European safety regulators have warned of a potentially unsafe condition with the tail rotor assemblies of Leonardo Helicopters AW169 and AW189 rotorcraft.
Although the move follows the fatal crash of an AW169 in Leicester, UK on 27 October, the emergency airworthiness directive stresses the root cause of that accident "has not been identified".

The Leicester crash occurred "while the helicopter was on a take-off phase at low forward speed" and "a loss of yaw control was observed".
Footage of the AW169's take-off shows its pilot performing a vertical departure before the helicopter develops an uncontrollable spin and crashes to the ground.
Issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency, the directive stipulates that operators of both types must, within five flight hours or 24h, inspect the tail rotor servo-actuator installation.

On 6 November, the manufacturer issued an emergency service bulletin advising operators of the AW169 to check the installation and functioning of the same component.
"Incorrect installation may lead to loss of tail rotor control which, depending on the flight condition, could lead to loss of control of the aircraft," the bulletin warns.

No safety issues have so far been detected with the larger AW189 super-medium-twin, but EASA notes that it is included in the directive as its tail rotor control system is "of a similar design" to that on AW169.
The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch has yet to release any information related to the cause of the Leicester crash.

Leonardo Helicopters describes the service bulletins for both types as "precautionary", adding that "any hypothesis on the cause of the accident is premature at this time and the AAIB investigation continues".

Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee says an angle-of-attack sensor on the ill-fated Lion Air Boeing 737 Max 8 had been replaced a day before it crashed.
The committee says the sensor was replaced in Denpasar on 28 October, after pilots reported issues with the airspeed indicator.
Downloaded information from the recovered flight data recorder found that there was a "different [reading] on the angle-of-attack indicator" during a Denpasar-Jakarta flight on 28 October.
It adds that this was related to the faulty airspeed indication, which was first raised at a 5 November press conference by NTSC chief Soerjanto Tjahjono.
After the replacement, however, pilots that flew a Denpasar-Jakarta flight still found a 20° difference on the left-hand angle-of-attack sensor. During this flight, the pilots implemented "a number of procedures" to rectify the issues, and the jet subsequently landed in Jakarta safely.
The sensor that was removed in Denpasar has since been sent to NTSC offices in Jakarta, before being transferred to Boeing's headquarters in Chicago for further investigation. Investigators plan to reconstruct the flight and study the faults related to the sensor using Boeing's engineering simulator in Seattle.
Interviews have also been conducted with the pilots and cabin crews that operated PK-LQP prior to the crash, as well as technicians that maintained the jet in Denpasar, Jakarta, and Manado.
The NTSC adds that, based on issues faced by pilots on the Denpasar-Jakarta flight, it has recommended that Boeing notify 737 Max operators of the potential issues they could face with the sensors.
NTSC investigators and officials from Boeing and General Electric have identified some of the wreckage recovered from the seabed. These include the left CFM International Leap-1B engine, the right-hand main landing-gear, a tail section, aircraft sections 43, 44, 46 and 48, a cockpit oxygen bottle, a left-hand passenger door, and a wing-tip.

Boeing issued a operations manual bulletin on 6 November, directing operators to “existing flight crew procedures" to address circumstances involving erroneous angle-of-attack sensor information.
Indonesia's national search and rescue agency Basarnas has extended its mission to 10 November.

The Lion Air Max 8 was operating as flight JT610 from Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta International airport to Pangkal Pinang when it crashed into the sea near the town of Karawang, claiming the lives of all 189 passengers and crew on board.

While most commentators agree that long-haul low-cost operators have had a disruptive influence in their respective markets, doubt creeps in when discussion turns to the model's economic viability.
Analysis of some of the key players indicates that those doubts are well founded. Few if any airlines have made true long-haul low-cost work in a sustainable manner, despite some achieving sporadic profitability.
The market's major participants operate mixed networks. In other words, no significant players have become dedicated low-cost long-haul operators.
Long-haul point-to-point services frequently fail to attract enough demand, hampered by the lack of connecting passengers, while having no true business-class products and passengers can fatally stymie revenue opportunities.
When new players do gain some traction, powerful network carriers have been quick with defensive moves.
These and other factors are causing some carriers to rethink their strategies entirely, often leading to the adoption of products more commonly associated with traditional network carriers.
The network carriers themselves are also embracing long-haul low-cost – but it is doubtful whether those units can be considered true budget airlines.
However, the sector remains in its infancy. Many of the markets developed under the long-haul low-cost banner may prove sustainable; but the operating model seems likely to be "lower cost", rather than true low-cost.
Ironically for a market so suited to pioneers, the odds seem stacked against entrepreneurial start-ups.
"Sadly, low-cost long-haul is the graveyard of ambition for start-ups," Ryanair chief operating officer Peter Bellew opined on Twitter after news broke of Primera Air's demise. "[It] seems almost impossible without business class or the deep pockets of a legacy carrier."
As fuel prices rise, the market is only likely to become more unforgiving.