At the National Business Aviation Administration-Business Aviation Convention and Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) in Las Vegas, FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker signed the SFAR, which contains initial operational rules and pilot training requirements for powered-lift aircraft and will remain in effect for 10 years.

“It’s here today,” Whitaker told NBAA-BACE attendees Tuesday morning. “It is now a final rule.”

The FAA called the SFAR the “final piece in the puzzle” for introducing powered-lift aircraft, which could begin flying passengers, cargo, and even ambulance services in rural and urban areas as soon as next year.

The category is a relatively new, special class of aircraft covering designs that take off vertically like a helicopter but cruise on fixed wings like an airplane. To be considered powered-lift, the aircraft must generate lift primarily from its engines—which can be electric, hydrogen, or hybrid-powered—while relying on rigid components, usually wings, for horizontal flight. They will become the first new category of civil aircraft since helicopters were introduced in the 1940s.

The FAA sometimes refers to these as vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) or advanced air mobility (AAM) aircraft, the latter term covering new aircraft technology more broadly.

For years, the agency communicated to the aviation industry that there would be a pathway for powered-lift designs—such as electric air taxis being developed by Joby Aviation, Archer Aviation, and others—to be certified as Part 23 normal category aircraft.

But the regulator unexpectedly reversed course in 2022, determining instead that they would be certified as Part 21 special class aircraft. That kicked off a yearslong effort to develop an entirely new set of rules for powered-lift pilot training, operations, maintenance, and more.

The FAA last year released a proposal addressing several of those areas. It was panned by a collective of industry groups, however, who argued that the proposed pilot training requirements were too strict. They also clamored for performance-based operational rules—drawing from aircraft and rotorcraft guidelines as appropriate—rather than the creation of a new powered-lift operational category, as the FAA proposed.

FAA and Department of Transportation officials have promised to address the industry’s concerns. According to Whitaker, the SFAR does exactly that.

“For the last 80 years, we’ve had two types [of aircraft], rotor and fixed wing,” he said. “We now have a third type…and this rule will create an operating environment so these companies can figure out how to train pilots. They can figure out how to operate.”

The SFAR applies helicopter rules to certain phases of powered-lift flight, regardless of whether the aircraft is operating like a helicopter or an airplane. But in response to the industry’s feedback, it uses performance-based rules for certain operations, applying airplane, rotorcraft, or helicopter rules as appropriate.

For example, powered-lift aircraft can use helicopter minimums for VFR and IFR fuel requirements and minimum safe altitudes when they are capable of performing a vertical landing at any point along the route, as a helicopter is. This will allow manufacturers to get around the issue of low battery energy density, for example, by lowering the fuel reserve requirement.

“The rulemaking approach now is to really focus on performance and making sure you can prove that you can operate safely, or you can meet certain performance metrics, rather than being prescriptive and telling you exactly how to do it,” Whitaker said. “So we’re trying to create a larger envelope to have different means of compliance for some of the requirements and the rules.”

The approach mirrors the European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) special class for VTOL (SC-VTOL) rules, which base operational guidelines on situational factors—like reserve fuel levels—instead of aircraft design. It’s a change that will be welcomed by manufacturers, who can now design aircraft for a wide range of operations rather than those defined by a narrow powered-lift category.

“We need to have the flexibility to allow these businesses to succeed, do so safely, and adjust our approach as we go along,” Whitaker said.

The other major difference between the SFAR and the FAA’s initial proposal is the creation of a pathway to train powered-lift pilots with a single set of flight controls. Some programs will still require dual controls. But throwover controls and simulator training will be acceptable substitutes. The change is a big one, as many powered-lift manufacturers designed their aircraft—including trainers—with single controls.

“Some pilot training can happen in the normal way that it’s always happened, with an instructor that has a set of controls and a student that has a set of controls,” Whitaker said. “But sometimes it’s a single set of controls that are accessible to an instructor, so we have rules that allow for that type of operation. And sometimes they have other configurations. So there again, we put in performance metrics to make sure that the companies can train instructors, and the instructors can train pilots.”

Last year, the FAA released a blueprint intended to serve as a framework for policymakers, describing a “crawl-walk-fly” approach to integrate powered-lift designs alongside conventional aircraft. The agency predicts they will initially use existing helicopter routes and infrastructure, and pilots will communicate with air traffic control as needed.

But Whitaker on Tuesday said the FAA will continue developing a new ecosystem for powered-lift aircraft. Critical to its blueprint is the construction of vertiports: vertical takeoff and landing sites equipped with electric chargers and other powered-lift infrastructure.

“The blueprint that we put in place 16 months ago for introducing this technology includes vertiports, and we’ll continue to work on that issue,” Whitaker said.

Plenty more work must be done in order for powered-lift designs to take to the skies at scale. But the SFAR gives the industry a practical pathway to begin flying.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post FAA Finalizes Rules for Powered-Lift Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Aircraft did not start off with tires, or even wheels, for that matter. The Wright Flyer did not use landing gear. Instead, the launching rail system consisted of four 15-foot two-by-fours totaling 60 feet.

“[In 1909] Goodyear developed the first pneumatic aircraft tire, which replaced the runners and bicycle tires on pioneer airplanes like the Wright Flyer,” the company said.

It wasn’t until 1983 that Goodyear made the first radial tire approved by the FAA.

Specifications

The OEMs specify the specific tire size, ply rating, and pressure requirements for each individual aircraft. These elements directly impact the taxi parameters and landing operation.

During tire changes, it is crucial to install only approved aircraft tires.

Several tools assist in selecting the appropriate aircraft tire for your specific application.

Goodyear Aviation Tires features an online application guide where you can look up tires by size, part number, or aircraft.

The Goodyear Aviation Data Book contains seven sections to assist you in navigating the aircraft tire space. This booklet presents specific data on the proper tire sizes for different aircraft main and auxiliary/nose gears, speed ratings, nominal inflation pressures, dimensions, and other data users need to obtain the maximum service from their aircraft tires.

Automotive company Michelin also produces a line of aircraft tires under its Aviator brand. It also has a line of downloads to assist in outfitting your aircraft with the proper tire. 

One way an aircraft component, such as a tire, gains approval is through a supplemental type certificate (STC) issued by the FAA.  Michelin’s General Aviation STC, for example, may be found here.

All parts installed on certificated aircraft must carry some form of approval. Some approvals, such as parts manufacturer approval (PMA) parts, designated engineering representative (DER) repairs, and STCs, are alternate means of approval, which means the OEM does not support them.

Hazards

Aircraft tires are at a greater risk of damage due to their exposure to the elements, extreme temperature fluctuations, and high friction operation.

Common defects include:

• Wear: Uneven or excessive tread wear indicates that your tires may be improperly inflated.
• Sidewall damage: Cracking or bulging in the sidewalls can result from underinflation or harsh environmental conditions.
• Flat spots: Occurs due to heavy braking during landings.
• Foreign object damage (FOD): Debris on the runway can puncture or damage tires.
•  Neglect: Failure to maintain aircraft invites Murphy to hang out on your flight line.

Be wary of extreme air pressure loss. Goodyear urges the following: “Any tire removed due to a pressure loss condition should be returned to an authorized repair facility or re-treader, along with a description of the removal reason.”

Maintenance

Aircraft tires play a crucial role in aircraft operation. 

“Inflation pressure is the most important thing for the tire’s life,” said Tim Wong, service leader at VSE Aviation. “Check tire pressure before the first flight every day.”

Also important are ply ratings.

“Ply rating relates to how much load the tire can withstand,” Wong said. “The higher the ply rating, the heavier the load. Also, ply rating is a ‘rating,’ not necessarily the number of layers in a tire.”

Retreads can also be a good value, according to Wong.

“If you’ve flown commercially, 90 percent of commercial aircraft fly on retreads,” he said. “You will benefit from the OEM casing and longevity of our rubber. It’s definitely a great value with no risk.”

Tire pressure is the single most impactful maintenance item for aircraft tires, according to Philip Weber, former vice president of sales for Bridgestone Aircraft Tire.

The OEMs design aircraft tires to lose pressure as they fly, on average 2-3 percent per landing, to vent gasses that build up between the rubber layers. Regular tire pressure monitoring and maintenance will ensure proper performance and maximize safety.

Sidewall deflection is the biggest determining factor of aircraft tire longevity. The more sidewall deflection, the more quickly the tire wears, and the casing becomes scrap. Higher ply ratings give the tire more sidewall stability, resulting in more carrying additional weight. In addition, some tires have layers of Kevlar to improve tire puncture and FOD protection.

Retreads perform as well, and often better, than the original new tire. Unlike semitruck tires, where the new tread is simply welded to the outer surface of the casing, aircraft tires go through a complete re-baking process every time they are retreaded. This process makes the retread tire like new again.

Additionally, the baking process stiffens and seats the tire bead, which creates tires that are often easier to install and pressurize. In some cases (Boeing 737NG as an example), a retreaded tire can have a deeper tread than the original tire, providing longer on-wing life.

The post Understanding Aircraft Tires appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to Reuters, the audit will evaluate each airport’s risks, identify potential issues with procedures and equipment, and make recommendations to improve safety. FAA’s Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service is conducting the review and expects to complete it by early 2025.

The agency’s study is partly in response to recommendations made in November 2023 by an independent aviation review team, which called for urgent actions to enhance safety after several close calls involving passenger jets.

As recently as September, a controller cleared a Southwest Airlines plane to cross a runway just seconds before another controller cleared an Alaska Airlines jet to take off. The Alaska aircraft was forced to abort its takeoff to prevent a collision from occurring, narrowly averting disaster.

These incidents have raised concerns among aviation stakeholders and agencies like the National Transportation Safety Board, which is currently investigating multiple close calls. Meanwhile, the FAA says it is in the process of implementing new surface-awareness technologies at airports around the country to further enhance safety and mitigate incursion incidents.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post FAA to Conduct Runway Safety Audit at Major U.S. Airports appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Sunday, Starship and the Super Heavy booster lifted off around 8:25 a.m. EDT from SpaceX’s Starbase launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas, on the rocket’s fifth suborbital test flight. But rather than splash down in the Gulf of Mexico, as it did on the previous flight, Super Heavy was caught in midair by a pair of metal “chopstick” arms the company refers to as “Mechazilla.”

It is the first time such a maneuver has been successfully completed and represents the program’s most ambitious milestone to date.

“The entire SpaceX team should take pride in the engineering feat they just accomplished,” the company said in a postlaunch update. “The world witnessed what the future will look like when Starship starts carrying crew and cargo to destinations on Earth, the moon, Mars and beyond.”

Built to Last

As SpaceX alluded to, Starship—which stands nearly 400 feet tall when stacked on Super Heavy—is being designed to one day ferry humans around the solar system.

The firm is also working under a $4 billion NASA contract to develop two human landing system (HLS) variants of Starship that will return Americans to the moon for the first time since the Apollo missions. The HLS will first fly on Artemis III, which is tentatively scheduled for September 2026 and will land NASA astronauts at the lunar south pole.

To develop such a vehicle, SpaceX will need to launch Starship hundreds of times. And to do that, both the rocket and booster will need to be turned around quickly. SpaceX therefore designed both components to be fully reusable. That makes Sunday’s mission—which returned Super Heavy to its launch pad intact—a key piece of validation.

“Congratulations to @SpaceX on its successful booster catch and fifth Starship flight test today!” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson in a post on X. “As we prepare to go back to the Moon under Artemis, continued testing will prepare us for the bold missions that lie ahead—including to the South Pole region of the Moon and then on to Mars.”

Following liftoff, Super Heavy separated from Starship and reversed course back to Earth, descending at supersonic speed. The booster then fired a handful of engines to apply the brakes, slowing to a hover before Mechazilla snared it from the sky about seven minutes into the mission. It was a bull’s-eye landing and the first time the booster had launched and returned to the same pad. SpaceX captured the moment in real time.

“Thousands of distinct vehicle and pad criteria must be met prior to a return and catch attempt of the Super Heavy booster, which will require healthy systems on the booster and tower and a manual command from the mission’s flight director,” SpaceX said in a post on X.

Super Heavy is significantly larger than SpaceX’s ubiquitous Falcon 9 rocket, which it has successfully landed hundreds of times both on land and at sea. And because it lacks landing legs, SpaceX was forced to get creative.

The company achieved its goal remarkably quickly. Flight 4 was a huge step, as the booster splashed down “with half a centimeter accuracy,” according to Bill Gerstenmaier, vice president of build and flight reliability at SpaceX. Previous missions, however, lost the booster entirely.

According to Dan Huot, a SpaceX communications manager on Sunday’s live feed, “We’re going to start looking real soon at when we can catch a [Starship].”

Starship, meanwhile, completed its own objectives, executing hot-stage separation, ignition, and ascent to outer space. It coasted about halfway around the planet before reentering the atmosphere, flipping itself around, and making a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean. A camera buoy captured that moment as well.

Like Super Heavy during Flight 4, the rocket tipped over and sunk into the ocean. This time, though, SpaceX upgraded Starship’s thermal systems for reentry, where conditions are hot enough to envelop the rocket in plasma. The upgrade appeared to prevent the loss of flaps and other hardware that were jettisoned previously.

“We were not intending to recover any of the ship’s hardware, so that was the best ending that we could have hoped for,” said SpaceX engineer Kate Tice during Sunday’s live stream.

Under Scrutiny

SpaceX says it intends to churn out thousands of Starships per year at its one million-square-foot Starfactory plant. But the company is frustrated by the pace of the FAA launch licensing process, even going so far as to air its grievances publicly.

The FAA took extra time to review the Flight 5 mission profile.

“SpaceX’s current license authorizing the Starship Flight 4 launch also allows for multiple flights of the same vehicle configuration and mission profile,” an agency spokesperson told FLYING last month. “SpaceX chose to modify both for its proposed Starship Flight 5 launch which triggered a more in-depth review.”

The FAA evaluated a new splashdown site in the Gulf of Mexico as well as what it predicted would be an unusually large sonic boom during the booster landing, prompting respective 60-day consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It has also proposed more than $630,000 in fines against SpaceX for allegedly violating the terms of its license during two previous missions, neither involving Starship.

According to FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker, the measures are “necessary” for safety. SpaceX takes a decidedly different perspective. It claims the agency communicated a September timeline for Flight 5 that was later revised to late November. Saturday’s approval of a launch license therefore came as a bit of a surprise.

“We continue to be stuck in a reality where it takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware,” SpaceX said in a September update. “This should never happen and directly threatens America’s position as the leader in space.”

SpaceX also faces scrutiny for failing to contain a liquid oxygen spill at Starbase in violation of the Clean Water Act, the EPA told FLYING last month. The company ate a $150,000 fine but denied it expels anything other than regular drinking water.

What’s Next?

If it sticks to the Flight 5 mission profile for the next Starship test, SpaceX will be able to launch under its current license.

But if the firm makes significant modifications—as it is prone to do, given that each mission has been more ambitious than the last—it could become entangled in another FAA feud.

Starship’s debut crewed flight is intended to be the third mission of the Polaris Program—a series of private flights purchased from SpaceX by billionaire CEO Jared Isaacman, the first of which concluded last month. Before then, SpaceX plans to fly hundreds of missions without crew. CEO Elon Musk even said last month that the firm intends to launch routine, uncrewed Starship missions to Mars within two years.

NASA has estimated that the spacecraft will require about 15 test flights before the Starship HLS is ready to put humans back on the moon. The next step for SpaceX will be to validate orbital flight (all Starship missions so far have been suborbital) and demonstrate orbital maneuvers like propellant transfer. That’s exactly what the firm plans to do as early as next year, launching twin Starships that will mate and transfer fuel from one to the other.

Starship is loaded with about 10 million pounds of propellant, generating some 17 million pounds of thrust from its 13 Raptor engines. It boasts greater fuel capacity than any modern technology. But to give it enough juice to fly to the moon and back, it will need to fuel up at an orbital propellant depot. To hit its Artemis III deadline, NASA will need Starship to complete several missions to stock up that fuel supply. Officials are contemplating alternative mission profiles in case there isn’t enough time..

“The pacing item is the rate at which SpaceX can launch the systems that can fuel the depot,” said Lori Glaze, acting deputy associate administrator of NASA’s exploration directorate, earlier this month.

In furtherance of that objective, SpaceX is developing a second launch pad at Starbase. The company also seeks to launch and recover rockets from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, which could increase Starship’s cadence.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Achieves Historic Booster Catch During Starship Test appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The aircraft, also known as the E-freighter, was developed to replace the smaller and less efficient cargo carriers currently in use.

The FAA stamp follows the E-freighter certification by the National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil (ANAC) in July. The aircraft is expected to achieve European certification through the European Union Aviation Safety Agency later this year.

“FAA certification is an important milestone in our passenger-to-freighter conversion program,” Martyn Holmes, chief commercial officer for Embraer Commercial Aviation, said in a statement. “We are excited to enter this market, filling a gap that has evolved in the market to meet the growing demand globally for faster deliveries, not just to metro areas, but to all regions. With our E-Jet footprint across the U.S. and worldwide, we are offering optimum cargo solutions to our customers for this connected world.”

According to Embraer, E-Jets converted to freighters will have over 40 percent more volume capacity and three times the range of large cargo turboropers with up to 30 percent lower operating costs than larger narrow body jets already in use. The company states the maximum structural payload for the E190F is 13,500 kilograms, or 29,762 pounds.

Embraer established the E190F program in May 2022 with the mission of developing an aircraft to address the evolving needs of “e-commerce and modern trade, which require fast deliveries and decentralized operations driving the demand for faster delivery of shipments to regional markets.”

The E-freighter was first flown in April and made its first public appearance at the U.K.’s Farnborough Airshow in July.

Correction: This story was updated on October 16, 2024, to correct the maximum structural payload of the E190F.

The post FAA Certifies Embraer E190F appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“We bought our lake house with our best friends in 2019 but have been going down there [Dale Hollow Lake] since 2017. There was no phone service there, and we didn’t even know that the [Spring Creek Airpark (7KY4) in Albany, Kentucky] runway was a runway at all when we first started visiting,” Barnes said.

“I’ll never forget the time that we pulled onto the runway, which we thought was a large asphalt area/road for the houses, because that’s how we would get to our road and driveway with our boats. There was a massive airplane that had just landed.”

Seeing the Pilatus PC-12 was inspiration for Barnes, an entrepreneur in the healthcare industry, for what her future could look like. The time savings of general aviation were a significant catalyst for her journey into the skies. 

“Since we were going down to the lake every weekend in the summer and it’s a two-and-a-half-hour drive from Bardstown, Kentucky, one way, I told my husband that I was going to learn how to fly,” she said. “Literally the next Monday, I went up to Cardinal Wings Aviation in Louisville and started taking flying lessons.”

Barnes is the first to admit that it took a while to get warmed up to flying in a single engine piston. But she earned her private pilot certificate in nine months and then completed her instrument training shortly thereafter. Around this time, she purchased a 1977 Beechcraft A36 Bonanza.

“When we bought the runway in 2021, we knew it was in some sort of bad escrow and there’s a lot of history with the airport,” she said. “[Prior to us] there were several other owners, and at one point it received federal funding. That was the last time it was paved, in the early 2000s. Something must have happened, because the state took the airport over. And in November 2021, the master commissioner in Albany, Kentucky, partnered with an auction company and auctioned the runway and several other bad status lots off.”

The future of the runway hung in the balance. Would it continue to operate following the well-attended auction had bidders fighting over the property that was within walking distance of a large lake that straddles the Kentucky/Tennessee border? 

“Whenever I found out that the airport was going to come up for sale, I was like, ‘Oh, I did not just go through this entire flight training process and bought an airplane for someone to buy this runway,’” Barnes said.

She and her neighbor, the owner of the PC-12, decided to team up and buy the runway together. Their plans hit turbulence early on, though. 

“Everything was going great the day of the auction, and the auctioneer left the runway to be purchased last,” she said. “So, we sat together the whole day waiting on the runway to go. And there was this young guy sitting at the front who we had never seen before. He was bidding and buying everything, and I knew he was going to be competition.

“I’ll never forget when we started bidding on the runway, because my number was 44, which was great because four is my lucky number. I was ecstatic and knew we were going to get this. But that guy was still bidding against us, so I yelled at him, asking him what he was doing. He said he was a pilot and I told him that we were, too.”

The heckling worked, as he walked back to join the fellow aviators mid-auction. After a quick exchange of pleasantries, the duo became a trio. An LLC was formed shortly after the purchase, of which all three pilots are equal partners. 

“But then, that is when the drama started,” Barnes said. “We were told at the auction that the parcel we were purchasing was the whole thing. But we didn’t know that the runway, when it was built in the 1980s, was actually only 2,200 feet long. So, we only got that much of the 3,300-foot-long runway and were told that the other piece of land had been bought that day and was for sale [at an asking price of twice what the other portion of runway was purchased for].”

After some back and forth, they settled on a mutually agreeable number. Then they learned that another acquisition was needed in order to add the last 300 feet of the runway. This final 5 acres was tied up in a 50-acre parcel that was also sold that day. 

“A year or so after the auction, the gentleman heard that we were ready to buy the last piece of property we needed,” she said. “All said and done, we have bought the runway for a very decent price. The airport is truly making a comeback, and I am excited to see what the next five or 10 years hold because it has so much potential.”

Hoping that the runway wasn’t turned over to a party unwelcoming to aviation, she wanted the other auctioned property to be purchased by pilots.

“There are about 10 of us right now that use the airport regularly during the summer,” she said. “And it’s definitely coming back as an aviation place because I actually had several lots that I purchased with the runway and sold them to people that were in aviation. That was the goal, since I did not want to sell the lots to someone who would just put a camper or a house on them. Two of the lots are going to have four hangars with apartments above them and the other .9 acres is currently for sale.” 

Now that the dust has settled from the whirlwind of activity required to piece together three properties, the group can properly think about the future of Spring Creek Airport. Their main goal recently has been to get the airport back on the charts as a private facility.

“It took me a while to get in contact with the right departments [at the FAA] to help me start the process of getting the airport back on the charts,” she said. “Once the application was complete, the next part was the hardest part for me, which was being patient. [After] the application was submitted for about a year and no contact from the FAA, I got an email contact from the representative who was working my case. Once we got in contact, and it was on his priority list, the process moved quicker, and it was on the charts five months later. As of the navigation cycle that was updated on September 5, the airport is officially back on the sectional as 7KY4.”

Barnes and the other owners are exploring the possibility of receiving state or federal discretionary funds to invest in the airport’s infrastructure. 

“The runway needs to be repaved, that’s for sure,” she said. “There are a lot of avenues that I want to explore to see what we potentially could get before we go investing a lot of money. We got a quote from an asphalt company to see what it would cost to repave the runway, and we are looking at anywhere from $500,000 to $700,000. With the airport the way it is, that’s not something that me and the partners want to invest in until it’s no longer usable. Then that’s something that we’re going to have to talk about more.”

The post Getting Spring Creek Airpark Back on the Charts appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Boeing production has been under the microscope since January, when an improperly installed door plug blew out from an Alaska Airlines 737 900 Max as it climbed out of Portland International Airport (KPDX). There were no serious injuries and the aircraft was able to return to the airport for a safe landing.

• READ MORE: NTSB Issues Urgent Safety Warning for Some Boeing 737s

The event prompted government officials including the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and DOT to take a closer look at Boeing and its relationship with the FAA, the agency responsible for certifying aircraft.

The OIG audit issued 16 recommendations for the FAA to improve its oversight, including developing a structured approach for assessing Boeing production, and guidance for evaluating the company’s supplier control.

FAA Responds

The OIG report noted that the FAA lacks “an effective system” to oversee individual Boeing factories and has not assessed the effectiveness of Boeing’s safety management system. Earlier this year, the latter was discussed at length at NTSB hearings addressing the door plug event.

FAA officials said the agency “concurs with all the OIG’s recommendations and has provided the Inspector General an implementation timeframe,” according to a statement sent to FLYING. “The agency is committed to continuously improving our oversight processes and took aggressive action following the January 5 Alaska Airline door plug incident.”

• READ MORE: Boeing Considers ‘Next Steps’ After Pulling Contract Offer for Striking Workers

In addition to enhanced oversight of the aircraft manufacturer, “The FAA is currently conducting a comprehensive, systemwide review of our oversight models,” the agency said. “This work, in alignment with the OIG’s recommendations and recently passed reauthorization legislation, will enhance the agency’s capabilities to provide more dynamic, data driven oversight.”

Boeing officials continue to “engage transparently” with stakeholders and federal regulators in order to improve quality and “regain the trust of the flying public,” the company told FLYING in a statement. 

“This audit reinforces the improvements we are making as part of the Safety and Quality Plan we presented to the FAA in May 2024,” the manufacturer said. “Our plan emphasizes workforce training, simplifying manufacturing plans, eliminating defects, strengthening our safety and quality culture, and monitoring the health of our entire production system including with suppliers.”

The post DOT Audit: FAA’s Boeing Oversight ‘Not Effective’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, the bodies of five adults were discovered at the crash site, located in steep, rugged terrain approximately a mile west of the airport. Emergency crews were dispatched following a 911 call from a cellphone that indicated involvement in a collision, providing GPS coordinates for the location.

KTLA reported that the aircraft belonged to Ali Safai, 73, a former flight instructor, who made the trip from Santa Monica Airport to Catalina Airport to help two pilots from Proteus Flight school who were stranded due to mechanical issues. FlightAware shows the aircraft departed Santa Monica Airport around 6 p.m. and arrived at Catalina Airport some 20 minutes later.  

Tuesday’s crash occurred around 8 p.m. though the airport officially closes at 5 p.m. It is unclear if the pilot had prior permission to operate after hours.

Catalina Airport, often referred to as the “Airport in the Sky,” is situated at an elevation of 1,602 feet on an island 25 miles off the coast of Los Angeles. Its single 3,000-foot runway can present challenges for pilots, particularly due to potential downdrafts caused by the surrounding terrain.

The NTSB and FAA said the crash occurred under “unknown circumstances” and the investigation is ongoing.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Investigation Underway Following Crash Near Catalina Airport appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to The FAA National Airspace System status webpage, 11 airports remained closed to commercial traffic Thursday, with most requiring prior permission (PPR) for emergency and relief aircraft.

Airport maintenance crews throughout the Sunshine State inspected facilities for damage, as did the FAA.

• READ MORE: Here’s How the FAA Prepares Year-Round for Hurricanes 

Tampa International Airport (KTPA) remained closed midday Thursday, but said it would soon announce its plans to resume flights? “The TPA team is hard at work assessing and cleaning up the damage left in Hurricane Milton’s wake. We remain closed at this time and are working toward sharing reopening plans later today,” it said.

CLEANUP UNDERWAY: The TPA team is hard at work assessing and cleaning up the damage left in Hurricane Milton’s wake. We remain closed at this time and are working toward sharing reopening plans later today. Stay tuned to our social media for the latest updates. pic.twitter.com/A8KSk25NyS

— Tampa International Airport (@FlyTPA) October 10, 2024

Daytona Beach International Airport, which closed to commercial flights Wednesday morning, said its reopening on Friday would be determined after post-storm inspections. 

At least one Florida airport reported damage. Melbourne Orlando International Airport (KMLB) lost a 30-by-40-foot section of roof and part of a skylight in its center terminal, USA Today reported. The airport was closed at the time and no injuries were reported.

• READ MORE: ‘Hurricane Hunters’ Fly Into the Eye of Hurricane Milton

According to the National Hurricane Center, the remnants of Milton continued to pose a risk as the storm moved offshore. “A storm surge warning remains in effect for portions of the east coast of Florida and southern coast of Georgia,” as the risk of “considerable urban flooding” lingered across the east central portion of the state, it said at 11 a.m. EST. 

The post Florida Airports Assess Hurricane Milton Damage appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Predictably, less common aircraft types tend to have fewer STCs to choose from. More popular types, however, might have several hundred that have been developed and offered over the years, particularly if the type was produced for a long period of time. 

Curious about what STCs have been approved for my Cessna 170B since the type was introduced in 1952, I moseyed over to the FAA’s somewhat clunky STC database. There, I typed in “170B” in the model/series field and was presented with 377 results.

Fortunately, the list was downloadable, and I went to work sorting and exploring them to find the most unusual STCs of all.

Tricycle-Gear Conversion

The predecessor to the massively successful Cessna 172 Skyhawk was a taildragger that was nearly identical—the Cessna 170. But before Cessna introduced their tricycle-gear 172, a company called Met-Co-Aire spotted the untapped market and introduced a tricycle-gear conversion for the 170.

The end result was a Cessna 170 with tall, ungainly tricycle gear. The awkward look came from repurposing the existing main gear legs, simply moving them backward to continue their main gear duties in a different location. The tall gear legs necessitated a correspondingly tall nose gear, and the result is the aesthetic abomination seen here. 

If it’s an abomination in terms of aesthetics, it’s doubly so in spirit. Gone is the elegant stance of the classic taildragger, and gone is the visual connection to aviation’s golden age. In their place comes increased stability on the ground and additional capability in crosswinds. 

It’s unclear exactly how many Cessna 170s were converted in such a manner. What is clear is that all—or almost all—examples have since been converted back to their proper, original configurations. 

Aftermarket Windshield Wiper

I have mixed feelings about this one. I want to hate it, and I want to ridicule it. But if I’m being completely honest, I do very much hate when my vision and focus suffer as I’m peering through a rain-covered windshield.

In 1961, a company called American Concorde Systems figured others would share this opinion. Accordingly, it spent the time and money necessary to have its aftermarket windshield wiper approved for over a dozen Cessna and Beechcraft types, including the 170 series. But to date, I can’t recall ever seeing such an installation in the wild on any of them.

It’s probably for good reason. Faced with the annoyance of water droplets on the windshield, I suspect a healthy treatment of Rain-X would solve 80 percent of the problem with none of the weight, complexity, or cost of installing an aftermarket wiper system. And if the system performs anything like its automotive counterparts, smeared bug guts would instantly create a near-total lack of forward vision.

But you’ve gotta love the creativity that drove such efforts in those days.

Cessna 170-Series Medevac Stretcher

When I discovered the AvFab “Cessna Stretcher” approved for installation in four-place 100-series Cessnas, as well as the 205, 206, 207, and 210, disaster relief and humanitarian aid efforts were the furthest thing from my mind. Instead, I immediately envisioned the ultimate Oshkosh camping solution.

Designed to replace the front passenger seat entirely, with the pillow area resting atop the rear bench seat, this stretcher is intended for the transport of individuals in need of medical treatment. But when I look at it, I see a solution that would eliminate the need for tents, cots, and sleeping pads at EAA AirVenture—a solution that would keep you high and dry no matter how strong the Wisconsin thunderstorms might be on any given year.

Alas, a closer look and a request for a price quote revealed disappointing news—the stretcher sells for a stupefying $8,794. Clearly, this item was priced with American medical insurance in mind. Not private aircraft owners. With that nine grand stuffed into my savings account, I think I’ll sleep just fine with my current tent setup.

Burglar Alarm System

The early 1990s were a wild time. Vanilla Ice was topping the charts, The Arsenio Hall Show was in full swing, and car audio installers were raking in cash from the installation of Alpine car stereos, Cerwin-Vega speakers, car phones, and car alarms. Equipped with such luxuries, all that was left was to lean back and look cool in your Ford Mustang 5.0.

GA aircraft largely escaped Vanilla Ice and 10-inch woofers—but not alarms. In 1991, a company called Thompson Aero Security secured an STC for a dedicated aircraft burglar alarm. Details are scarce, but the STC is mentioned in discussions and documents spanning a wide variety of aircraft types, from Cessnas to Citabrias to Swifts to Seabees. 

Do I have any need for such an alarm system? Despite the investment I’ve got in my beautiful Garmin panel, I can’t imagine the wailing of a random obnoxious alarm would send many bystanders running to foil such a property theft crime. But then again, it would be pretty funny to walk toward a buddy on the ramp after parking, pull out a small keyring fob, press a button, and be rewarded with the chirp-chirp from my plane’s alarm system behind me.

‘Wings with Springs’

This one is downright insane. In the 1950s, a man named Earl Metzler devised a suspension system for aircraft wings. Marketing it as a gust alleviation system that provided a smoother ride, increased stability, easier “steep and quick turns,” and slower landings, he called his system “Wings with Springs” and, in 1964, was awarded an STC for Cessna 170 through 182 models.

The design frightens me. The wing spar is modified to incorporate hinges at the wing roots and oil-damped nitrogen-filled cylinders to the base of each wing strut. Sitting stationary on the ground, a visible droop is apparent, with each wing sagging noticeably. A company brochure states that, in flight, the “wing tip will elevate to three and one-half feet above the level position.”

Apparently, the system did indeed provide some measure of comfort in bumpy air. Nevertheless, not enough airplane owners were convinced that the benefit was worth adding additional parts, complexity, and potential points of failure to their wings, and by all accounts, only a handful of systems were sold and installed.

Today, there’s no evidence of any Wings with Springs systems remaining installed or in active use. But at least one Cessna 170B retains the STC approval despite being returned to its standard factory design…and the STC is still active on the FAA’s registry.

This means that the current STC holder could, in theory, resume production and sales of this crazy modification.

The post Seeing Your Aircraft Through the Lens of Odd Mods appeared first on FLYING Magazine.