The AirSafe.com News

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

13 July 2013

Summary of final two NTSB briefings on Asiana 777 plane crash in San Francisco

On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 and Thursday, 11 July 2013, NTSB conducted their final two press conferences in San Francisco, and covered a variety of issues around the accident, including the operation of the autopilot and autothrottle, damage to the airplane, injuries to the flight attendants, the evacuation of the aircraft, and other initial factual findings from the investigation.

The NTSB emphasized in both of these press conferences that the information was factual in nature, and in many cases had not yet been confirmed or corroborated. For example, statements received from the flight crew still have to be matched up with information from sources such as the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR).

Cockpit automation and its role in the crash
As mentioned in a previous AirSafeNews.com article, use of the autothrottle by the crew to maintain speed was an issue because although the crew was heard on the CVR stating that the target speed was 137 knots, the aircraft was significantly slower than that speed before the crash. In Wednesday's press conference, the NTSB stated that there were five distinct autothrottle modes used in flight, and in the last 2.5 minutes of flight, there were several autothrottle and autopilot modes used.

As explained by the NTSB, the autopilot helps pilots manage pitch, roll, attitude, and heading; while the autothrottle helps to control speed or thrust. The two systems can work together, and the NTSB has to determine, with the help of Boeing, the following:

  • Whether autopilot and autothrottle modes were commanded by the pilots or activated inadvertently,
  • How the various autopilot and autothrottle modes are designed to work, and
  • What are the ways the systems are expected to respond in the various modes.

Comparison to automobile cruise control
NTSB chair Deborah Hersman used an analogy to a much simpler automated system to illustrate the role that an autothrottle plays. Like in an airliner, a car's cruise control can be set to a specific speed, but it is up to the driver to monitor the speed. Also, cruise control may not engage if the car is in a particular mode, for example below a certain speed. While in cruise control, the driver may be allowed to increase or decrease speed within certain limits. Disengaging cruise control can be done by disarming the system or by hitting the car's brake.

Status of the pilots on flight 214
There were a total of four pilots on board, and they consisted of two crews. The first crew consisted of a training captain going through his initial operating experience (IOE) on the 777 and an instructor pilot (IP) who was a training captain. The relief crew consisted of a captain and a first officer (FO) This first crew performed the takeoff from Seoul and flew for several hours before the relief crew took over, and then the first crew flew approximately the last 1.5 hours of the flight.

Shortly before landing, when the aircraft was at around 10,000 feet, the relief FO entered the cockpit and was in the jumpseat for the rest of the flight. The NTSB provided details on the experience of the three pilots in the cockpit:

  • The training captain was in the left seat at was the pilot flying (PF),
  • The training captain had about 9,700 total hours, including about 5,000 as pilot in command (PIC),
  • The PF was hired by Asiana in 1994, and trained in Florida,
  • The PF was rated to fly the 737, A320, 747, and 777, and from 2005-2013 flew the A320, serving as an A320 captain before moving to the 777,
  • The PF was also a ground school and simulator instructor for the A320 and A321
  • The IP was also a 777 captain who served in the South Korean air force for about 10 years before joining Asiana,
  • The PF's IOE was to consist of 60 flight hours and 20 flight legs, and had gone through 10 flight legs and about 35 flight hours at the time of the crash,
  • The IP had about 13,000 flight hours, including about 3,000 in the 777, and 10,000 as a PIC,
  • The IP served as the PIC on flight 214, and was sitting in the right seat,
  • This flight was the first time that the PF and the PIC had flown together, and it was the PIC's first trip as an instructor pilot
  • The relief FO was a former F-5 and F-16 pilot in the South Korean air force, and had about 4,600 total hours, including 900-1,000 hours in the 777,
  • The relief FO had flown to San Francisco five or six times as an observer.

Landing aids in use at the airport
Air traffic control was allowing pilots to operate under visual flight rules (VFR) when flight 214 was approaching the San Francisco airport (SFO), which means that pilots were not required to use the instrument landing systems at the landing runway (28L) or any automated systems on their aircraft. One of the electronic aids that provide aircraft guidance on their glide slope was inoperable, but this had been published for some time and all flight crews using the airport should have been able to see this information. The NTSB has not stated if this crew were aware of this.

A glide slope aid that was in operation at runway 28L were the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights, a set of four lights arranged in a horizontal line that provide pilots with a visual indicator of whether the aircraft on the glide slope, above the glide slope, or below the glide slope.

A pilot who is on the glide slope would see two sets of red lights on the left and two sets of white lights on the right. In the example shown here (not from SFO), the three left indicators are red and the right one is white, indicating that the aircraft is slightly below the glide slope. Four red lights would indicate that the aircraft is well beloe the glides slope, and four white lights is an indicator of being well above the glide slope.

Final approach sequence
Over the last two press conferences, the NTSB discussed the following key parts of the final approach:

  • The approach path took the aircraft directly over SFO, followed by a wide teardrop left turn to line up with the runway (see below),

    (click to enlarge)
  • Air traffic control (ATC) called for a maximum airspeed of 180 knots until the aircraft was five miles out,
  • The IP recalled that the aircraft was above the intended glide path at 4,000 feet, and that vertical speed mode was set at 1,500 feet per minute,
  • ATC gave a landing clearance about 1.5 miles from the runway, about 90 seconds prior to the crash,
  • There was a sink rate callout prior to the aircraft reaching 500 feet,
  • At about 500 feet, the FP noted a blinding flash of light directly in front of the aircraft but not on the runway,
  • The FP stated that he looked away into the cockpit, and was able see the cockpit instruments, including the speed tape,
  • There was no mention of the light on the CVR,
  • The FP believes it may have been a sun reflection, and the NTSB is determining if this could have been the case,
  • There was an automated 500 foot callout about 35 seconds before the crash,
  • Shortly after this callout, the landing checklist was completed,
  • At about 34 seconds prior to impact, the IP noted that the aircraft was below the glide path at 500 feet, and speed was at about 134 knots, with three red PAPI lights showing, and told the PF to pull back
  • Autothrottle was armed and set at 137 knots
  • between 500-200 feet, the IP noted that there was a lateral deviation and that the aircraft was low,
  • At 200 feet, the IP noted four red PAPI lights, that the speed tape was hatched (a visual indicator of an impending stall), and that the autothrottle had not maintained speed,
  • There was an automated 200 foot callout 18 seconds before impact,
  • There was an automated 100 foot callout nine seconds before impact,
  • Almost immediately after this 100 foot callout, a crew member mentioned airspeed (the NTSB noted that there were no mentions of speed heard on the CVR between 500-100 feet),
  • About three seconds before impact, there was a call for a go around,
  • The IP established a go around attitude, and went to push the throttles forward manually, but saw that the FP had already done so,
  • A second call made for a go around was made by a different crew member about 1.5 seconds before impact.

Crash sequence

  • The main landing gear hit the sea wall first, followed by the tail section,
  • The main landing gear sheared away from the aircraft as designed, and the wing fuel tanks were not punctured by the gear separation or during the the rest of the crash sequence,
  • Cabin flooring and galley components were found on the chevrons in the runway overrun area between the sea wall and the runway threshold,
  • The initial impact displaced rocks from the sea wall and some of them were distributed several hundred feet along the debris trail (see photo below),

    (click to enlarge)
  • All passenger seats stayed inside the cabin, but three flight attendant seats were ejected onto the runway,
  • Door 4L detached from the aircraft at some point in the crash sequence
  • Six of the 12 flight attendants were interviewed, and they stated that two of the eight escape slides inflated inside the cabin after a secondary impact (from a witness video, it appears that the aircraft rotated almost 360 degrees counter clockwise, with the rear of the cabin rising up at an angle before hitting the ground at the end of the crash sequence),
  • The right engine had detached from the wing, had rotated about 90 degrees counter clockwise, and was laying alongside the fuselage (see photo below).

(click to enlarge)

Post-crash actions and fire

  • After the aircraft came to a stop, the lead flight attendant (who was near door 1L) went to the cockpit for advice, and was advised not to initiate evacuation (see door layout in photo below),

    (click to enlarge)
  • Fire extinguisher switches were pulled for both engines and the auxiliary power unit,
  • The flight crew was able to communicate with the control tower, and the cabin crew was able to use the public address system to communicate to passengers,
  • A flight attendant who was trained as a lead flight attendant was at door 2L, saw fire outside door 2R near row 10 of the aircraft, and sent the other flight attendant at door 2L to the front of the cabin to inform the rest of the crew about the fire and the need to evacuate (in earlier briefings, the NTSB stated that the source of the fire was a ruptured oil tank that leaked fuel onto hot engine parts from the right engine),
  • Passenger evacuation began about 90 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop, escape slides were first deployed from door 2L and then from door 1L, and passengers also escaped from door 3R,
  • The control tower called for emergency vehicles after the aircraft hit the runway, the first vehicle arrived about two minutes after the crash, and extinguishing agent was first applied about three minutes after the crash,
  • Cabin emergency exit lighting came on during the evacuation,
  • There were six flight attendants who were injured and hospitalized: three seated in the rear of the plane who were ejected out onto the runway, another flight attendant in the rear who was injured, and two who were injured by the slides that deployed inside the cabin including one at door 1R and a second at door 2R,
  • The remaining six flight attendants had evacuated most of the passengers by the time the fire had spread to the cabin,
  • Aiport fire crews entered the cabin with a fire hose to help fight the fire,
  • Flight attendants helped to fight the fire with fire extinguishers, and also used the extinguishers to help extract the two flight attendants who were trapped by the two escape slides that deployed inside the cabin.

Cabin damage
Prior to the cabin fire, a firefighter entered door 2L and turned right to walk toward the rear of the cabin, and along the way observed that seats in that section were almost pristine, with minimal damage detectable, and that one could just fluff the pillows to get that section ready for the next flight. As he walked toward the rear, he observed more cabin damage, with a sharp contrast between the front and back of the passenger cabin. The photo below shows the pristine area of the cabin that was later damaged by fire.


(click to enlarge)

The NTSB structures team noted that from the cockpit to rear spar of the center wing box, the cabin floor was structurally sound. Aft from the rear spar to doors 3R and 3L, in the passenger seating compartment, support structure were compromised on the right side (flayed out from the aircraft), but still sound on the left side. Between doors 3 and 4, the floor was canted down at an angle, with damage progressively worse towards the back, and there was no cabin floor behind door 4.

Dr. Curtis and Capt. Tom Bunn discuss the crash
The day after the crash, Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com and Capt. Tom Bunn of the SOAR fear of flying program, who both spent several hours on the day of the crash on cable news programs providing expert commentary, discussed the media's response to the accident and shared their thoughts on the early reports of the crash.

Additional information
AirSafeNews.com 10 July 2013 article on the role of the autothrottle
AirSafeNews.com 8 July 2013 article on early findings of the crash investigation
Other Asiana plane crashes
Other 777 plane crashes
Accident details from Aviation Safety Network
Wikipedia page on this accident

Photos: Wikipedia, NTSB

10 July 2013

Asiana 777 accident investigation and the role of the autothrottle

During the Tuesday, 9 July 2013 NTSB press conference, numerous facts about the accident were revealed, including details about the training and experience of the pilots in the cockpit, and the fact that the initial impact not only tore the tail section off the aircraft, but also caused two flight attendants seated in the rear of the aircraft to be ejected out of the cabin. Both survived, but were injured.

Perhaps the most revealing information from the conference was evidence gathered from statements from the pilots, that seemed to indicate that the while the pilots had planned to use the autothrottle to control the aircraft's airspeed during landing, the autothrottle was not engaged at the time the crew was attempting to execute a go around in order to attempt another landing.

The NTSB emphasized that this was preliminary factual information that has yet to be corroborated with other data from sources such as the flight data recorder. However, it implies that one of two possible scenarios may have occurred during the latter stages of the flight:

  1. The crew intended to use the autothrottle, but did not take all the steps needed to engage the autothrottle, or
  2. The flight crew took steps to engage the autothrottle, but the autothrottle either did not engage or it disengaged at some point.

Basic autothrottle operation
In order to understand the possible significance of these preliminary NTSB findings, it helps to have a bit of background knowledge on how autothrottles are used.

In the 777, as in many modern airliners, the autothrottle allows a pilot to control the power setting of an aircraft's engines automatically rather than manually. Flight crews use the autothrottle to maintain, or try to attain a particular value for either speed or thrust without having to manually adjust throttle settings. For example, a pilot may want to maintain a specific airspeed, and would use the autothrottle to maintain that airspeed while the pilot may be manually controlling other aspects of the flight.

The autothrottle can also enhance safety by keeping the aircraft within safe operating limits. For example, if the pilot commands the autothrottle to attain a speed that is at or below a minimum safe speed or above a maximum safe speed, the autothrottl will not allow the aircraft to fly at those unsafe speeds.

Arming and engaging the autothrottle
In the 777, using the autothrottle to control airspeed is a two-step process. First, the autothrottle has to be armed using two switches (one for each engine) on the mode control panel (MCP). Being armed means the autothrottle is available to be used. The second step is to engage the autothrottle, which means it is now being used to control airspeed. The autothrottle is engaged by using an appropriate switch on the mode control panel.

Mode control panel
The cockpit of many modern airliners, including the 777, have a mode control panel (MCP), which contains the controls that the flight crew would need to automatically manage the aircraft's flight, and in the 777, the MCP controls a number of functions, including the autopilot and autothrottle.

Below are two photos depicting the 777. The first is a representation of the MCP from a NASA computer simulator, and the second is from the cockpit of a 777 and shows both the MCP and several cockpit display screens. Note the neither one may represent the exact configuration of the MCP in the Asiana accident aircraft.


(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

The following video describes how a simulated version of the 777 MCP behaves. The first couple of minutes describes how the autothrottle has to be armed before it can be engaged and used to control speed.


Is the autothrottle the key to the cause of the accident?
The NTSB emphasized in their press conference that all of the information that they have released so far is factual in nature, and that they have no intention of speculating or deciding upon a cause or causes of the accident at this stage of the investigation. Also, the information gathering stage of the investigation is ongoing, and there may be other facts that the NTSB either has not yet discovered or has not yet released to the public.

Another perspective on this accident
For an excellent perspective on this accident and the revelations from the early part of the investigation, I highly recommend the Slate article of Patrick Smith, a professional airline pilot and recent guest of the AirSafe.com podcast.

Dr. Curtis and Capt. Tom Bunn discuss the crash
The day after the crash, Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com and Capt. Tom Bunn of the SOAR fear of flying program, who both spent several hours on the day of the crash on cable news programs providing expert commentary, discussed the media's response to the accident and shared their thoughts on the early reports of the crash.

Additional information
AirSafeNews.com 13 July 2013 article
AirSafeNews.com 10 July 2013 article on the role of the autothrottle
AirSafeNews.com 8 July 2013 article on early findings of the crash investigation
Other Asiana plane crashes
Other 777 plane crashes
Accident details from Aviation Safety Network
Wikipedia page on this accident

Photos: 777boeing.com, NASA

08 July 2013

Early findings in the Asiana 777 crash investigation

6 July 2013; Asiana Airlines 777-200ER; HL7742; flight 214;San Francisco, CA: The aircraft was on a schedule international flight from Seoul, South Korea to San Francisco, and the rear of the aircraft struck a seawall just short of the runway while landing. The tail section broke apart, and both horizontal stabilizers and the vertical fin separated from the aircraft. Both engines and the main landing gear also separated from the aircraft.

In the photo on the right, the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizers (also called the tailplane) are very early in the debris trail, and in the overrun areas just before the runway threshold.
The aircraft caught fire after it came to rest, but not before all of the crew and most of the passengers were able to escape. All 16 crew members survived, but two of the 291 passengers were killed.
In the NTSB press conference on Sunday July 7th, the day after the accident, the NTSB revealed a variety of preliminary information about the sequence of events that led to the crash, including the following:
  • Prior to the crash, the aircraft did not experience any significant problems with performance or with its systems,
  • Both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder (the black boxes) were recovered and were being evaluated by the NTSB
  • The pilots had stated that their intended landing speed was 137 knots, but at the time of the crash the aircraft was flying at a substantially slower speed,
  • The data indicate that the throttles were at idle and the airspeed slowed below target approach speed during the approach,
  • Sound of stick shaker (indicating an impending stall) began about four seconds prior to impact,
  • The throttles were advanced a few seconds prior to impact and the engines appear to respond normally.
  • The crew stated an intention to execute a go around about 1.5 seconds before impact, and
  • The crew did not transmit any kind of distress or emergency call.
On Sunday, Asiana Airlines also revealed that the pilot responsible for performing the landing had landed other aircraft at San Francisco's airport, but the accident flight was the first time the the pilot had attempted to land a 777 at that airport.
Given the distribution of the wreckage in the debris trail, both horizontal stabilizers, the vertical fin, and at least two of the three landing gear separated very early in the crash sequence, making it very unlikely that the crew would have been able to keep the aircraft on the runway.
Crash video released
On Sunday, CNN released a video taken from near the airport that shows the entire crash sequence. The video shows that the aircraft rotated counter clockwise after the tail section separated, and the rear of the fuselage was lifted up at least 20 feet before it slammed down on the ground. It is possible that much of the serious structural damage seen at the rear of the fuselage, including a ruptured aft pressure bulkhead, occurred when this part of the plane slammed down toward the end of the crash sequence.
Status of landing aids
While one of the navigational aids on the landing runway (28L) that provides glide slope guidance was not operational, this should have been known to the crew because it was published as a notice to airmen (NOTAM), and there were several other options that the crew could have used for approach guidance. Since aircraft were landing under visual flight (VFR) rules at the time, there was no requirement to use these landing aids.

NTSB photos

Dr. Curtis and Capt. Tom Bunn discuss the crash
The day after the crash, Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com and Capt. Tom Bunn of the SOAR fear of flying program, who both spent several hours on the day of the crash on cable news programs providing expert commentary, discussed the media's response to the accident and shared their thoughts on the early reports of the crash.

Additional information
AirSafeNews.com article 13 July 2013 article
AirSafeNews.com article 10 July 2013 article on the role of the autothrottle
Other Asiana plane crashes
Other 777 plane crashes
Accident details from Aviation Safety Network
Wikipedia page on this accident
Photos: BBC, Getty Images, NTSB

22 June 2013

Why studying unexplained aerial phenomena will improve aviation

The recent AirSafe.com interview featuring investigative journalist Leslie Kean has led at least one member of the audience to express concerns that the interview may attract unwanted attention from individuals who may seek to hurt my professional reputation, or the reputation of AirSafe.com, simply because my interview was in part about reports of UFOs and other unidentified aerial phenomena from pilots and high level military and government officials.

I thanked that person for his feedback, and assured him that those kinds of critics would likely have no effect on the work of AirSafe.com. My reasons were simple. My aviation work, both online and offline, has been focused on airline safety and security, with an emphasis on approaching issues from an analytical and engineering perspective. I sought out Leslie Kean because of the approach that she has taken, focusing on reliable witnesses and cases that were backed by official documentation.

I don't have an opinion as to what is behind reports of UFOs and unidentified aerial phenomena, but I do know that not everything is known about flying, particularly the subtleties of the behavior of the increasingly complex technologies used in aviation, or the behavior of the natural environment. I'm convinced that at least some of these eyewitness accounts are of natural phenomena that are either not well understood or completely novel.

The history of aviation is full of examples of phenomena that have the potential to affect safety, and where a thorough examination of the evidence may lead to changes.

Volcanic ash and upper atmospheric lightning are two examples that come to mind. Ash encounters can often have a rather massively negative effect on aircraft. It took several serious ash encounters and a general recognition of the potential for ash to cause havoc before the airline industry came up with a variety of approaches, including changes in operational procedures, that have had the effect of reducing the likelihood of a serious encounter.

Pilots reported observations of upper-atmospheric electrical activity decades before scientists began to gain a much better understanding of their occurrences starting in the 1990s. While these events have so far not directly affected aircraft, they may be a factor to consider in the future in the design and operation of aircraft.

In the interview with Leslie Kean, I discussed the 2006 O'Hare incident (where an unidentified craft was flying in close proximity to several passenger terminals) because of the security implications. In my view, any vehicle operating, or appearing to operate, in congested airspace around a major airport must be taken seriously. The fact that appeared to be a UFO should not matter to those responsible for controlling or securing the skies around airports.

More arguments for studying these events
As for any skeptics who may want to go on the attack, I think they would likely have a hard time putting up an effective argument with my point of view, which boils down to the following:

  • Scientists, engineers, and aviators don't know everything about the natural environment or about aviation,
  • No engineered system is perfect and can be improved,
  • No security system or protocol is perfect and can be improved,
  • Studying unusual events that are observed or experience in or near aircraft may enhance our knowledge of nature and technology, and reveal weaknesses in security systems or procedures, and
  • Applying insights gained from studying these reports of unusual phenomena can reduce aviation risks through enhancements in technology, changes in operational procedures, and changes in security protocols.

These are basic ideas that have shaped my work throughout my career, and I see no reason to abandon them now.

My goal is to encourage my audience to consider having an open mind to all reports of events that appear to be either highly unusual or extremely improbable. Either such reports represent real but misunderstood phenomena, or they represent serious misinterpretations of well understood phenomena by aviation professionals. Either way, ignoring or discouraging such reports won't get the industry closer to understanding what is happening and what steps, if any, need to be taken to improve how aviation professionals are trained, how aircraft are built and operated, and how the airspace system is managed and regulated.

Resources from Leslie Kean
Research studies and links to reporting organizations
Leslie Kean's site ufosontherecord.com
Book - UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record

19 June 2013

Interview with author and investigative reporter Leslie Kean

Dr. Todd Curtis recently interviewed Leslie Kean, New York Times best selling author of the 2010 book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record. They discussed polices and traditions in the US government and the aviation community that keeps flying professionals from being fully informed about potential safety and security threats.

Kean discussed how attitudes within the aviation community toward UFOs and unexplained aerial phenomena keep pilots and other aviation professionals from reporting events that may represent a legitimate threat to aviation safety and security. Dr. Curtis and Ms. Kean highlighted two widely reported encounters, the Phoenix Lights event of 1996 and the O'Hare incident in Chicago in 2006, where many competent observers reported an unidentified aerial vehicle in close proximity to large airports and major population centers, but where the sightings were not officially acknowledged by the FAA, the Department of Homeland Security, or the US military.

Both Curtis and Kean argued that reporting such events is necessary and important because some of these unexplained events or unidentified objects may represent rare or not well understood natural phenomena, unauthorized or illegal flights by conventional aircraft, or some kind of threat to the safety of aircrew or passengers. You can watch or listen to the interview below:


Interview with Leslie Kean
Listen to the interview (49:43)

The interview provided numerous suggestions for steps that crew members, other aviation professionals, or passengers can take to document any unexplained events. In addition, AirSafe.com has provided links to a number of resources for reporting events, as well as links to a number of research reports on the subject of UFOs and unexplained aerial phenomena.

Resources from Leslie Kean
Research studies and links to reporting organizations
Leslie Kean's site ufosontherecord.com
Book - UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record

06 June 2013

Review the webinar on how to become an on-air expert for radio or TV

AirSafe.com WebinarsThe AirSafe.com live webinar on how to become an on-air expert for radio or television was broadcast on June 6th. In that webinar, Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com, who has been a guest for dozens of radio and television shows over the past decade, explained how he became a sought after expert for media outlets like CNN, BBC, and Discovery Channel, and explained several of the basic steps you shold take if you aspire to get on the air.


Dr. Curtis featured in upcoming television program
You can see and hear some examples of Dr. Curtis being interviewed, at the AirSafe.com YouTube channel. Also, in June 2013, Dr. Curtis will be featured in the four-part series Terror in the Skies, which will air Sunday evenings on the UK's Channel 4.

For viewers in the UK, the show will air American viewers will see a version of the series on the Smithsonian Channel but the date and time is still to be determined. Once this information, those on the AirSafe.com mailing list will be informed.

03 June 2013

Webinar on how to become an on-air expert for radio or TV

AirSafe.com WebinarsOn Thursday June 6, AirSafe.com will hosted a live webinar on how to successfully become an on-air expert for radio or television.

Television and radio broadcasters have a constant need to have on-air experts to comment on almost every possible area of expertise. However, being an expert is not enough to get the attention of the news media, but it is a necessary first step.

The webinar has ended, but you can see a video of the webinar below:

Note: You can see and hear other interviews featuring Dr. Curtis at the AirSafe.com YouTube channel.