NTSB’s official report and think of this from the pilots’ perspective. They were flying a heavily loaded 787 on a trans-Atlantic flight in which three of the five primary flight displays were blank. There wasn’t a checklist that fit this malfunction. Picture yourself in a simulator training session facing the loss of critical components such as the display of flight information while you scramble through the pages of the Quick Reference Handbook trying to find a checklist that would apply. That is a considerable distraction and adds workload for a flight crew. The United crew had an additional malfunction to consider, that of the inoperative windshield heat. That checklist was easy to find, but the procedures failed to restore heat to the windshield due to the damage from the lightning strike. The windshield malfunction carries significant operational restrictions. The workload had to be considerable dealing with the consequences of these multiple failures. They prudently decided to return to LHR, but this too added workload coordinating with air traffic control for a return to LHR while also getting the aircraft down to its landing weight. The crew’s professional performance brought the aircraft back to LHR without further incident. Post-incident inspection revealed lightning strike attachment points where the lightening made contact on the left side of the nose and around the captain’s windshield. Other lightning attachment points were noted on the left outboard aileron. The NTSB’s final report determined that the displays were rendered inoperative by the lightning strike, and further noted the lack of guidance to the flight crew to perform a power reset to the display. Where Does Lightning Occur? Regions with the highest number of lightning flashes are shown in pink. Credit: NASA The French Aerospace Lab estimates on average that each aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet is struck by lightning every 1,000 flight hours. The U.S. Air Force notes that more than 50% of military aircraft weather-related in-flight mishaps are caused by lightning. According to NASA’s Earth Observatory, lightning occurs more often over land than the oceans, and more frequently closer to the equator. Stronger convective activity is to be expected over land rather than water bodies because the earth absorbs sunlight and heats up faster than water, causing strong convection leading to the formation of lightning producing storms. In the image above, the regions with the highest number of lightning flashes are shown in pink. The data was collected from 1995-2013 by NASA satellites. Central Africa and South America have regions exceeding 20 strikes per square km per year. The area of lighter color in Central Africa experiences more than 70 strikes per square km per year. The highest amounts of lightning occur in the far eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (158 strikes/sq km/year). The highest rate of lightning in North and South America occurs in northwestern Venezuela. Further analysis of the data revealed interesting regional trends. NASA’s Daniel Cecil, a member of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center’s lightning team, noted the increased concentration of lightning over far eastern India in May, a time of year when the weather becomes unstable and changeable, just before the onset of the monsoon. Non-Threatening Weather The National Severe Storms Laboratory recommends avoiding those atmospheric conditions where the risk of strikes is greatest to decrease the chance of a direct lightning strike. That sounds like common sense, but it isn’t as easy as it sounds, especially when considering that atmospheric scientists have described lightning as a capricious, random, stochastic and unpredictable event. There is a commonly held perception that most lightning strikes occur close to weather cells which exhibit significant convective activity, but the historical records of aircraft lightning strikes indicate otherwise. Let’s review a sample of past incidents to determine which weather conditions produced the most number of lightning strikes and what difficulties the flight crews encountered while trying to avoid the associated weather. The analysis included 328 events in the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System, 49 incidents in the FAA incident database and 195 incidents from the UK Civil Aviation Authority Mandatory Occurrence Reporting System. Surprisingly, 63% of the lightning strikes occurred in weather that flight crews did not associate with the threat of adverse weather. A substantial portion of aircraft lightning strikes occur to aircraft in a cloud where there is no evidence of precipitation nearby, or even to aircraft flying in clear air at an assumed safe distance from a thundercloud. Strikes to aircraft flying 25 miles from the nearest radar return of precipitation have been reported. In contrast, only a small percentage of strikes (12%) occurred when flight crews were attempting to detour around observed weather cells (observed either with the weather radar or visually.) Light precipitation, which would hardly be considered threatening weather for a transport aircraft, was present in 6% of the lightning strikes. Moderate rain was present in 6%. Snow was present in 4% (and yes, lightning and threatening convective activity does occur in snow storms). How do these numbers compare with past studies done by the airlines and manufacturers? A study of 99 lightning strike incidents that occurred to United aircraft found that roughly 40% of all lightning strike incidents occurred in areas where no thunderstorms were reported. Only 33% of the strikes occurred in the general area of a thunderstorm. It is interesting to compare and contrast the data sample above with a study done in 1971. Five U.S. commercial airlines (American, Braniff, Continental, Eastern and United) and the General Electric High Voltage Laboratory formed the Airlines Lighting Strike Reporting Project. The project had the objective of obtaining a greater understanding of the conditions under which aircraft are struck by lightning and the resultant effects on aircraft structural, electrical and avionics systems. The report covered 153 lightning strike incidents that occurred to turbojet transport aircraft. It found the following conditions existed at the time of lightning strikes to aircraft: 85% were within a cloud 83% were experiencing precipitation 72% were experiencing turbulence 50% experienced electrical activity (earphone static, St. Elmo’s Fire) before the strike 95% of the strike incidents occurred below 23,000 ft. 5% occurred between 33,000 and 37,000 ft. A joint project by the National Severe Storms Laboratory, NASA Langley Research Center and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center using a Convair F-106B found that the majority of direct strikes to the research aircraft occurred during the decaying stage of cell evolution. Environmental conditions such as turbulence and rain intensity during the direct strikes at low-altitude flights were characterized by negligible to light levels of both. The probability of a direct strike to the airplane in a thunderstorm increases with the decreasing rate of lightning flashes. https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/when-where-lightning-strikes-occur-part-1 Silk Way West Airlines secures ISO 14001 environmental certification Silk Way West Airlines, the leading cargo airline in the Caspian and Central Asian region, has been awarded the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS) certification by the Quality Consulting Services (QCS), marking a key milestone in the airline’s journey toward greater environmental responsibility. The internationally recognised certification confirms the airline’s commitment to reducing its environmental impact through improved resource efficiency, pollution control, and climate-conscious operations. “This achievement enhances our business reputation and reflects our commitment to building strong, trust-based relationships with our customers, partners, and regulators,” said Wolfgang Meier, president of Silk Way West Airlines. The implementation of ISO 14001 strengthens Silk Way West Airlines’ ability to meet regulatory standards, drive operational efficiency, and embed a culture of sustainability across the organisation. Building on this success, the airline plans to deepen its environmental strategy by launching internal sustainability programmes, providing staff training, and pursuing further certifications such as ISO 50001 for energy management, as well as participating in global reporting frameworks such as the GRI. https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com/cargo/ CALENDAR OF EVENTS · ISASI ANNUAL SEMINAR 2025'September 29, 2025 – October 3, 2025, DENVER, COLORADO . 2025 NBAA Single-Pilot Safety Standdown; Monday, Oct. 13 | 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.; Las Vegas, NV . 2025 NBAA National Safety Forum, Tuesday, Oct. 14 – Wednesday, Oct. 15; Las Vegas, NV . Air Medical Transport Conference (AMTC™) - 2025 – October 27-29th (Omaha, Nebraska) . 78TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY SUMMIT (IASS) - Lisbon, November 4–6 . 29th annual Bombardier Safety Standdown, November 11-13, 2025; Wichita, Kansas · CHC Safety & Quality Summit, 11th – 13th November 2025, Vancouver, BC Canada . 2026 ACSF Safety Symposium; April 7-9, 2026; ERAU Daytona Beach, FL . 2026 NBAA Maintenance Conference; May 5-7, 2026; New Orleans, LA . BASS 2026 - 71st Business Aviation Safety Summit - May 5-6, 2026 | Provo, Utah . The African Aviation Safety & Operations Summit - May 19-20 | Johannesburg, South Africa . Safeskies Australia - Australia’s renowned Aviation Safety Conference - Canberra Australia 20 and 21 May 2026 . 2026 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) Oct. 20-22, 2026 | Las Vegas, NV Curt Lewis