Author: admin

What’s one thing that makes your job exciting or special?

My role connects directly to my lifelong passion for aircraft. I have the unique opportunity to contribute to the creation of systems that fly and serve critical missions. Knowing that the products I help develop and support are flying safely across the globe gives my work a powerful purpose. This connection between technical decisions and real-world impact makes my role both exciting and deeply fulfilling.

What inspired you to join Airbus?

I have always dreamed of contributing to aircraft development. At university, I worked with a multinational team designing unmanned aircraft, and one of our designs almost reached the finals of an international competition, sparking my passion for turning ideas into reality.

After graduation, I joined Airbus’ Sepang Aircraft Engineering as a Technical Service Engineer, where I worked on complex repairs, retrofits, and C-check deliveries. A mobility assignment to Airbus Helicopters Malaysia further expanded my role, giving me leadership responsibilities and exposure to engineering management, Part 21 design, and technical support knowledge.

I remain at Airbus because of its culture of trust and collaboration. The responsibilities and feedback from my managers and colleagues have been invaluable, and the opportunities to work on projects that enhance aircraft performance and safety keep me motivated and aligned with my dream.

Explain what you do in simple terms

I lead three engineering teams that oversee upgrades, conduct maintenance planning, and provide technical support for operators. My role ensures smooth coordination between teams, timely delivery of accurate engineering documents, and adherence to quality and safety standards. I review upgrade designs before assembly and ensure maintenance plans are complete with the right parts and tools, as well as helping customers add features and maintain helicopters without delays. In doing so, I contribute to Airbus’ mission of delivering reliable, safe, and efficient helicopters.

How does your role contribute to Airbus’ mission or the success of its products?

As Head of Engineering, I oversee retrofit design, technical support, and work preparation. The retrofit design team enhances the aircraft to support mission-critical operations and maintain safety compliance. Our technical support team collaborates closely with customers to resolve issues and ensure safe, reliable flight. The work preparation team plans and guides maintenance to ensure efficient MRO services. Together, we contribute to the safety, reliability, and satisfaction of our customers.

What’s the most innovative project you’ve worked on at Airbus?

One of my proudest contributions was delivering a cost-effective helicopter trainer fleet within tight budget and timeline constraints. Our team retrofitted an EC120-B with advanced avionics, including a Multifunction Display, satellite navigation, and digital communication systems. This minimalist flight deck simulated the avionics environment of larger helicopters, providing scalable pilot training while staying within budget and schedule. It was a privilege to be part of the team that delivered this innovative solution.

How has Airbus supported your career growth or personal development?

Throughout my career, I’ve been fortunate to work with managers who trust and empower me, offering guidance when needed. Airbus fosters a positive, inclusive culture where everyone is treated fairly and encouraged to take on new challenges. Collaboration and open idea-sharing across global teams help us achieve the best results.

As I’ve gained experience, I enjoy mentoring colleagues, offering the same support that helped me grow – always with respect and a positive attitude.

How has your career evolved since you joined Airbus?

I started at Airbus as a Technical Service Engineer, reviewing technical documents, creating clear work instructions, coordinating with stakeholders, and resolving production issues.

Later, I moved to Airbus Helicopters Malaysia as a Design Engineer, where I learned to anticipate production challenges, propose alternative solutions, and gained hands-on experience with industrial design and Part 21 certification.

With this background, I joined Technical Support, providing compliant, effective solutions to customers and deepening my understanding of airworthiness.

This experience prepared me to lead the Engineering department, where I now guide and support the teams with firsthand knowledge of each role.

What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned as a leader?

The biggest lesson I’ve learnt as a leader is that growth comes from stepping beyond your defined role. Taking on broader tasks and decisions helped me earn trust and handle greater responsibility.

Leadership is not just about doing the job well, but balancing the needs of the team, company, and customers. It requires judgment; knowing when to push forward, when to compromise, and when to uphold quality standards, even when it’s challenging.

What’s your most memorable experience at Airbus? Why does it stand out?

Early in my Airbus career, during a B-check on an A320, a technician spotted overlapping rivets on a newly replaced stringer, which was a serious issue with no approved repair and tight time constraints. I quickly secured a replacement part from overseas, coordinated with logistics, and worked with management to adjust the customer’s schedule. Our team worked overnight and delivered the aircraft on time, flying the last flight out of Kuala Lumpur International Airport that same evening.

Though it felt like a routine recovery then, months later I learned the customer switched their main MRO provider to us. That experience gave me confidence in making decisive choices under pressure and showed me how clear priorities and teamwork can solve tough problems.

If you could give one piece of advice, what would it be?

Take ownership beyond your role. Real growth happens when you step outside your defined responsibilities – tackling complex problems, making broader decisions, and taking initiative in uncertain times. These actions build trust, create new opportunities, and often lead to greater impact than expected.

Which Airbus value resonates with you, and why?

Reliability. Trust is built through consistent, dependable actions – whether managing urgent aircraft recovery or leading engineering teams. Reliability means being present, making clear decisions, and following through, especially in uncertain situations where outcomes matter.

It also involves balancing practicality with maintaining standards and meeting the needs of the team, company, and customer. It’s not just about completing tasks, but doing so in a way others can always depend on.

How does Airbus support you in maintaining work-life balance?

Airbus supports my work-life balance by valuing productivity over rigid hours. While my role does not offer flexible schedules, the focus on delivering results within reasonable timeframes helps me manage responsibilities with clarity and purpose.

Colleagues across regions respect time zones, holidays, and personal commitments like parental leave or illness. Managers proactively arrange coverage to ensure continuity without undue pressure. This culture of understanding and coordination allows me to balance my career and personal life sustainably.

What motivates you to keep growing in your career?

I am inspired by the innovative products that Airbus creates, and I am driven to contribute meaningfully to their progress, helping ensure they continue to deliver value and meet evolving needs.

What 3 words define Airbus for you?

Innovative, collaborative, inclusive.

Study design and patient population

This retrospective cohort study reviewed the medical records of patients diagnosed with LD-SCLC who underwent CCRT between September 2010 and January 2022 at Chung-Ang University Hospital. The inclusion criteria were as follows: pathologically confirmed SCLC, administration of standard etoposide/cisplatin (EP) based CCRT, mediastinum included in radiation field, and availability of enhanced abdominopelvic CT images obtained less than two weeks before CCRT initiation and less than four weeks after treatment completion. Although post-treatment CT scans were intended to be performed within four weeks after CCRT completion, the actual timing varied in clinical practice. In our cohort, the mean interval between treatment completion and post-treatment CT was 2.5 months, with a median of 2.0 months (range, 0–9.0 months). All patients underwent thoraco-abdominal-pelvic CT, brain magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography-CT at baseline, and staging was reassessed according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition TNM classification to confirm limited-stage disease. Bone marrow biopsy was not routinely performed. The exclusion criteria were as follows: lack of baseline or post-treatment imaging, administration of non-standard treatment regimens, or lost to follow-up within three months of treatment initiation. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Chung-Ang University Hospital (No. 2207-009-19426), which waived the requirement for informed consent due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Assessment of body composition

All abdominopelvic and thoracic CT scans used for body composition analysis were obtained with a standardized tube voltage of 120 kV, which is the institutional protocol at Chung-Ang University Hospital for both diagnostic and treatment-planning CT examinations. Body composition was assessed using CT at baseline, defined as within two weeks prior to CCRT initiation, and at post-treatment, defined as within four weeks after CCRT completion. Body composition analysis was performed using TeraRecon Aquarius iNtuition software (TeraRecon, Durham, NC, USA) to measure the skeletal muscle area (SMA), visceral fat area (VFA), and subcutaneous fat area (SCFA). These areas were automatically calculated from single axial CT slices at the third lumbar vertebra (L3) and fourth thoracic vertebra (T4), with both transverse processes visible. Areas were quantified based on predefined Hounsfield unit (HU) thresholds: SMA, −29 to + 150 HU; VFA, −150 to −50 HU; and SCFA, −190 to −30 HU [7]. In addition to absolute cross-sectional areas, the visceral fat area index (VFI) and subcutaneous fat area index (SFI) were calculated by normalizing VFA and SCFA to patient height squared (m²). The L3 SMI, which has been shown to correlate well with total body skeletal muscle mass, was calculated as the L3 SMA (cm²) divided by the square of the patient’s height (m²). L3 low muscle mass was defined as an L3 SMI < 49 cm²/m² for men and < 31 cm²/m² for women, according to criteria specific for Korean populations [8]. Patients were classified as having a high or low VFI and SFI using the mean baseline values as thresholds.

The cross-sectional areas of the thoracic skeletal muscles, including the pectoralis, intercostalis, paraspinal, serratus, and latissimus muscles were measured at the T4 level as described previously [9]. The T4 SMI was calculated by dividing the thoracic SMA (cm²) by the square of the patient’s height (m²). There is no established T4 SMI cutoff point for defining T4 low muscle mass; therefore, we divided the patients into quartiles according to the T4 SMI, and the lowest quartile was defined as the low muscle mass group, as described previously [9].

Body weight and height information were extracted from patient medical records. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight divided by height squared (kg/m²), and patients were classified as underweight (< 20.0 kg/m²), normal (20.0–25.0 kg/m²), or overweight (>25.0 kg/m²). Body weight was measured within two weeks of the corresponding CT scan. Although the WHO classification defines underweight as a BMI < 18.5 kg/m², we applied a cutoff of 20 kg/m² based on prior studies in Asian and cancer populations, where this threshold has been associated with malnutrition, reduced treatment tolerance, and poor prognosis [10, 11].

Chemotherapy regimen

All patients received a standard EP regimen concurrently with thoracic radiotherapy. Cisplatin was administered at a dose of 25 mg/m²/day on days 1–3, and etoposide at 100 mg/m²/day on days 1–3, every 21 days. A total of four cycles were planned, and patients who tolerated treatment generally completed all four cycles. The treatment completion rate for concurrent chemoradiotherapy was 92.7% (51/55 patients); four patients discontinued chemotherapy early due to hematologic or non-hematologic toxicities but still completed radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy

All patients received definitive thoracic radiotherapy using either three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The total prescribed dose was 60 Gy, delivered in 30 fractions (2.0 Gy per fraction), once daily, five days per week. The mediastinum was included in the radiation field in all cases. All patients have completed scheduled thoracic radiotherapy. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was administered at the discretion of the treating physician after completion of CCRT.

Endpoints and clinical variables

The primary endpoints were the changes in body composition indices, including the T4 SMI and L3 SMI, VFI, and SFI from baseline to post-treatment, and the incidence of significant muscle loss. Secondary endpoints included changes in BMI and body weight, overall survival (OS), treatment response rate, and the association between skeletal muscle loss and prognosis. Tumor response was evaluated by applying the RECIST guidelines version 1.1 to CT scans acquired every six to eight weeks. Additional clinical and laboratory data included age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scales, AJCC 8th edition stage group, chemotherapy regimen, serum albumin level, and survival status.

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as median (range), mean ± standard deviation, or number (percentage). Continuous variables were tested for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare baseline and post-treatment body composition parameters. Between-group differences were assessed using the Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. OS was defined as the time from the start of chemotherapy to the date of death from any cause and was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Group comparisons of OS were performed using log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Variables with P < 0.10 in univariate analysis were entered into multivariate analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA); a two-tailed P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.