DALLAS—An altitude violation and lack of situational awareness in the busy Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex airspace during a demonstration flight the morning of March 8 marred what otherwise should have been the celebratory relaunch tour of a relatively unknown Sikorsky twin turboprop aircraft, the M28.
Aviation Week was on board SP-DGW, which had been flown to Dallas from Mielec, Poland, last week, to conduct a pilot report on the aircraft.
Built by Sikorsky subsidiary PZL Mielec, the “next generation” M28 has been in production since 1993, with approximately 100 aircraft delivered globally for passenger transport, cargo and military operators, including 19 to the U.S. Air Force. For airline operations, the aircraft can carry 19 passengers or be configured with a combination passenger and cargo cabin.

(Credit: AWST/John Croft)
PZL, which was acquired by United Technologies Corporation in 2007, built approximately 180 of the earlier generation An-28s since the early 1980s, most of which remain in operation and are supported by Antonov. Lockheed Martin acquired Sikorsky, and with it PZL, in 2015.
The idea for the tour germinated at the FIDAE Air Show in Chile in 2016, said Sikorsky’s vice president for Latin America, Adam Schierholz. “There was interest at the chalet based on a picture of the M28 on the wall. Obviously they didn’t have enough information about it.”
Based on that interest, Sikorsky planned the tour for this year from mid-March through early May with stops in Trinidad, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia and Mexico. Dallas was added relatively late to coincide with Sikorsky’s presence at the Heli-Expo convention. The company is planning to give potential customers demonstration rides on the aircraft out of the Fort Worth Alliance airport until the aircraft departs for Trinidad.
Alliance airport is located approximately 15 nm. northwest of Dallas-Fort Worth international airport, and has an altitude restriction of 4,000 ft., above which the pilots must have permission from the Dallas regional departure control facility to enter the crowded Class B airspace.

(Credit: FAA)
During the March 8 flight, the first demonstration out of Alliance, I took the jump seat initially to watch and listen on the headsets as the captain, a retired PZL pilot brought back as a contractor for the tour, took the right seat and a PZL test pilot took the left seat. The captain manned the radio, but his English proficiency would prove to be less than adequate for the flight in demanding airspace. The left-seat pilot, who acted as pilot-flying, had less English proficiency than the captain. A third pilot, who sat in the cabin, was proficient in English but did not have access to the cockpit communications. I did not have a push-to-talk switch for my headset.
As part of the pre-flight, we discussed what maneuvers would be flown—a maximum performance takeoff and landing—to be followed by in-flight demonstrations for which I was to switch seats with the left-seat pilot to sample how the aircraft handles in a variety of situations. I was not part of any discussions on the route we would fly or any altitude restrictions. There did not appear to be any Sikorsky or Lockheed Martin representatives present with knowledge of local airspace procedures or requirements. There were electronic charts on the two small navigation displays on the Garmin navigation and communications radios in the panel, and the two pilots likely had tablets with charts, though none were out and available for easy reference. I did not see any paper charts on the flight deck.
After starting the engines, the captain obtained permission to taxi to runway 16L. The airport normally has parallel runways, but 16R was closed for construction—information that we would later find out was critical to how the FAA expects pilots to operate in the area. The crew’s limited English proficiency and lack of familiarization with the local area became clear when the captain stopped on the runway after being cleared for takeoff, asked the tower controllers for clearance to climb to 10,000 ft. (to demonstrate the aircraft’s climb capability) followed by a descent to 6,000 ft. for air work.
The tower controller asked if the pilots were familiar “with the Bravo airspace,” to which the captain responded, “Ah, requesting vectoring for Bravo airspace.” The tower controller informed the pilot that he would have to contact the regional departure controller after takeoff to ask for permission and again cleared the aircraft for takeoff.
Following the impressive maximum performance takeoff and initial climb at approximately 3,000 ft. per min., the controller asked what type of aircraft we were flying and assigned a transponder code—which the crew did not read back correctly—followed by an instruction to “maintain at or below 4,000,” repeated several times. When the controller called back again to repeat the transponder code, the pilots became distracted entering the correct code and had climbed to approximately 4,350 ft., drawing repeated and emphatic calls from the controller to be “at or below 4,000.” Interspersed with all the calls were questions of “SP-DGW, how do you hear?”
We descended to 4,000 and switched to the regional departure frequency, a change that led to both the tower and the regional departure controller channels coming through our headsets, likely a switch configuration issue with the radios on the part of the captain and a problem that remained through the end of the flight. With both frequencies blaring, it was extremely difficult to hear and respond to the controllers.
The departure controller asked repeatedly, “What airport are you going to?” a question the crew did not have an answer for as they had intended on performing the air work in the local area without having a destination airport.  While professional and proficient, the crew did not have familiarization with the Dallas area and its procedures before flying here.
The captain soon after asked to return for landing (at Alliance), but did not specify which airport. I ultimately switched headsets with the captain and communicated with air traffic controllers by having the captain press the push-to-talk switch when I needed to respond. Communications remained extremely difficult, however, due to the multiple frequencies coming through the radio.
Back at the airport, we performed a maximum performance steep landing that while impressive, was exactly the type of landing that the tower did not expect based on heavy traffic due to the runway closure. After touchdown, the tower controller asked me to copy down a phone number to call the Terminal Radar Control Center (Tracon) facility due to our “pilot deviation” into the Class B airspace above 4,000 ft.
After gathering the crew and some of the Sikorsky handlers, we called the Tracon to discuss the deviation. Aside from the altitude incursion, controllers stated that the language barrier was an issue. While the deviation would be researched, the controllers said it would not prevent the demonstration flights from continuing.
With my help, the team then requested a meeting with FAA air traffic controllers at Alliance, who later joined the entire group to discuss proper airspace procedures at the airport and in the surrounding area.
The controllers, who were extremely courteous and helpful, suggested that coordination for this type of demonstration would ideally be discussed with controllers approximately 1 month before the flights to determine specific procedures that could have been used for the operations. There was no pre-coordination in this case.
They emphasized that because of the runway closure, the meshing of high speed military traffic, FedEx cargo operations and general aviation flights, that all takeoffs and landings should be “normal” in terms of climb and descent rates to enable them to better predict the motion of the aircraft for traffic separation. In addition to helping the team map out an acceptable area to perform the demonstration rides in the days to follow, they also emphasized the need for English language proficiency.
Sikorsky acknowledged that the M28 deviated into Class B airspace, but noted that despite the "miscommunication", the aircrews were "fully qualified and meet all English language proficiency requirements to fly in U.S. airspace" and had subsequently met with local FAA representatives for a familiarization briefing on local flying areas.
"At Sikorsky safety is our top priority and we believe this review of the flight space will ensure future incidents don’t occur," the company added.
While I did not get to evaluate the aircraft, I did learn a valuable lesson about the importance of advance legwork, risk analysis, flight planning and situational awareness in complex airspace, particularly for a crew coming from a foreign country.