Safety Committee Resources

Safety Committee newsletter (August 2024)
Safety Committee newsletter (March 2025)
Safety Committee newsletter (April 2026)

Inside the Cabin: What Corporate Flight Attendants Really Want You to Know

In this exclusive interview, experienced corporate flight attendants Kristin Spear and Zach Gable, pull back the curtain on a world where luxury meets responsibility—and where safety is never optional.

Kristin Spear - Executive Flight Attendant

Kristin became a corporate flight attendant in 2019 with over two decades of experience in the hospitality industry prior. Her extensive background spans fine dining, luxury hotels, and corporate aviation, and has afforded her the opportunity to work closely with celebrity, high net worth, and executive clientele. These experiences have granted her valuable insights into sophisticated service and the need for privacy and discretion. She continues to be involved in the food and beverage industry as a member of a wine group and a women’s hospitality group, as well as taking wine and cooking classes regularly around the world as she travels.

Zach Gable- Air Force and Part 91 Flight Attendant

Zach joined the Air Force at 18 and became a helicopter crew chief for four years based in the pan-handle of Florida. Inspired by his Honor Guard supervisor with the promise to travel the world, wear a clean business suit, and not having to scrub his hands with GoJo at the end of the day, he applied for a Flight Attendant position at the 89th AW Andrews AFB, MD. He was fortunate to have a handful of awesome flight attendant instructors and mentors as he progressed from various positions on the DC-9, and eventually, Gulfstream III & V aircraft. It wasn’t an easy task to turn a 23 year old mechanic into a refined flight attendant for passengers ranging from the Vice President, Director of the CIA, First Lady, Secretary of State and Defense, and members of Congress and Senate. He joined the Boeing Company in 2010 and became a corporate flight attendant which he continues to enjoy to this day. He never thought he would be a flight attendant for 23 years and counting, but says what a privilege it has been.

What are the biggest safety risks unique to corporate aviation?
KS: The leader- usually a Chief Pilot or Director of Operations- trying to cut costs. This happens in the charter world as well. In addition, some flight attendants don’t think it’s important to do the safety check of their aircraft EACH AND EVERY time they fly. Even if you were on the aircraft yesterday or that morning, it is our job to check and it becomes a habit - a very effective one. This is then a partnership with maintenance and the pilots if you notice an issue so it can be addressed ASAP. You are the eyes and ears of the cabin of the plane- only the passengers have as much time there as the flight attendant. Take this part of the job seriously.

ZG: Lack of integrity, poor leadership, and complacency. I think smaller flight departments are susceptible to these characteristics leading to safety incidents. The airline operators have more options to communicate and people to ensure accountability if violations are occurring. Safety violations would be more evident and the necessary changes more easily implemented due to the increased awareness. Smaller flight departments can sweep things under the rug or hide it if bad leadership permits. It may not get identified until it’s too late.

How does safety culture in a corporate flight department compare to commercial airlines?
KS: This I can’t answer from experience since I haven’t worked in commercial but from what I have seen is in a Part 91 flight department the rules can be very loose whereas in the Part 121 (commercial) departments there are very strict regulations. Personally, I wish Part 91 was regulated more like Part 135 (charter) so no matter what the leaders personal take is on safety we are all on the same page.

ZG: Safety in a corporate flight department requires integrity to ensure safety standards and protocols are met. In commercial, it seems easier to check the safety box because it’s a team environment with multiple crew members. Commercial flight attendants do not seem to focus on the quality of service as a priority, so they don’t have to worry about making their passengers uncomfortable or inconvenienced with safety-related items. As corporate flight attendants, we are very focused on ensuring our passengers' needs are met, so we need to have a more tactful and respectful approach in our application of safety standards.

What makes corporate flying more challenging than commercial flying?
KS: Less standardization of service and safety. For myself, that’s a plus, as my experience in hospitality lends itself to a creative environment that often corporate requires. My safety standards are really high and I have so much respect for commercial crew - making sure I watch and listen to be as prepared as they are for any on ground or in-flight emergency.

ZG: Your signature is on everything you do as a corporate flight attendant. We own our success, mediocrity, or failures. It’s up to us to establish high-level service, to maintain a safe cabin, to communicate and work effectively with the crew. I think it’s obvious commercial flying washes any failures away with blaming it on factors they say they can’t control. We don’t have that convenience.

How do you balance high-level service expectations with maintaining safety awareness?
KS: Safety is training, awareness, work ethic, and creating habits (doing your safety check). A high level of service either comes from training and experience, or the desire and then training and experience. One shouldn’t exist without the other and if someone has desire they can learn and put both into practice very well.

ZG: With respect and a tactful approach. It’s important to be knowledgeable about “why” safety standards and/or policies exist so we can ensure our application and implementation is still respectful. Being kind, professional, and assertive all at once. This is possible because we have much fewer passengers to accommodate and can take a little more time to address the safety risks.

How have you dealt with working for various flight departments with differing expectations while maintaining consistent safety standards?
KS: Sometimes you keep things quiet as it relates to safety and just do your job. Meaning if someone were to tell you not to worry about checking your equipment, you do it anyway and don’t make a big deal about it. Find ways to get through your cabin and get the job done without creating tension. If you find something that challenges your level of comfort, refuse to get on the plane- it’s as simple as that. You have to care about your own life in order to care about your passengers and fellow crew members. Any non-working equipment (seatbelts are safety equipment!) should be reported immediately.

ZG: Having a deeper, more knowledgeable understanding of why the safety standards/procedures/policies exist. Then, being respectful that each department implements their safety standards differently, but all are doing their best to adhere to required regulations. It helps to know what the risks and threats are, in order to maintain safety and awareness through multiple situations.

What does strong communication look like between pilots and cabin crew?
KS: The willingness to listen to each other, be able to take criticism and make yourself better, and having the respect for each and every role that makes that trip happen. One person is not better than the other and everyone has vital and valid input.

ZG: Ensuring essential information is shared and confirmed throughout all stages of trip execution. Forecasting potential problems and determining resolutions as a team. Being polite and respectful. And communicating areas for improvement to learn from.

How do you ensure confidentiality and privacy for clients during flights?
KS: I don’t post specific information for my flights on social media: tail number, location, identifying pictures of the aircraft, or any of my passengers. I don’t tell people about my trips beforehand. I create notes about passengers that are experience related and those are shared only with other crew on that aircraft or their management company. I never ask personal questions. We are privy to information that no one else in the world is. It is not our business to share it unless there’s a safety hazard and it is then communicated with your PIC.

ZG: In the military there’s a saying, “loose lips sink ships.” Basically, use the utmost discretion, being careful to know when confidentiality is necessary. Don’t share information just for casual conversation or social gossip. The military also teaches us, it may seem unlikely that a single bit of information could be used to cause harm. However, the collective bits of info here and there add up to create a dangerous insight which in the wrong hands can be used maliciously.

How does corporate flight training impact your performance?
KS: It’s something new and different every flight. Learning new aircraft and how they operate, learning new passenger preferences, and figuring out very quickly how to make this the best flight possible. For me, this makes me more alert, more aware, and provides many different personality styles that I need to get along with so I can work with anyone:)

ZG: Corporate flight training provides a reminder of the necessary foundations and also tidbits of insider information from years of experience. The question may come up with a newer FA, “why do we do it this way?” Often the answer is based on lessons learned from mistakes in the past and how not doing it that way may likely bite you in the butt.

For those interested in joining a corporate flight department, which qualities make someone a successful corporate flight attendant?
KS: The genuine desire to learn about your client (and your coworkers) and then create an environment for them that is what they need to land with boots on the ground and running. Does that mean sleep, food, music, lots of interaction, no interaction and so on. This is then done in a safe environment, meaning safety is always on your mind.

ZG: It’s ironic you’re asking this question. We (the FAs of my department) are currently comprising a list of qualities/characteristics that we recognize in our current roster and which we should focus on for new FA hires:

Passion for Service Excellence
Positive Attitude & Team Player
Professionalism & Discipline
Safety Focus & Knowledgeable
Adaptability & Resilience
Confidence & Independence
Reliability & Consistency
Strong Communication Skills

Recurrent Readiness: A Pilot's Roadmap to Currency After Time Off

At some point or another, many pilots have to step out of the flight deck. Regardless of the cause, returning to flying requires attention to pilot currency, and more importantly, proficiency. Aviation regulations exist to ensure pilots maintain a minimum level of recent flight experience before acting as pilot in command (PIC). These rules help protect both pilots and passengers by ensuring that essential skills remain sharp. That being said, legal minimums may differ from personal minimums, and it is the PIC’s responsibility to make sure they are setting appropriate safety standards for themselves and maintaining them.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) outlines pilot currency requirements in 14 CFR Part 61, including flight review requirements and recent flight experience rules. A typical example is instrument currency: an instrument-rated pilot must log six instrument approaches, holding procedures, and course intercepting/tracking within the preceding six calendar months to act as pilot in command under IFR. If those requirements are not met within the six-month period, pilots may regain currency by completing the procedures with a safety pilot or instructor; after twelve months, an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) becomes necessary.

While regulations establish legal minimums, the aviation community widely recognizes that true proficiency requires more frequent practice than regulatory currency alone. Pilots returning from a break often experience reduced situational awareness, slower decision-making, and difficulty adapting to rapidly changing flight conditions. These challenges can appear in both general aviation and professional aviation operations as well.

Below are common issues pilots face when returning to flight and strategies to mitigate them.

General Aviation Pilots Common Mistakes

Assuming legal currency equals proficiency. Many pilots meet the minimum regulatory requirements but still lack confidence in demanding scenarios.
Over-reliance on automation. Pilots returning from a break may depend heavily on automation and struggle should hand-flying become necessary.
Poor instrument scan and workload management. Instrument skills deteriorate quickly during extended breaks, making it harder to maintain a consistent instrument scan or manage multiple tasks in IMC.
Incomplete pre-flight planning. Rusty pilots may underestimate the planning required for a proper safe flight.

Mitigation Strategies

Schedule a refresher flight with a CFI before flying solo again.
Conduct simulator or training device sessions to rebuild instrument scanning skills.
Practice hand-flying approaches instead of relying solely on autopilot.
Start with short VFR flights to rebuild confidence before returning to more complex missions.

Business Aviation Professionals Common Mistakes

Professional pilots in corporate or charter operations face additional operational complexity when returning from a break. These pilots must maintain not only regulatory currency but also company-specific training requirements and aircraft-specific proficiency.

Complacency from previous experience
Reduced crew coordination. After time away from the cockpit, pilots may initially struggle with communication flow and crew resource management (CRM).
Underestimating procedural workload. Complex airspace, international operations, and performance calculations require quick decision-making that can degrade during long breaks.

Mitigation Strategies

Complete formal recurrent training programs prior to returning to line operations.
Use simulator sessions to rehearse abnormal and emergency procedures.
Emphasize crew resource management refreshers to rebuild cockpit communication habits.
Conduct reintroduction flights with experienced captains or instructors.

Returning to the flight deck after a break is a common part of many aviators’ careers which requires more than meeting minimum regulatory requirements. By recognizing common pitfalls and intentionally rebuilding proficiency through structured training, pilots can ensure their return to flight is safe and successful.

Whether flying a single-engine piston aircraft or a multi-million-dollar business jet, the principle remains the same: currency is the minimum requirement and proficiency is the real goal.

Sources:

A Troubling Reversal: Business Aviation's Deadliest Year Since 2011 and What It Means for the Midwest

The numbers are hard to dismiss. In 2025, business aviation suffered its worst safety record since 2011—143 people killed across 35 fatal accidents, representing a staggering 53.8% year-over-year increase in fatalities according to preliminary data compiled by Aviation International News (AIN). Business jet fatalities alone surged 171.4%, from 21 deaths in 2024 to 57 in 2025. Total business aircraft accidents reached 104, a 15.6% increase from the prior year. For an industry that had been on a generally positive safety trajectory, these figures demand examination—not just at the global level, but right here in our own Midwest region.

The 2025 Global Picture: A Troubling Reversal

AIN's year-end analysis paints a sobering picture. Of the 104 total accidents in 2025, 35 were fatal—nearly one in three. Turboprop fatalities climbed 19.4%, rising from 72 to 86. In the United States, four fatal business jet accidents occurred, all under Part 91 operations, continuing a concerning pattern in which non-commercial flights drive the majority of deadly incidents. Internationally, the situation was far worse: non-U.S. business jet fatalities leapt from just 6 in 2024 to 42 in 2025, with charter operations accounting for half of those deaths.

Closer to Home: Chicago and Midwest Incidents in Focus

The Midwest, and Chicago’s dense network of business and general aviation airports, is far from immune to these trends. Chicago Executive Airport (KPWK) in Wheeling—situated just eight nautical miles north of O’Hare in some of the most complex airspace in the country—has seen a troubling pattern of runway excursion events involving business jets in recent years, with CRM and situational awareness failures featuring prominently across multiple investigations.

The most recent high-profile event at PWK occurred on September 3, 2025, when a Gulfstream G150 overran Runway 34 on landing and crashed through the airport perimeter fence, coming to rest with its nose just short of Hintz Road. The aircraft had departed Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) and was landing in light rain on a runway reported as 100% wet. According to NTSB preliminary findings, the aircraft touched down approximately 2,800 feet down the 5,001-foot runway—leaving only 2,200 feet of pavement remaining. The right wing sustained substantial damage, and an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) at the runway end halted the aircraft before it reached the roadway.The FAA and NTSB investigation remains ongoing.

PWK’s Runway 34 was also the scene of a serious excursion five years earlier. On October 21, 2020, a Learjet 60 on a Part 135 nonscheduled charter flight from Cleveland—carrying two pilots and six passengers—overran the runway after the crew misidentified Runway 30 as Runway 34 during a late-night visual approach with the tower closed. The NTSB probable cause cited the crew’s misidentification of the landing runway. Runway 30 is only 3,983 feet long, well short of the 4,790 feet the captain had calculated as required landing distance; the aircraft struck the perimeter fence before coming to rest. No one was injured, but the Learjet sustained substantial damage. The investigation exposed significant CRM deficiencies: their pre-arrival briefing was disjointed and the heading checklist item went unverified in the final seconds before touchdown—a textbook example of how experience alone does not substitute for disciplined crew coordination.

Beyond fatal accidents, the Chicago area has also seen an uptick in serious runway incursion events. In February 2025, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 was forced to execute a go-around at Chicago Midway International Airport (KMDW) when a business jet entered the active runway without authorization—an incident captured on video and investigated by the FAA. According to public records reviewed by the Chicago Tribune and Fox 32, O'Hare and Midway have collectively logged dozens of close-call reports in NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System in recent years, with pilots describing conditions at times as 'the wild, wild west.' An FAA risk audit of the nation's 45 busiest airports—including both O'Hare and Midway—was underway in early 2025, reflecting growing institutional concern about runway incursion trends.

A Historical Lookback: Fatal Accident Trends in the Chicago Region

Chicago's aviation history is punctuated by tragedies that reshaped national safety policy. The most notorious remains American Airlines Flight 191 on May 25, 1979, when an improper maintenance procedure caused an engine to separate from the wing on takeoff from O'Hare, killing all 271 aboard—still the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in history. In 1994, American Eagle Flight 4184, an ATR 72 turboprop, lost control in an icing-induced uncommanded roll in a holding pattern 60 miles southeast of Chicago, killing all 68 aboard and ultimately prompting sweeping changes to icing certification standards. The 2005 Southwest Airlines overrun at Midway, in which a Boeing 737 skidded through a boundary fence in heavy snow and struck a vehicle on Central Avenue—killing a 6-year-old child—led to enhanced runway safety area standards nationwide.

In the business and general aviation sector, ASN's Aviation Safety Database and the NTSB's CAROL query system document a persistent, if less publicized, pattern of fatal accidents across the greater Chicago area and Illinois—ranging from loss-of-control events on departure from DuPage and Chicago Executive Airport (KPWK) to CFIT accidents on approaches to regional Illinois airports. Across multiple years in ASN's database, Illinois ranks among the top Midwest states for turboprop and business jet accident events, reflecting the state's high GA traffic density, complex airspace, and demanding winter weather environment.

What 2025's Numbers Mean for Operators

The 2025 data carry clear operational implications. The concentration of U.S. fatal accidents in Part 91 operations—four of four domestic fatal business jet accidents in 2025 occurring under Part 91—should not breed complacency in the charter and managed aircraft world. It should instead reinforce the value of structured SMS programs, flight risk assessment tools, recurrent CRM training, and external safety auditing. The industry's tendency to conflate 'no regulatory incident' with 'safe operation' has historically preceded the very statistical reversals AIN and the Flight Safety Foundation are now highlighting.

The 2025 data also reaffirm the outsized risk of approach and landing phases—the PWK excursion events documented above are not outliers, but examples of a nationally recognized pattern in which runway overruns account for a disproportionate share of business aviation hull losses and fatalities. For operations in Midwest winter conditions—with short runways, 100% wet surfaces, complex Class B and D airspace interactions, and limited visual cues at night—stabilized approach criteria, contaminated runway performance calculations, and thorough pre-arrival crew briefings are not administrative formality. They are the difference between a safe arrival and the next accident report.

The industry has demonstrated before—after 1979, after 1994, after 2005—that it can learn from tragedy and reform. The question now is whether 2025's numbers will be treated as an anomaly or as a call to action. For operators flying in and out of Chicago's busy GA and business aviation airports, the answer should be clear.

Based on AIN Online, Aviation Safety Network (ASN), NTSB, FAA in April 2026.

Is Your Go Team Ready?

We all can agree that the loss of any human life is a tragedy, regardless of if they are an airline passenger, or flying on a privately owned airplane. Aircraft accident response requires a large amount of preparation to be ready for the unthinkable (NBAA). All organizations can understand the importance of having personnel prepared to handle an emergency, however the difference between resources available in-house for private operators compared to their airline counterparts with regard to response, is immense.

ALPA provides a tremendous amount of support for affiliated airlines in accidents, whereas business aviation operators are left to their own devices. In a major accident, the Safety Board (NTSB) will typically extend party member status to organizations who can provide technical assistance to the investigation (including the operator). Having a team of people available who are trained and ready to be involved in an accident is crucial so you can help solve imminent safety concerns, identify the root cause and ultimately allow for the best recommendation moving forward. This participation is in the interest of your individual operation’s risk identification, but also for the aviation industry as a whole moving forward.

Business operators understand the significance of being involved in an investigation, but many simply do not have manpower to comply with best practices. Having management flying the accident aircraft, your own team being investigated for cause, and several staff having personal connections with the deceased are just a few of the challenges that small operators face. It’s no surprise that just trying to keep the remaining business afloat takes all the resources that some operations have.

Don Chupp, CEO of Fireside Partners Inc., has expert insight on the differences between the framework of actions following an airline and business aviation emergency response. He described that airlines have a culture of openness and honesty with regard to accidents, near misses and lessons learned. It is largely agreed upon that any accident in their sector of the industry affects the industry at large, regardless of which airline was specifically involved.

Aviation safety in general is promoted as “learning” and “just,” a system that learns from accidents so we all can be safer at the end of the day. However, without a union binding business aviation operators together, it becomes difficult if not impossible to build the same trust and value that airlines gain from sharing insight. Chupp describes that what we need in our industry (business aviation) is “unapologetic honesty.” Safety should not be competitive, and we need to use each other, and our shared insight to prevent the next accident.

Fireside Partners asks operators important questions such as:

Is your ERP a truth telling document? Are positions listed not only well trained to carry out their responses to any emergency, but do they have the authority and autonomy to carry out what is needed in a response?
Does your team have Go Team members who are not only trained for what to expect, but ready to contribute to an investigation? Do they understand their rights as a party member? Do they understand what they will need to do to assist crews, and passengers affected?
It’s irrefutable that emergency preparation is important for business aviation, the question that remains from operator to operator is how will they practice to ensure business continuity when the worst happens?

Sources for Emergency Preparedness Training:

Safety First - Even On the Ground

Operators spend a lot of time and resources to fulfill audit standards measuring flight safety, while seeing insurance claims coming in year after year for hangar rash, or FOD ingestion. Damage to aircraft on the ground is seen often from air bridges causing damage and towing, often affecting the landing gear, wings or empennage.

Recently, Part 91 and 135 operators have been seeking IS-BAH compliance as self-handlers, whereas former ground handlers to seek implementation were almost all FBOs. Bank of America is the first to successfully implement IS-BAH as a self-handler. Operators are discovering the significance of ground handling procedures within their own teams. Despite it’s significance to our bottom line, and to the safety of our operation, there is a fraction of IS-BAH auditors when compared to IS-BAO. With potential for towing mishaps, misfueling, and a plethora of other potential risks, there is no doubt that more ground handling standardization will be one of the areas of industry focus in years to come.