CORPORATE

Safety, Comfort, FLIGHT VOLUME I, ISSUE 1

Reliability ATTENDANT
NEWS E-LETTER AUGUST 2006

Corporate Flight Attendant News is a publication for Corporate Flight Attendants. It does
not matter if it has been around for years or you are just starting out. This news letter will
be published approximately 6 times a year through e-mail. You are encouraged to send it
to friends, co-workers, or ANYONE you know who might find this interesting. This publi- It was mealtime on
cation may be reproduced in any medium for non-commercial purposes. Please send com- a small airline and
ments, membership requests or to unsubscribe, pause, or modify delivery to email address
the flight attendant
[email protected] .
asked the passen-
ger if he would
like dinner.
THE HISTORY OF THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT

F
"What are my
rom their inception, German to fly their unreliable, noisy and often choices?" he
Zeppelin "LZ10 Schwaben" dangerous airplanes. In Europe, Brit- asked.
in 1911 offered their passen- ain's The Daimler Airway employed "Yes or No,"
gers onboard catering. Mr. cabin boys in 1922. Little is known he replied.
Heinrich Kubis began contract catering about the Daimler stewards, other than
as early as 1912 onboard the zeppelins. that they were small in stature and
weight, and that their duty was to offer
Kubis was pro- passengers general assistance and reas-
moted to chief surance. The cabin boys
steward in 1929. at Daimler did not serve
He survived the refreshments.
crash of the Hin-
denburg, on which he served, at Lake- Stout Airlines is cred-
hurst, New Jersey, in 1936. ited with hiring Amer-
ica's first aerial couriers in 1926 where
Because economic survival was para- they worked on Ford Tri-Motor air-
mount, many young airline companies planes between Detroit and Grand
tried daring ideas to entice customers Rapids. (see page 3)
Inside this issue:
Flight Attendant 3
Continues
Gulfstream Story 5
Continues
The Beginnings of Gulfstream Airplane
In the mid 1950s, Grumman Aircraft Engi- The first prototype flew on
Airplane Accident 2
neering Company, later known as Grumman August 14, 1958 and was
certified on May 21, 1959 by
Independent 4
Aircraft was looking at the future and trying Contractors
the FAA. In June of 1960,
to find ways to use their surplus military pis- the first Gulfstream 1 execu-
Note from Editor 2
ton twin engines airplanes. So in 1956, the tive aircraft was delivered to
team of designers came up with a concept of its new owner with a flying TSA 6
altitude of 30,000 feet oper- Information
the first Gulfstream executive transport.
ated…(see page 5)

1
 NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

Safety, Comfort,
Reliability W elcome to the Corpo-
rate Flight Attendant News E-
Letter. This is the first issue and I
hope to share some information
you never realized until now! My
name is Daniel C Slapo and I have
been a corporate flight attendant
for the last 14 years.

My purpose of this E-Letter is to

help promote our profession
Date: 25 MAY 1979 Type: McDonnell Douglas DC_10_10 through the means of sharing in-
formation. Did you know that if
Time: 15:04 CDT Operator: American Airlines
you went on the internet and took
Crew: Fatalities: 13 / Occupants: 13 Ground Casualties: Fatalities 2 a little time you can find over 700
names of people who publish
Passengers: Fatalities: 258 / Occupants: 258 Location Chicago-O’Hare, IL themselves as Corporate Flight
Total: Fatalities: 271 / Occupants: 271 Phase: Takeoff Attendants?
Narrative: Many of those people have 2-4
Flight 191 left the gate at Chicago-O'Hare at 14:59 and taxied to runway 32R. At 15:02 the years of experience in the corpo-
flight was cleared for takeoff. The takeoff roll was normal until just before rotation at which rate aviation and corporate avia-
time sections of the No. 1 engine pylon structure came off the aircraft. During rotation the en- tion in the US has been around
tire no. 1 engine and pylon separated from the aircraft, went over the top of the wing, and fell since the 1920’s. I did not know
to the runway. Flight 191 lifted off about 6,000 feet down the runway, climbed out in a wings this until someone pointed out to
level attitude, and reached an altitude of about 300 feet agl with its wings still level. Shortly me that I should do a little bit
thereafter, the aircraft began to turn and roll to the left, the nose pitched down, and the aircraft more research on my topics that I
began to descend. As it descended, it continued to roll left until the wings were past the vertical am writing about.
position. The DC-10 crashed in an open field and trailer park about 4,680 feet northwest of the
departure end of runway 32R. The aircraft was demolished during the impact, explosion, and This new letter will have four
ground fire. Two persons on the ground were killed. main areas; History, Airplane,
Training and Gee-wiz fun infor-
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The asymmetrical stall and the ensuing roll of the aircraft because of mation. Knowledge is powerful
the uncommanded retraction of the left wing outboard leading edge slats and the loss of stall and if we can show our employers
warning and slat disagreement indication systems resulting from maintenance-induced damage that we are growing with informa-
leading to the separation of the no.1 engine and pylon assembly procedures which led to failure tion then one day we might be able
of the pylon structure. to take that next step up the career
Contributing to the cause of the accident were the vulnerability of the design of the pylon at- path.
tach points to maintenance damage; the vulnerability of the design of the leading edge slat sys-
tem to the damage which produced asymmetry; deficiencies in FAA surveillance and reporting About 6 times a year, this publica-
systems which failed to detect and prevent the use of improper maintenance procedures; defi- tion will be sent out. Once the
ciencies in the practices and communications among the operators, the manufacturer, and the ground work is set and people re-
FAA which failed to determine and disseminate the particulars regarding previous maintenance spond, more will follow. Editori-
damage incidents; and the intolerance of prescribed operational procedures to this unique als are very much welcome! I can
emergency." only give you what you tell me
should be passed on.
Follow-up / safety actions:
In November 1979 the FAA fined American Airlines Daniel C. Slapo
$500,000 for using a faulty maintenance procedure on its DC-10 aircraft by using forklift Corporate Flight Attendant/Editor
trucks to mate the complete engine/pylon assembly with wing attachment points. Continental
Airlines was been fined $100,000 on a similar charge.

Source: Accident Investigation Report NTSB-AAR-79-17

2
Flight Attendant Story Continues
They were young sons of the industrial, railroad and steamship magnates who financed the airline. Stewards often loaded
baggage, ticketed passengers and provided in-flight services that included dispensing chewing gum for ear discomfort
and serving snacks and beverages.

With the improvement in passenger air travel the airlines began to reassess the responsibilities of seeing to passenger
needs. In the early 1930's Western Air was the first to hire Sky Boys (male helpers).

This sky boy’s were responsible for seeing to the passenger needs. Such as helping passengers board the aircraft, assist-
ing with the baggage, serving refreshment and assuring the passengers put their cigars and cigarettes out.

On Feb. 23, 1930 Ms. Ellen Church visited the office of Mr. Steven Stimpson of Boeing Air
Transport seeking a job as a pilot. Aviation was a guy’s environment and the woman was to be at
home and clean and be there for the family, so Mr. Stimpson declined Ms. Church’s offer.

After a long trip and a persistent Ms. Church, Mr. Stimpson, saw the need for cabin attendants
and urged Mr. William A Patterson, assistant to the president of Boeing Air Transport, to add
eight nurses to work as a stewardesses on a three-month trial basis. At 8:00 a.m., May 15, 1930, a Boeing tri-motor left
Oakland enroute to Chicago with Ellen Church, the world's first stewardess, aboard.

The first eight registered nurses, suited up in their stewardess uni-

forms, were photographed in 1930 in Cheyenne, Wyo. Pictured
(clockwise from upper left): Ellen Church, Alva Johnson, Jessie
Carter, Ellis Crawford, Harriet Fry, Cornelia Peterman, Inez Keller
and Margaret Arnott. (Picture from United Airlines)

She was responsible for the care of passengers during the flight but
their duties also included carrying baggage, helping to push the air-
plane into the hangar, cleaning the plane's interior and refueling
it. The most important task assigned to early air stewardesses was to
keep an eye on passengers who wanted to use the lavatory to make sure they did not use the exit door instead!

In the 1930 manual for stewardesses entitled "Dos and Don'ts," some of the first requirements reflect the elite, hero im-
age pilots held in the public's mind. Directions to stewardesses included, "A rigid military salute will be rendered to the
captain and co-pilot as they go aboard and deplane before the passengers. Check with the pilots regarding their personal
luggage and place it onboard promptly."

The DC-3 twin-engine airplane entered into service sometime in 1936

with 21 seats and was sometimes called the first Modern airliner. It
could span the United States with four or five fuel stops.

Stewardesses served hot meals onboard. The equipment was also

more efficient, and the flying time coast-to-coast dropped to less than
18 hours
Cessna: "Jones tower, Cessna 12345, student pilot, I am out of fuel."
Tower: "Roger Cessna 12345, reduce airspeed to best glide!! Do you
have the airfield in sight?!?!!" Pictures for this article provided by United Airlines

Cessna: "Uh...tower, I am on the south ramp; I just want to know

where the fuel truck is."

3
 Are Independent Contractors Putting Your Operation at Risk?
October 17, 2005 By Thomas K. Coughlin, AAI, Air-Sur, Inc

This article is being provided to the reader for their general information and should not be construed as legal advice or legal
opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. You are urged to consult your attorney or other advisor concerning your own
situation and for any specific legal questions you may have. Replace the word “PILOT” with the word “FLIGHT ATTEN-
DANT”.

We all remember when a lethal combination of rising fuel costs and product liability lawsuits sent the aviation industry into a tailspin
in the 1980s. General Aviation found its wings again when Congress imposed limits on the suits in 1994. Of course, we had a major
setback after the 9-11 tragedy, but we are now gaining altitude again.

The past 20 years of ups and downs have left us a little wiser, but are we prepared to face the new challenges of this turbulent indus-
try? A quick scan of the nation’s leading newspapers offers at least anecdotal evidence that aviation-related lawsuits are on the rise,
including pilots suing operators. Let’s face it. Legal liabilities are a reality that operators must take measured steps to avoid.

While product liability suits have rightfully been the focus of significant attention over the years, the issue of independent contrac-
tors is like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode on unsuspecting aircraft operators. It’s not a new dilemma. The risk of lawsuits
demands operators recognize and mitigate every potential liability – old or new.

Independent contractors have become a business staple for aircraft operators that need additional affiliate pilots without making a
long-term employment commitment, dealing with the administrative hassles involved in the hiring process, or incurring additional
overhead costs. But the industry is learning that what has been a convenience could be a blow to the coffers of a business in the after-
math of exposed liabilities.

Aircraft operators with independent contractors are exposed to three key liabilities: tax, workers’ compensation, and perhaps most
potentially devastating, lawsuits arising from bodily injuries or wrongful death of the independent contractor pilot. Identifying and
understanding the risks will help you steer clear of the financial pitfalls.

Nobody likes wading through IRS rules and regulations, and working with independent contractors can open a proverbial can of tax
worms. Despite well-crafted contracts, the IRS usually rules independents as full-fledged employees and penalizes operators for not
paying employment-related taxes. That’s because the IRS has determined it loses as much as $1.5 billion in uncollected employment
tax revenues each year. One wrong step and you could be fined for a backlog of withholding and social security taxes – plus a 100
percent penalty.

Historically, the IRS has used a 20-factor analysis to determine worker status. Congress has also enacted what’s called Section 530
Safe Harbor based on consistency of treatment and reporting. Under the ruling, businesses are required to demonstrate that workers
designated as independent contractors are consistently treated as such and that workers who perform similar functions are also
treated as independent contractors and not employees. This is where aviation misses the flight. Independent contractor pilots and
maintenance technicians typically perform similar functions as full-time employees. Operations hoping to find protection under the
Safe Harbor ruling should consult with a labor attorney.

Workers’ compensation is another gray area overshadowing the independent contractor issue. If the independent pilot injures himself
on assignment, guess whom he comes after? Your business. It’s a well-known fact that most independents don’t carry their own
workers’ compensation insurance. It’s also a well-known fact that courts have ruled in favor of the injured independent in lawsuits.
Once again, you could find yourself paying a backlog of premiums and interest to your workers’ compensation insurance company
when the judge decides you should compensate the independent for his on-the-job injury.

But perhaps the greatest risk is legal liability. Independent contractors should carry the same level of insurance as the company for
which they work for two reasons. First, the operator’s aircraft liability policy has no obligation or provision to cover pilot injuries
that a workers’ compensation policy should have covered. Second, if the independent pilot is named in a lawsuit related to the air-
craft operator’s business, then that pilot can find himself standing alone with no investigation, defense or liability protection.

Also keep in mind that there is a distinct difference between a pilot that is approved to fly the aircraft and a pilot that is
actually insured against legal liabilities. In fact, aircraft insurance policies are specifically designed not to cover any per-
son or organization engaged in the operation of any flying school, flight service or aircraft or piloting service. Again, an
independent pilot is expected to maintain his own insurance for any flight activity. (see page 6)
4
 Gulfstream Story Continues
by twin turbo prop engines.

The Grumman Gulfstream I proved to

be quite successful as a large long range
corporate transport, with the invention
of the jet engine Gulfstream looked into
the future and launched the Gulfstream
II or GII, in May 1965.
Gulfstream I Gulfstream II
No prototype GII was built; instead the first
to fly was a production standard aircraft, which first flew on October 2 1966. Certification and first production deliveries
occurred in October and December 1967 respectively.

The Gulfstream III first flew on December 2 1979 with a retrofitted wing and a bigger fuel tank. Production deliveries of
GIIIs began in late 1980 and continued until 1986 when production ceased in favor of the Gulfstream IV, a somewhat
larger model.

With the introduction of the Gulfstream IV in 1985 it gave the client a longer fuselage (almost 9 feet) and a wider wing
(almost 9 feet). This allowed for the client to put a forward galley or add a private area for the crew to rest during long
flights and accommodate 12 to 16 passengers.

In 1997, Gulfstream introduced a new era in the history of business aviation with the Gulfstream V, the world’s first ul-
tra-long-range business jet. The Gulfstream V features the most sophisticated technology available to support the rigor-
ous demands of intercontinental missions.

From the unique engine performance and advanced communications capabilities to the cabin that offers maximum pas-
senger comfort and productivity, the Gulfstream V continues the Gulfstream legacy of innovation and quality.

In October 2000, Gulfstream announced the next-generation Gulfstream, the GV-SP, it offers extended range, the
largest cabin area in the ultra-long-range business jet aircraft class, additional usable baggage volume, a greater weight
allowance and the PlaneView cockpit with the most advanced avionics suite in the industry.

In September 2002, Gulfstream introduced its new product line and the designation for this aircraft became the Gulf-
stream G550. On August 14, 2003, the G550 received both a type certificate and a production certificate from the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration (FAA).

Grumman Aircraft decided to look for a partner to improve its product so they decided to ask American Aviation of
Cleveland, Ohio, to form Grumman American Aviation. By 1978 the company decided to call it self Gulfstream Ameri-
can and then in 1982 to its current name of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. Today the company is owned by General
Dynamics.

Since the beginning of Gulfstream ventures in corporate aviation, very little of

the fuselage has changed. Most of the change has to do with the performance
of the plane’s inner workings. From instruments of analog to being able to take
a full shower with running hot water in the cabin and their latest venture the G-
550 with a cruising altitude of 51,000ft and a range of approximately 6,750
nautical miles.

Footnote: Thanks to Mr. Robert N. Baugniet, Director, Corporate Communications

at Gulfstream for insuring I had the correct information about Gulfstream’s history.
Pictures by Gulfstream Corporation Gulfstream V

5
Independent Contractors Continues

Unfortunately, just as most independent contractors don’t typically carry workers’ compensation insurance, they don’t
typically carry adequate, if any, liability insurance.
So when pilot or maintenance technician negligence causes injuries or property damage that results in a lawsuit, the inde-
pendent contractor may very well be named in the suit. But your operation is the one with the deep pockets – and the
insurance – and you could and probably would end up footing the bill for the independent contractor’s mistake. The end
result is unnecessary expense and litigation. The independent, on the other hand is exposed to legal liabilities of his own.
He may also have to provide his own defense and possibly even have to pay his own medical expenses before moving on
to work for the next operator.
When you calculate the risk of liability and financial distress versus the reward of lower employment costs and flexibil-
ity, it makes less sense to contract with independents. The line between employees and independent contractors is getting
blurrier all the time and there are plenty of myths about the issue that can wind up costing your operation thousands of
dollars in fines and taxes every year. One of the most dangerous myths is that hiring firms aren’t liable for an independ-
ent contractor’s actions. By now we are learning that this is just plain false. Armed with the truth and facts, aircraft op-
erators can avoid these liabilities.
So just how do you protect yourself in this hiring quagmire? The safest way to avoid liabilities is not to hire independent
contractors. This simply may not be a practical solution for some flight departments. One option is hiring independents
as part-time employees instead of independent contractors. It may require more administrative work, but it acts as a safe-
guard against liabilities typically associated with independent contractors. Working with part-time employees also allows
operators to avoid special reporting for worker’s compensation and aviation liability insurance purposes.
Another solution would be to utilize a well-established temporary labor company who can demonstrate evidence of
Worker’s Compensation and adequate liability insurance. At a minimum, you need to declare any independent contrac-
tors that you are using to your insurance broker and arrange the proper liability and worker’s compensation insurance to
cover those independent contractors.
At the end of the day, if you still plan to use an independent contractor, investing time in understanding and complying
with Safe Harbor rules today could pay dividends in the future. The bottom line is that the employee versus independent
contractor distinction is one of the most important issues facing American businesses today. How you choose to handle
the issue in your aircraft operation could mean the difference between a smooth-running operation and a liability night-
mare.
Thomas K. Coughlin, AAI, is president and CEO of Air-Sur, Inc. a business risk management and insurance services
corporation headquartered in Ormond Beach, FL. He has specialized in developing, implementing, and managing com-
prehensive risk management programs for aviation and aerospace companies since 1976.

Wondering what you can Hair sprays, including aerosols

and can not take on a Hair straightener or detangler
commercial airplane? Lip gels
Here is a short list of Lip glosses / liquids (solid lip glosses and blushes are per-
items not allowed as of 14 August 2006. It is recommend mitted)
to check the TSA website to find the most up to date list Liquid foundations
(WWW.TSA.GOV) or Liquid medications (up to 4 oz. of non-essential)
(http://www.tsa.gov/assets/doc/Permitted_Prohibited_Facts.doc) Liquid sanitizers
Liquid soaps (bar soap is permitted)
Items Prohibited
Make up removers / facial cleansers
All creams and lotions (i.e. ointments, suntan lotion) Mascara, Mouthwash, Nail polish
Bug sprays, Bubble bath, Bubble bath balls (gel) Nail polish removers
Eye drops/ gels, Gel deodorants (solid stick is permitted) Perfumes / colognes
Gel caps Toothpaste
Hair styling gels (up to 4 oz. of non-essential)