Flight Safety Information - April 28, 2025 No. 085 In This Issue : Incident: British Airways B773 at Washington and Boston on Apr 26th 2025, bird strike and fumes in cabin : Incident: Delta B752 at Orlando on Apr 21st 2025, pressurization problem : Incident: Ryanair B738 at Milan on Apr 22nd 2025, captain incapacitated : Incident: Piedmont E145 near Louisville on Apr 25th 2025, smoke in cockpit : Incident: Transat A332 near Orlando on Apr 19th 2025, engine shut down in flight : Incident: ITA A339 over Atlantic on Apr 24th 2025, flight control problems : DHC-6-400 Twin Otter - Fatal Accident (Thailand) : Pilot in Deadly D.C. Crash Was Told to Turn at Last Second but Didn’t : Private jet demand declines as tariffs spook would-be buyers : Airbus strikes deal to carve up Spirit Aero with Boeing : Focus on the Rudder and LOC-I Accidents : ANA to use AeroSHARK on Boeing 777 aircraft : Calendar of Events Incident: British Airways B773 at Washington and Boston on Apr 26th 2025, bird strike and fumes in cabin A British Airways Boeing 777-300, registration G-STBD performing flight BA-216 from Washington Dulles,DC (USA) to London Heathrow,EN (UK) with 243 passengers and 15 crew, had departed Dulles' runway 01R and suffered a bird strike. The crew continued the climb and was enroute at FL350 about 60nm south of Boston,MA (USA) when the crew declared Mayday and requested to divert to Boston advising, they have had a bird strike and now had fumes in the cabin, the cockpit was okay. The fume event in the cabin was uncontrollable, an evacuation was possible, the crew thus requested emergency services to follow them. On final approach the crew advised they would stop on the runway to check the cabin environment and make a decision whether to evacuate. The aircraft landed on Boston's runway 22L about 25 minutes after declaring Mayday. The aircraft stopped on the runway for about 5 minutes, then vacated the runway and taxied to the apron. After landing the crew reported they did have a bird strike with a large bird of prey, which impacted the underside of the aircraft, probably the air conditioning system causing fumes in the cabin. The FAA reported: "British Airways Flight 216 landed safely at Boston Logan International Airport around 7:30 p.m. local time on Saturday, April 26, after the crew reported a possible bird strike and fumes in the cabin. The Boeing 777 departed Dulles International Airport and was headed to Heathrow Airport in London. The FAA will investigate." https://avherald.com/h?article=52700fac&opt=0 Incident: Delta B752 at Orlando on Apr 21st 2025, pressurization problem A Delta Airlines Boeing 757-200, registration N6700 performing flight DL-1030 from Orlando,FL to Atlanta,GA (USA), was climbing out of Orlando's runway 18L when the crew stopped the climb at 10000 feet and decided to return to Orlando for a safe landing on runway 18R about 50 minutes after departure. The FAA reported: "Delta Air Lines Flight 1030 returned safely to Orlando International Airport in Florida around 3 p.m. local time on Monday, April 21, after the crew reported a possible pressurization issue." A replacement Boeing 757-200 registration N6714Q reached Atlanta with a delay of about 6 hours. The occurrence aircraft returned to service about 21 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=526f4a47&opt=0 Incident: Ryanair B738 at Milan on Apr 22nd 2025, captain incapacitated A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-EKK performing flight FR-4038 from Dublin (Ireland) to Milan Bergamo (Italy), was descending towards Bergamo when the captain began to feel unwell and became incapacitated. The first officer took control of the aircraft, entered a number of holds and subsequently landed the aircraft on Bergamo's runway 28 about 30 minutes later and stopped on the runway. Medical services attended to the captain. The airport was closed for about 50 minutes as result causing a number of diversions. The aircraft remained on the ground over night and returned to service about 10 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=526f4688&opt=0 Incident: Piedmont E145 near Louisville on Apr 25th 2025, smoke in cockpit A Piedmont Airlines Embraer ERJ-145 on behalf of American Airlines, registration N670AE performing flight AA-5895 from Charlotte,NC to Evansville,IN (USA), was enroute at FL360 when the crew reported smoke and odour in the cockpit and decided to divert to Louisville,KY (USA). On final approach to Louisville's runway 17R the crew advised that there was no longer smoke and odour in the cockpit. The aircraft landed safely about 35 minutes after leaving FL360. A replacement Embraer ERJ-145 registration N641AE reached Evansville with a delay of about 7 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Louisville about 14 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=526f44b5&opt=0 Incident: Transat A332 near Orlando on Apr 19th 2025, engine shut down in flight An Air Transat Airbus A330-200, registration C-GUBC performing flight TS-803 from Coco Cayo (Cuba) to Toronto,ON (Canada), was enroute at FL390 about 150nm eastsoutheast of Orlando,FL (USA) when the crew received a low oil quantity indication for one of the engines (Trent 772). A short while later the crew also received a low oil pressure indication. The engine was shut down. The aircraft diverted to Orlando for a safe landing on runway 18R about 40 minutes later. The Canadian TSB did not mention whether left or right hand engine was affected. A replacement A330-200 registration C-GPTS continued the flight and reached Toronto with a delay of about 11 hours. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Orlando until Apr 22nd 2025, then flew to Toronto as flight TS-14 and is still on the ground in Toronto standing Apr 26th 2025. https://avherald.com/h?article=526f2f02&opt=0 Incident: ITA A339 over Atlantic on Apr 24th 2025, flight control problems An ITA Italia Trasporto Aereo Airbus A330-900, registration EI-HJO performing flight AZ-610 from Rome Fiumicino (Italy) to New York JFK,NY (USA), was enroute at FL300 south of Ireland in contact with Shannon Control, when the crew advised they had flight control problems, it was not an emergency, they were consulting with dispatch and maintenance and would continue on track for now. Just before entering Oceanic Airspace the crew advised they would not be able to continue into Oceanic Airspace and thus wanted to return to Rome. The aircraft turned around and returned to Rome for a safe landing about 6:05 hours after departure. A replacement Airbus A330-200 registration EI-EJM reached New York with a delay of about 10 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Rome about 23.5 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=526ed893&opt=0 DHC-6-400 Twin Otter - Fatal Accident (Thailand) Date: Friday 25 April 2025 Time: c. 08:10 LT Type: Viking DHC-6-400 Twin Otter Owner/operator: Royal Thai Police Wing Registration: 36964 MSN: 964 Year of manufacture: 2017 Engine model: P&W Canada PT6A-34 Fatalities: Fatalities: 6 / Occupants: 6 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Category: Accident Location: off Hua Hin Airport (HHQ/VTPH), Cha-am, Phetchaburi - Thailand Phase: Initial climb Nature: Test Departure airport: Hua Hin Airport (HHQ/VTPH) Destination airport: Hua Hin Airport (HHQ/VTPH) Confidence Rating: Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources Narrative: A Royal Thai Police Wing Viking DHC-6-400 Twin Otter, call sign RTP964, crashed into the sea shortly after takeoff from Hua Hin Airport (HHQ/VTPH), Cha-am, Phetchaburi. All six occupants perished and the aircraft was destroyed. The aircraft had just taken off from Hua Hin Airport (HHQ/VTPH) for a test flight with three pilots, two mechanics and an aircraft engineer on board when reportedly the no.2 (right hand) engine failed and the aircraft spun nose down into sea and broke in two. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/501636 Pilot in Deadly D.C. Crash Was Told to Turn at Last Second but Didn’t The fatal collision in January killed all 64 individuals aboard a passenger plane and all three military personnel in a Black Hawk helicopter. In this U.S. Coast Guard handout, the Coast Guard investigates aircraft wreckage on the Potomac River on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. An American Airlines flight from Wichita, Kansas collided midair with a military Black Hawk helicopter while on approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport outside of Washington, DC. According to reports, there were no survivors among the 67 people onboard both aircraft. Handout/Petty Officer 1st Class Brandon Giles/ U.S. Coast Guard via Getty Images A Black Hawk helicopter pilot who collided with a passenger plane over Washington D.C. in January reportedly failed to follow instruction from her co-pilot to change course seconds before the crash. In a new report published Sunday, The New York Times details the many missteps that led to the fatal collision near Ronald Reagan National Airport earlier this year, which killed all three military personnel aboard the helicopter and all 60 passengers, plus four crew members, aboard American Airlines Flight 5342 flying in from Kansas. Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach, who joined the Army in 2019, was piloting the helicopter as part of an annual flight exam, according to The Times. Her co-pilot, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Andrew Loyd Eaves, was also serving as her flight instructor while a third crew member, Staff Sgt. Ryan Austin O’Hara, was helping with technical equipment in the back. A Coast Guard crane arrives to remove the wreckage of a military Black Hawk helicopter after the crash of an American Airlines plane on the Potomac River as it approached the airport on January 31, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia. The American Airlines flight from Wichita, Kansas collided midair with a military Black Hawk helicopter while on approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. According to reports, there were no survivors among the 67 people on both aircraft. When air traffic controllers at the airport notified the crew that a passenger aircraft was entering its vicinity, they acknowledged the information and asked to employ “visual separation”—a practice where pilots rely on their own observations of their surroundings to avert nearby traffic, instead of following guidance from controllers. The Times’ investigation found that, among many errors that culminated into the crash, two integral missteps on behalf of the helicopter were: The helicopter’s failure to descend below the maximum altitude for its route, and Lobach seemingly failing to heed instruction from Eaves to turn left seconds before the crash. Lobach reportedly failed to change course. The Black Hawk was supposed to descend to 200 feet in the minutes leading up to the crash, but was still flying above the benchmark. Then, after receiving another alert from air traffic control on the passenger plane’s location (which The Times notes was likely cut off), Eaves reportedly told Lobach “he believed that air traffic control wanted them to turn left” 15 seconds before crossing paths with the aircraft. An investigation into the crash is ensuing. “Turning left would have opened up more space between the helicopter and Flight 5342, which was heading for Runway 33 at an altitude of roughly 300 feet,” The Times wrote. “She did not turn left.” The Federal Aviation Administration did not immediately respond to the Daily Beast’s request for comment. Errors within the helicopter were among many factors that contributed to the tragic collision on January 29, with a safety report from the FAA at the time noting that staffing at the airport’s control tower was “not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic.” The National Transportation Safety Board has ensued an ongoing investigation into the collision, with a final report slated to be released in early 2026. https://www.thedailybeast.com/pilot-in-deadly-dc-crash-was-told-to-turn-at-last-second-but-didnt/ Private jet demand declines as tariffs spook would-be buyers With consumer confidence tumbling, demand for commercial air travel has waned. Even deep-pocketed travelers are pulling back, according to Barclays’ latest survey of business jet broker-dealers and financiers. Customer interest in buying business jets has fallen by 49% since March, according to the survey, which was conducted from April 9 to 15 and had 65 respondents. The Barclays Business Jet Indicator survey, published last week, uses five metrics, including 12-month outlook and pricing, to assess the state of the market. All but one metric (inventory levels) declined from mid-March to mid-April. As a result, the composite score fell from 52 to 40. The percentage drop recorded in the most recent survey, at 23%, is the largest recorded by Barclays since the Covid pandemic. Barclays analyst David Strauss told CNBC that he expected sentiment to weaken but not to such a large degree. A composite score in the low 40s indicates the market is slowing, according to Barclays. The indicator correlates with airplane manufacturers’ book-to-bill ratio, a key measure of their financial health. A score of 40 indicates that dollar value of manufacturers’ new orders is lagging about 10% behind the orders it is currently fulfilling, Strauss said. Survey respondents told Barclays that clients had put purchases on hold, fearing the impact of tariffs not only on the aircraft market but also their operating businesses. Nearly half (46%) of participants said that customer interest in buying business jets had deteriorated since March. Forty-four percent said customer interest stayed the same and only 10% reported it had improved. When asked specifically about the effect of tariffs on new aircraft demand, 93% of respondents said it would have a negative impact on demand, with a majority expecting the impact would be significant. Only 7% said they believed there would be no impact. As for used jets, 67% of respondents were still pessimistic, expecting a significant or minor negative impact on demand. A little under a third (27%) expected demand for used jets to increase by some degree. However, pending legislation may give business jet manufacturers a shot in the arm. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have adopted a budget resolution that aims to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. A key provision of the TCJA allowed businesses to immediately deduct 100% of eligible equipment purchases rather than spreading out the deduction over time. The rate has dropped 20% annually since 2023 and was set to phase out in 2027. Republican lawmakers now have a path to raise the rate back to 100% and allow retroactive deductions, which President Donald Trump called for in March. If they succeed in bringing back 100% bonus depreciation, private aircraft would become much more attractive from a tax perspective. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/25/private-jet-demand-declines-as-tariffs-spook-would-be-buyers.html Airbus strikes deal to carve up Spirit Aero with Boeing STORY: Airbus has agreed a deal to take on some of the assets of key aerospace industry supplier Spirit AeroSystems. That’s part of a carve-up with rival Boeing. The U.S. giant agreed last year to buy back the aircraft parts maker for $4.7 billion in stock. It used to own Spirit, but spun it off two decades ago. Now it’s trying to reassert control over its supply chain as part of moves to improve quality control. Boeing has been under scrutiny following a series of incidents with its best-selling 737 MAX jet - for which Spirit makes the fuselages. But the reacquisition had faced a potential roadblock. Airbus too gets major parts from Spirit, and didn’t want to be dependent on a firm owned by its arch-rival. Now it’s been agreed that the European company will take on several facilities. That includes some or all of plants in North Carolina, Northern Ireland and Scotland. All three make critical parts for its jets. As part of the deal, Airbus will also provide Spirit with a $200 million credit line. Airbus said earlier this month that the company would conclude a deal by the end of April, while Boeing’s side is expected to close by mid-year. Last year, Spirit had warned its ability to keep going could be in danger if it didn’t get help. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/video/airbus-strikes-deal-carve-spirit-061459962.html Focus on the Rudder and LOC-I Accidents Improper rudder use can lead to loss of control in aircraft Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of focus on the rudder and its contribution to loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) accidents. The month of April began with an article entitled “Use of Rudder” in Safety First, the Airbus Safety magazine, that issues a stern warning to pilots: “The use of rudder by the flight crew on Airbus aircraft is limited to the takeoff and landing roll, crosswind landings, or to counteract the yaw effect caused by an engine failure until the rudder is trimmed.” According to the manufacturer, “Several events have been reported where the flight crew used rudder inputs after encountering turbulence, causing unnecessary trajectory deviations and loads on the aircraft structure.” Next, aircraft upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) specialist Aviation Performance Solutions released “The Rudder—Critical, Powerful, and Often Misunderstood” on YouTube. In this video, APS CEO Paul “B.J.” Ransbury reviews several case studies where the rudder contributed to loss of control or near loss of control events. “These events, mechanical, uncommanded, and pilot-induced,” according to Ransbury, “all reinforce one thing: the rudder is powerful and must be treated with respect.” He continues by explaining the foundational role of effective UPRT in building manual flight skills, flight envelope awareness, and resilience. Specifically, ICAO and FAA guidance on rudder use during upset prevention and recovery is discussed, underscoring the necessity of a comprehensive UPRT program. Airbus Case Studies In its rudder story, Airbus highlights a recent event involving an A320 that encountered turbulence when climbing through FL300 to its FL360 cruise altitude. Passing 31,600 feet, the aircraft began to roll to the right, reaching a maximum of 52 degrees. According to the article, the pilot flying (PF) reacted with full left and nose up sidestick and light left rudder input that disengaged the autopilot, leading the aircraft to bank to the left. Next, the PF reacted by applying a full right sidestick and approximately half right rudder, causing the aircraft to bank “severely” to the right and triggering the “STOP RUDDER INPUT” warning. These actions were followed by a series of alternating full left and right sidestick and near-half rudder inputs, causing the aircraft to bank left and right and triggering three additional “STOP RUDDER INPUT” warnings. The PF was finally able to stabilize the aircraft using only light sidestick inputs. Upon landing, the flight crew reported “heavy turbulence” to maintenance but made no reference to the “STOP RUDDER INPUT” warnings. Maintenance performed inspections related to excessive turbulence but did not perform the inspection related to high lateral loads. Later, following a routine review of flight data, it was discovered and confirmed that the lateral acceleration of 0.41 g during the event corresponded to a “red level” event requiring further inspection. Upon inspection, it was determined that “flight loads were in the vicinity of design limits but did not exceed them.” This event is significant for two reasons. First, even the latest-generation jet transports are vulnerable to in-flight upsets. The A320 is a fourth-generation aircraft design incorporating fly-by-wire technology and flight-envelope protection. These advancements, according to Airbus, have reduced loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) incidents by 90% when compared to third-generation aircraft. Second, the “STOP RUDDER INPUT” warning is significant to Airbus pilots since it is a reminder and the result of an accident that killed 260 people. On Nov. 12, 2001, an American Airlines Airbus A300-600 crashed shortly after taking off from New York JFK International Airport (KJFK). During its initial climb, the aircraft encountered wake turbulence from a preceding Boeing 747-400. According to the NTSB, “the aggressive use of the rudder controls by the first officer stressed the vertical stabilizer until it separated from the aircraft.” In addition, due to excessive lateral forces, both engines separated from the aircraft before impact. The first officer’s actions may have been a result of the airline’s training programs. Prior to the accident, the airline promoted rudder use to recover from inadvertent aircraft upsets. In its final report, the NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident “was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.” Boeing Case Studies During the 1990s, a series of issues affecting the rudder systems of Boeing 737s resulted in multiple incidents and two fatal accidents. In two separate accidents, pilots lost control of their aircraft due to sudden uncommanded rudder movement, resulting in crashes that killed 157 people. The NTSB determined that the accidents were the result of a design flaw that could result in an uncommanded movement of the aircraft’s rudder—in the opposite direction—as commanded by the pilots. Following the investigation of these accidents, the FAA mandated modifications for all 737 aircraft in service. Since the modifications, there have been no additional rudder-reversal incidents. In addition to the rudder modifications, a new concept—crossover speed—was introduced to the industry. Crossover speed is the airspeed that requires full lateral (roll) control from the ailerons and spoilers to counteract roll due to yaw caused by full rudder input. At speeds less than crossover speed, with full rudder input, the roll induced by the rudder starts to exceed the lateral control authority of the ailerons and spoilers. More recently, an issue was identified with the 737 Max’s rudder system (this system differs from the classic 737 aircraft, described above). In February 2024, a Boeing 737-8 Max experienced a “stuck rudder” during the landing rollout at New Jersey’s Newark Liberty Airport (KEWR). According to the NTSB report, the captain stated that “during the landing rollout, the rudder pedals did not move in response to the normal application of foot pressure while attempting to maintain the runway centerline.” The captain was able to use the nosewheel steering tiller to keep the airplane near the runway centerline and exit the runway once the aircraft slowed to a safe taxi speed. Shortly after landing, according to the report, the rudder pedals began to work normally. Flight data analysis corroborated with the captain’s report regarding the malfunction of the rudder system. Investigators determined that water intrusion, and the subsequent freezing, of a rudder “rollout guidance servo” restricted the rudder pedals on the incident aircraft. As a result, of the investigation, the NTSB issued an urgent safety recommendation to replace the affected components (only one U.S. airline was affected) and cautioned pilots on abrupt rudder control movements that could cause “sudden large, and undesirable rudder deflections that (could) unintentionally cause a loss of control or departure from a runway.” Handle with Care Airbus cautions pilots on the risks of structural overload due to opposite rudder inputs: “Aircraft structures are designed to sustain loads caused by normal use of the rudder in a wide range of conditions and speeds. However, aggressive, rapid, full or nearly full travel, and rapidly pressing one rudder pedal then the other in opposite succession can lead to rudder inputs that will cause loads higher than the design limit and can result in structural damage or failure.” It notes, “The rudder travel limit system is not designed to prevent potential structural damage or failure caused by such forceful rudder pedal inputs by the flight crew.” Even the latest Airbus aircraft with electric rudder systems have flight control laws that may reduce structural stress caused by forceful or alternating rudder pedal inputs, but this is not protection against structural damage or failure, the manufacturer said. Industry Guidance on Rudder Use APS’ Ransbury cites industry guidance (ICAO document 111 and FAA AC 121-111, AC 120-109A, and AC 121-123) on the proper use of rudder during upset prevention and recovery. In the video Ransbury mentions these salient points: Rudder control is still effective at a high angle of attack, and special care must be taken in the use of rudder during upset prevention and recovery. Excessive use of pitch trim or rudder during the recovery may aggravate the upset condition and/or may result in exceeding aeroplane structural limitations. It is important to guard against control reversals. To maintain structural integrity, avoid rapid full-scale reversal of control deflections. Extreme care must be taken whenever a pilot chooses to use rudder to correct sideslip. General Aviation Accidents Sadly, earlier this month, a malfunctioning or “stuck rudder” may have contributed to a tragic general aviation accident in Florida. On April 11, a Cessna 310R crashed near Boca Raton Airport (KBCT) in Florida. Preliminary accounts of the crash detail the short 11-minute flight that killed three people. Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft entered a series of left-hand turns in the vicinity of the airport at varying altitudes. Interviews with air traffic control specialists, witness accounts, and video show the aircraft “yawing” to the left in continuous left-hand turns, and with both engines operating. According to some reports, one air traffic controller said the pilot—an accomplished aerobatic pilot—had “no rudder control” and “had difficulty controlling the aircraft.” After several attempts to land at the airport, the aircraft crashed about 3,500 feet southwest of Runway 05 at KBCT. LOC-I Almost Always Fatal Loss of control is a leading category of aircraft accidents worldwide. These accidents are almost always fatal and affect every aircraft type and every segment of aviation. According to IATA, the most prominent contributing causal factors of these events involve the pilot, including those human-induced loss of control causal issues such as manual handling errors, poor energy management, the effects of automation, and spatial disorientation and procedures. Meteorological conditions and aircraft malfunctions (such as the rudder) are among the primary contributing threats to these human-induced incidents. One of the best ways to mitigate the LOC-I threat is a comprehensive UPRT program. These programs enhance the pilot’s toolbox by promoting an approach that helps avoid, detect, and recover from a loss of control event. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2025-04-25/ainsight-focus-rudder-and-loc-i-accidents ANA to use AeroSHARK on Boeing 777 aircraft All Nippon Airways (ANA), Japan's largest airline, will be the first company in Asia to utilise AeroSHARK, the fuel-saving riblet film developed by Lufthansa Technik and BASF, on its Boeing 777 passenger aircraft. Furthermore, ANA will be the first airline worldwide to operate the Boeing 777 equipped with this technology on both cargo and passenger aircraft. A Boeing 777-300ER fitted with the innovation will commence commercial operations with ANA today. This is ANA's second aircraft (JA796A) incorporating the technology. ANA has been operating a Boeing 777 Freighter (JA771F) featuring the riblet technology since September 2024. The AeroSHARK film, inspired by the structure of shark skin, reduces frictional resistance, thereby decreasing fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions. ANA has verified these benefits since the first aircraft entered service, confirming the technology reduces consumption and emissions by approximately one percent. “The implementation of the AeroSHARK technology on more ANA aircraft represents our ongoing commitment to reduce our carbon footprint and improve operational efficiency,” said Kohei Tsuji, Executive Vice President, Engineering and Maintenance Centre at ANA. “This innovative technology is building a more sustainable future for ANA and the aviation industry.” As the riblet technology is now being used on passenger aircraft, promotional decals will be applied to the door area, and sample products will be installed on board, allowing customers to directly touch and feel the riblet technology. ANA plans to further expand the use of this technology across other aircraft of the same type to achieve the ANA Group's medium- to long-term environmental goals. The airline will continue to advance sustainability management through various initiatives under the “ANA Future Promise” programme, which aims to realise a sustainable society. https://avitrader.com/2025/04/28/ana-to-use-aeroshark-on-boeing-777-aircraft/ CALENDAR OF EVENTS . 70th annual Business Aviation Safey Summit (BASS), May 6-7, 2025, Charlotte, N.C., organized by Flight Safety Foundation in partnership with NBAA and NATA. · Sixth Edition of International Accident Investigation Forum, 21 to 23 May 2025, Singapore · Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Forum June 5-6, 2025 - Brussels . 2025 EASA-FAA International Aviation Safety Conference, 10 Jun 2025 to 12 Jun 2025, Cologne, Germany · The 9th Shanghai International Aerospace Technology and Equipment Exposition 2025; June 11 to 13, 2025 . Airborne Public Safety Association -APSCON / APSCON Unmanned 2025 in Phoenix, AZ | July 14-18, 2025 . 3rd annual Asia Pacific Summit for Aviation Safety (AP-SAS), July 15-17, 2025, Singapore, organized by Flight Safety Foundation and CAAS. . Asia Pacific Aviation Safety Seminar 2025; 10-11 September 2025; Manila, Philippines · ISASI ANNUAL SEMINAR 2025'September 29, 2025 – October 3, 2025, DENVER, COLORADO . Air Medical Transport Conference (AMTC™) - 2025 – October 27-29th (Omaha, Nebraska) . 29th annual Bombardier Safety Standdown, November 11-13, 2025; Wichita, Kansas · CHC Safety & Quality Summit, 11th – 13th November 2025, Vancouver, BC Canada Curt Lewis & Associates