The job of an air traffic controller (ATC) is a challenging and oftentimes stressful one. At the same time, it can be a rewarding and exciting career choice. Here is what you need to know about becoming an air traffic controller.

3 Steps to Becoming an Air Traffic Controller

1. Meet the Basic Eligibility Requirements

In the United States, most civilian ATCs are FAA employees. The agency hires periodically for the air traffic control jobs, which are also sometimes referred to as air traffic specialists.

Basic eligibility requirements include U.S. citizenship, three years of general work experience or four years of education leading to a bachelor’s degree (or a combination of both), the ability to speak English clearly, and a willingness to relocate.

Applicants must also be younger than 31 years of age, but there are exceptions for experienced ATCs. Males must also be registered for the Selective Service System if they are required to do so.

2. Apply

The FAA typically runs an annual recruitment campaign with a short application window lasting only a few days. Applications are submitted through the federal government’s job site, USA Jobs.

Applicants will then need to pass a skills assessment at an approved testing facility. The assessment is a multipart aptitude test that includes memory games, air traffic simulation, a personality test, and more.

The next step is to pass medical and security clearances. These include drug testing, medical exam, psychological testing, and federal background check.

3. Training

Successful applicants attend the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. ATC trainees are placed in one of three tracks (En Route, Terminal Radar, or Tower). Their time at the academy ranges from two to five months, depending on the track. 

Training continues at an air traffic control facility following graduation. It can take up to three years to be a fully certified controller.

Air Traffic Controller Salary

While attending the FAA Academy, trainees receive a pay of around $37,000 plus a per diem of approximately $100 per day.

Once they are assigned to a facility, their minimum annual wage is around $46,000 plus a locality pay that depends on their assigned facility. This typically leads to an annual salary of approximately $60,000 to $70,000.

ATCs receive salary increases as they complete each training phase, as well as throughout their careers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median pay for air traffic controllers in 2023 was $137,380 per year or $66.05 per hour.

Work Locations

FAA air traffic controllers work at facilities across the country.

While tower controllers work at airports, those in the other two tracks might work elsewhere. The facilities for En Route controllers and Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) controllers are typically not located at an airport.

Applicants must be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the country. While they are given the opportunity to provide geographic preferences, the FAA assigns controllers based on its needs. Controllers can transfer between facilities throughout their careers.

Other Ways of Becoming an Air Traffic Controller

There are a few other ways of becoming an air traffic controller in the United States.

One is by joining the military as an ATC. Military controllers can earn the same FAA certifications as civilian controllers. In fact, many choose to become FAA air traffic controllers after they leave the military.

The FAA also has around 250 contract towers that are staffed by employees of private contracted companies. The approximately 1,400 air traffic contract controllers have to meet the same qualification and training requirements as FAA controllers. However, these companies typically only hire controllers who are already certified, meaning that most new hires are former FAA employees or military controllers.

The post How to Become an Air Traffic Controller appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In the U.S., carriers have canceled 1,017 flights, or 4.2 percent of their planned schedule, so far. American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines say they have resumed some flights while Southwest Airlines has remained largely unaffected by the outage.

Other non-U.S.-based carriers, including Air France, KLM, and Singapore Airlines, also reported IT troubles on Friday.

The FAA said it is “closely monitoring” the issue in a statement.

“Several airlines have requested FAA assistance with ground stops for their fleets until the issue is resolved,” the agency added. “For more information, monitor fly.faa.gov for updates.”

U.S. carriers were scheduled to operate 27,000 flights on Friday, carrying up to 3.7 million passengers.

What’s Happening?

Airlines around the world are experiencing major IT issues, leading to widespread flight disruptions. The problems reportedly stem from a software update issued by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike that has caused computers running Microsoft Windows to crash.

CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz announced on social media that the issue had been identified and isolated, and engineers had deployed a fix. However, the outage has already impacted airlines, airports, banks, media companies, and other institutions globally.

The situation is still developing, and it remains to be seen how quickly the fix will resolve the issues.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AirlineGeeks.com.

The post Global IT Outage Spurs Cancellations of Thousands of Flights appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

• READ MORE: What Is the Rudder Used for in Flying?

Answer: According to an FAA spokesperson:  “Generally speaking, the FAA will accept [a pilot’s] last airman certificate application (Form 8710-1) or what they reported on their last medical application (Form 8500-8).” You should have access to at least one of those documents.

Pro tip: Moving forward, you may want to invest in an electronic logbook and save the information to the cloud, or at least record a digital image of each page of the paper logbook when you fill it up. If you rent aircraft, sometimes you can re-create your experience by cross-referencing your receipts. 

• READ MORE: Is There an Official Weather Briefing?

Do you have a question about aviation that’s been bugging you? Ask us anything you’ve ever wanted to know about aviation. Our experts in general aviation, flight training, aircraft, avionics, and more may attempt to answer your question in a future article.

The post What to Do When You Lose Your Logbook appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In a letter to the FAA penned by John Nichols, the mayor of College Station, Texas—one of two locations where Prime Air began flying in 2022—on behalf of the city council he urged the regulator to deny a request that would more than double the service’s range. The mayor cited noise concerns from residents as the chief factor guiding the city’s position.

College Station has become a critical hub for Prime Air, which has struggled to get its drone delivery service off the ground. The city was intended to be one of two key launch markets in addition to Lockeford, California, but the latter service was shuttered in April after a less-than-stellar performance in a little more than its first year.

That leaves College Station as the sole market for Prime Air operations, and Amazon recently bolstered the service by adding on-demand delivery of prescription medications for the flu, asthma, pneumonia, and more. The e-commerce giant is also looking to bring drones to the Phoenix metro area in Arizona and has teased an international expansion to the U.K. and Italy.

Last year, Prime Air unveiled its MK30 drone, which is rangier, quieter, and more durable than its current MK27-2. To integrate the new model into its Texas fleet, the company submitted a draft supplemental environmental assessment to the FAA summarizing the MK30’s potential impacts on College Station residents.

Since the new model can fly in light rain and more extreme temperatures than the MK27-2, Amazon proposes operations 365 days per year, an increase from 260. Flights per day would increase from 200 to about 470 and would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. CT, removing an FAA restriction limiting flights to daytime hours.

Under the proposal, the company’s operating area would expand from 43.7 to 174 square miles. The expansion to 43.7 square miles happened earlier this year, when the FAA granted Amazon approval to fly its drones where its pilots cannot physically see them. Comparable waivers have been handed out to competitors such as Zipline, Alphabet’s Wing, and UPS’s Flight Forward, similarly allowing those companies to expand their service areas through remote operations.

If approved, the lighter restrictions would allow Prime Air to fly more than 170,000 operations per year in College Station with the MK30, compared to 52,000 with its current model.

Nichols said that the city is excited to be one of the few in the U.S. to host a drone delivery service. But that came with a caveat.

“While the city is supportive of Amazon Prime Air’s efforts, we do not support their request in its entirety,” Nichols wrote. “Since locating in College Station, residents in neighborhoods adjacent to Amazon Prime Air’s facility have expressed concern to the city council regarding drone noise levels, particularly during takeoff and landing, as well as in some delivery operations.”

According to Nichols, residents “have continued” to voice concerns regarding Prime Air’s planned expansion, worrying that the noise will only worsen. The mayor added that the expanded service area could extend beyond the city’s commercial zoning district, which is intended to limit commercial spillover into residential neighborhoods.

“Due to the level of concern from residents, the city would ask to delay the increase in service levels relating to the number of deliveries, as well as the expanded operation days and hours, until additional noise mitigation efforts are implemented by Amazon Prime Air,” Nichols wrote.

Nichols did offer support, however, for the introduction of the MK30, which is expected to be 40 percent quieter than its predecessor. It is unclear whether the new drone would represent sufficient “noise mitigation efforts” in the city council’s eyes, though Nichols said it would have a “positive effect” on residents’ displeasure.

The comment period for the environmental assessment closed on Friday, and the city and Prime Air will now have to wait for the FAA’s decision. Amazon is also awaiting comments and a final decision on a draft environmental assessment for its planned Arizona service.

Should the proposed expansion be rejected, it would represent yet another blow for Prime Air, which so far has not delivered on former CEO Jeff Bezos’ prognostications more than a decade ago.

In that time, competitors such as Zipline and Wing have risen to the top of the young industry—each of those firms has completed multiple hundred thousands of drone deliveries, including outside the U.S.

Prime Air’s future prospects may be bolstered by the MK30, which promises to address some of the company’s problems: namely range, excessive noise, and limitations on deliveries in inclement weather.

Amazon is not the only drone delivery provider contending with unhappy customers. Earlier this month, a Florida man was arrested for shooting down a Walmart delivery drone he said was flying over his house.

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

The post Texans Push Back on Amazon’s Proposed Drone Delivery Expansion appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The issue of what is legal (in FAA terms) and approved (by manufacturers) puts maintainers in a sticky situation. On one hand, the FAA issues a supplemental type certificate (STC) allowing for products to deploy on aircraft, but the engine and/or aircraft manufacturer may not approve or recognize the STC as something permitted for use under the terms of their warranty. 

Whether an aircraft owner or operator chooses to use the alternate fuel or not is a matter of choice. The fuel has been approved by the FAA and is perfectly legal to use in the SR series aircraft. The dilemma for the maintainer arises upon returning a Cirrus aircraft to service even for something as routine as an oil change. 

• READ MORE: Identifying Corrosion in All Its Forms

Consider this scenario. The pilot opted to refuel with G100UL or the aircraft arrived with G100UL in the tank. This alternate fuel is a drop-in replacement, so 100UL could have been added to 100LL already in the tank. Granted the maintenance action in this case did not involve fuel, but the maintainer is signing for the entire aircraft to be returned to service. If they sign the repair IAW OEM guidelines, this includes Service Advisories (including one that prohibits the use of G100UL fuel). Consequently if the aircraft is carrying G100UL, then this could be an issue because the aircraft is not being returned to service IAW this Cirrus SB.

Of course, as with any guideline, the issue of signing for an aircraft is subject to interpretation. I know mechanics that will only work on aircraft they have personal history with and do not want to return to service an inherited unrecognized maintenance action.

In the advisory (SA24-14) “Transition to Unleaded Fuel and Use of Non-Cirrus Approved Fuel in SR Series Aircraft” released June 18, Cirrus said it was committed to the industry’s transition to unleaded fuels, which is underscored by its collaboration with stakeholders such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), FAA, and Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) industry initiative.

Aircraft and engine manufacturer’s are extremely risk averse. They historically do not recognize alternate methods of airworthiness, and this includes STCs, parts manufacturer approval (PMA) parts, and designated engineering representative (DER) repairs.

There is a commercial element to this since any aftermarket PMA part procured from a third party is a revenue lost for the OEM. It appears the reason for the SB in this specific case is Cirrus’ concern about the breakdown of a fuel tank sealant that was seen in an isolated (one) aircraft known to have been fueled with G100UL.

The company will need to vet this against other aircraft in the fleet to ascertain if the perceived breakdown is an isolated outlier related to the drop-in fuel, or if the dislodged fuel tank sealant was a manufacturing defect unrelated to the use of G100UL. 

• READ MORE: 5 Attributes of a Top-Notch Maintenance Provider

“While some aspects of the initial Cirrus testing of the GAMI G100UL fuel are encouraging, other areas, including materials compatibility, remain inconclusive,” the advisory said. “At this time, Cirrus does not approve the use of GAMI G100UL fuel in Cirrus SR Series airplanes. Per Continental and Lycoming, only approved fuels may be used for an engine to be covered by warranty.” 

According to the FAA, G100UL is safe to use, hence the STC approval. This took years of testing to clear the milestones. In fact GAMI uses the fuel in its company SR22..

According to GAMI, the fuel has undergone substantial testing and displayed no issues on other aircraft. The company also disputes Cirrus’ claim that using G100UL voids the warranties on engines supplied by Lycoming and Continental, however, the engine manufacturers have confirmed its use could affect warranty claims, according to AVweb. 

Tim Roehl, president of GAMI, indicated that his team is drafting a formal response to Cirrus Service Advisory SA24-14 to be posted on its website. Roehl also said that the sealant Cirrus references is not the polysulfide sealant more commonly used in the industry but a polythioether sealant. Roehl stated that G100UL has been in service since 2010 on one wing of the company’s Cirrus SR22, using the same polythioether sealant Cirrus uses, with zero incidents.

The FAA does not comment on specific OEM warranty policies but the agency has reiterated that GAMI’s G100UL does have the STC approval. This is not uncommon as the FAA routinely approves alternate solutions without the buy-in from OEMs. The burden is on the third-party solution provider to prove airworthiness—i.e. STC holder, PMA manufacturer, or designated engineering representative for DER repairs.

What This Means for Maintainers

This fuel issue places aircraft maintenance professionals in a bit of a quandary. On one side, you have the FAA approval for G100UL, but at least one aircraft manufacturer, Cirrus, and one engine manufacturer, say they are not approved via service advisories.

The FAA typically steers clear of airframe/powerplant OEM issues until they become an airworthiness directive (AD). To assist in clearing any confusion, the agency issues periodic documents to help owner/operator/maintainer stay abreast of the situation. One such publication is the FAASTeam service bulletins.

When asked if service bulletins are mandatory, the FAA says: It depends. 

Here is a quick agency ruling: “If you are operating your aircraft under 14 CFR part 91, a service bulletin is advisory, and compliance is not mandatory unless it is included in an Airworthiness Directive.”

Another resource is FAA Advisory Circular AC 20-114, which addresses manufacturers’ service documents: “Service documents should be neither treated nor represented as the official FAA approval documents, unless either a letter of design approval from the FAA or a record that compliance has been determined by an FAA designee is on file for recommended actions indicated as FAA-approved in service documents.”

That said, service documents are beneficial and transmit a wealth of knowledge. When returning aircraft to service, it is critical to list if the action is in accordance with OEM information or another alternate form of maintenance. This comes into play when installing PMA parts, or an STC like G100UL.

The post Cirrus Service Advisory Throws Fuel on G100UL Maintenance Debate appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Thank goodness you use paper,” he said, going on to tell me that he wanted to learn using paper sectionals and navlogs, and once he mastered those, he might move into using an electronic flight bag (EFB).

He said he wanted to learn to use analog tools because that’s how he processed information best. Also, he said he knew devices could fail or go missing, and if you don’t have an analog backup, the mission would be over. He worked in the tech industry (space flight), where equipment and technology failures are planned for.

I have no problem teaching with paper. With primary learners, I prefer it, as learning to flight plan the “old-school” way provides a good base on which technology can be added at a later date.

According to multiple CFIs and DPEs I know, many pilots who are solely training using EFBs and an app for their cross-country planning are often weak in the elements of a VFR flight plan because they never learned how to do it beyond putting information into a computer and letting the app do its magic. They often do not understand where the data comes from, which makes it difficult to know if it is corrupt or incorrect for the given situation.

The Airman Certification Standards (ACS) note that the EFB is permitted, as the focus of that portion is that the applicant “demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of cross-country flight planning.” That includes route planning, airspace, selection of appropriate and available navigation/communication systems and facilities, altitude accounting for terrain, effects of wind, time to climb and descent rates, true course, distances, true heading, true airspeed and ground speed, estimated time of arrival, fuel requirements, and all other elements of a VFR flight plan.

It’s difficult to learn this past rote memory when the computer does all the planning for you. This is why many CFIs opt to teach both methods, and often begin with the basics, a paper sectional and looking out the window before adding in the use of the EFB. 

Analog Cross-Country Flight Planning

Flight planning begins with a paper sectional, navlog, plotter, and mechanical E6-B. I’m a fan of the E6-B because the wind side is very useful for determining crosswind components.

The instructions for the use of the device are printed on it. All the calculations are basically math story problems, and the instructions walk you through the process. The plotter also has instructions printed on it. The informational boxes on the paper navlog are labeled so you know where to put the information.

The lesson begins with reading the empty navlog. The CFI explains the terms true course, variation, magnetic heading, deviation, and compass heading. Now flip over the E6-B to the wind side, where the formulas for calculating this information are printed. Identify the directions for determining ground speed and wind-correction angle, noting that process is also printed on the device. 

• READ MORE: How To Use a E6B Flight Computer

Now it’s time to spread out the sectional and get to work, picking landmarks to use as check points for pilotage, determining the true course, finding the deviation, etc. The filling out of the navlog begins with the recording of the checkpoints and measuring distances between them. Put this information in the appropriate boxes. Always do this process in pencil and have an eraser handy.

Make sure the destination meets the definition of a cross-country flight for the certificate you seek. For private pilot airplane, it is 50 nm straight-line distance, and for sport pilots, 25 nm. Be sure you are using the correct scale on the plotter. 

I walk the learners through the first two lines of the navlog. This takes them from the departure airport to the top of climb, and then the first leg of the flight. Once the navlog is filled out, we go to the performance section of the POH to determine true airspeed (TAS), fuel burn, and time to climb. 

• READ MORE: Make Friends With the E6B

The wind side of the mechanical E6-B  is used to determine the wind correction angle. Pro tip: if you will be using more than one set of wind values for the flight, give them distinct symbols on the E6-B, such as an “X” for the winds at 3,000 feet and a “dot” for the winds at 6,000 feet.

Make sure to note the winds and the symbol on the navlog and do not erase the wind marks until after the completion of the flight. This is important, because if you need to divert (and you will have to demonstrate this on your check ride), you don’t want to lose time re-marking the wind dot on the E6-B.

Many learners find analog flight planning fun. There certainly is a sense of accomplishment after you’ve learned what makes a good checkpoint, how to measure the distances, determine aircraft performance and— the big kahuna— how to “spin the winds” on the mechanical E6-B to determine ground speed and time en route. Yes, those instructions are printed on the face of the device.

Applicants, please make sure you can navigate when technology—particularly the GPS—is taken away. By the way, DPEs are permitted to fail devices during the check ride. Fair warning: Don’t be the applicant who pulls out a second iPad or cell phone as backup because you’re missing the point. 

Putting all your eggs in the tech basket isn’t going to help when the iPad overheats, there is a signal outage, or the device is otherwise rendered unusable. If you don’t have the ability to navigate by pilotage or the compass, are you really qualified to be in that cockpit?

Benefits of the EFB

The EFB is more environmentally friendly than paper charts and sectional because you don’t have to cut down trees to get the information. Updating the information is easier as it can be done with a keystroke rather than a purchase, and it creates a more organized cockpit as the tablet stores the information and it can be accessed with a swipe of a finger rather than doing an advanced yoga pose in flight to reach for your flight bag.

The tablets come in several sizes, and there are many options for mounting them, including yoke or kneeboard. I’m not a fan of the suction-cup-on-the-windscreen method as that blocks part of your view outside.

If you opt for a yoke-mounted unit, make sure it doesn’t interrupt the travel of the yoke or stick or put the aircraft in a permanent bank. There are some tablets that are just too large for the cockpit. If you opt for a kneeboard-mounted device, make sure your kneeboard holds it securely and the kneeboard stays in place.

• READ MORE: Who Wins the Battle of the Aviation Kneeboards?

As far as  data plans for navigation applications, you may find that the annual cost is competitive with that of replacing the paper sectionals and chart supplements.

The EFB is a wonderful tool, but like all tools it can be misused. It shouldn’t become a crutch for the pilot who has forgotten how to read a sectional because of disuse. Don’t be that pilot who becomes so reliant on technology for navigation that you forget to look out the window. 

The post The Wisdom in Not Putting All Your Eggs in the Tech Basket appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to the DOJ, Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud charge after the government determined the aerospace manufacturer had violated an agreement that protected it from prosecution.

Last week federal prosecutors gave Boeing a choice between entering a guilty plea and paying a fine or facing trial on the felony charge of conspiracy to defraud the U.S.

• READ MORE: DOJ Presents Boeing With Plea Deal in 737 Max Crash Cases

Federal prosecutors allege that Boeing misled regulators about the flight control system known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which was ostensibly designed as a flight stabilization feature on the 737. 

MCAS was implicated in the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia in October 2018 and the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019. In both events the aircraft entered unrecoverable dives shortly after takeoff.

The DOJ accused Boeing of deceiving the FAA to push through certification of the 737 Max despite concerns about the software connected to the flight controls and the additional training required for pilots who flew the airplane.

“We can confirm that we have reached an agreement in principle on terms of a resolution with the Justice Department,” Boeing told FLYING, adding, “subject to the memorialization and approval of specific terms.”

The plea deal must be approved by a federal judge before it takes effect. It calls for Boeing to pay an additional fine of $243.6 million, which is the same amount the company paid in 2021 in the original settlement that the DOJ says the company breached, as it did not improve its safety and quality control processes.

• READ MORE: Boeing Crash Victim Families Seek $24.8B Fine From Company

The company maintained this had been achieved, then in January a Boeing 737 flown by Alaska Airlines lost a door plug midflight. The preliminary investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) revealed the door plug had been installed without four bolts designed to keep it in place.

As previously reported by FLYING, since the incident Boeing maintains that it has taken steps to improve quality control and safety culture at its manufacturing facilities, and the company is working with the FAA to improve communication and oversight.

According to Mark Lindquist, an aviation and personal injury attorney who represented several victim families in the two 737 Max 8 crashes as well as multiple passengers in the Alaska door plug blowout, Boeing had no choice but to accept the plea deal.

• READ MORE: FAA Head Vows Increase in Boeing Oversight

“Boeing’s guilty plea was inevitable,” Lindquist said. “Boeing can stall and postpone accountability, but justice has a way of catching up to defendants. While many of us would have preferred a more vigorous prosecution, a guilty plea to a felony is a serious step up in accountability from the initial deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice.”

Lindquist noted that the families of the victims will be asking the judge not to accept the plea deal in its current form. One of the criticisms put forth by members of the victims’ families during congressional testimony and national media interviews is that Boeing has been fined before, yet the problems still persist.

“More than five years after 346 people died in two preventable crashes, it’s high time for Boeing to accept full responsibility, resolve pending cases, reform its culture, and rebuild,” said Lindquist. “Justice and accountability are important, but it’s also important to victim families—and the nation—that Boeing no longer sacrifices safety for profits. Next steps for the company should include accepting full responsibility in the civil cases filed by victim families. Many of us would like to see Boeing refocus on quality and return to its former greatness…

“A trial would have aired out all of Boeing’s negligence, misconduct, and dirty laundry. Additionally, the evidence was overwhelming. Therefore, Boeing had little choice but to plead guilty.”

The latest DOJ plea deal also requires Boeing to invest at least $455 million into its safety and compliance programs.

FLYING reached out to the DOJ but requests for comment were not returned by press time.

This is a developing story.

The post Boeing to Plead Guilty in DOJ 737 Max Crash Cases appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Last week, Blue Origin filed a public comment to the FAA requesting that the regulator limit the number of launches of SpaceX’s Starship—the largest and most powerful rocket ever built—out of Launch Complex-39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, which currently hosts the company’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets.

The FAA in May released a SpaceX proposal for high-frequency Starship operations at Kennedy, including the construction of infrastructure that would allow Musk’s firm to complete 44 launches per year.

The filing is the latest wrinkle in the multiyear feud between Musk and Bezos, who have exchanged taunts and legal actions as they battle for supremacy in the commercial spaceflight industry. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have obtained contracts from U.S. government agencies such as NASA and the Pentagon and intend to make cosmic tourism a piece of their business.

“Sue Origin,” Musk bantered on social media platform X, which he acquired in 2022.

In a subsequent post, the SpaceX boss added, “An obviously disingenuous response. Not cool of them to try (for the third time) to impede SpaceX’s progress by lawfare.”

The public comment filed by Blue Origin has no legal bearing, but the FAA will consider it as it determines what restrictions to place on Starship at Kennedy.

SpaceX is seeking a commercial launch vehicle operator license for Starship operations at Launch Complex 39-A, which will require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS describes the potential effects of those operations on the surrounding environment and was required for SpaceX to begin the Starship orbital test flight program, for example. SpaceX will prepare the assessment itself under FAA supervision.

During Starship’s maiden voyage, which ended in a ball of flames a few minutes into the mission, the impact from the launch caused unexpected damage as far as 6 miles away from the Starbase launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas. The force of Starship broke windows, sent ashy debris into the sky, and brought an FAA investigation into SpaceX’s environmental mitigations, grounding the rocket for months. Five environmental groups sued the FAA over its handling of the mission.

Since then, SpaceX has made several improvements to Starbase to contain Starship’s debris field, and subsequent missions have resulted in little fanfare. However, it appears Blue Origin will use the incident as leverage in its plea to the FAA.

“At Starbase, Starship and Super Heavy test missions have been subject to environmental scrutiny due to their impact on the local environment and community,” the public comment reads, citing the aforementioned lawsuit against the regulator as evidence.

Blue Origin too launches operations out of Kennedy. The company leases Space Launch Complex-36 and occupies several hangars, as well as a manufacturing site, at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), which it says are close to the area SpaceX wants to use.

“Blue Origin employs over 2,700 full-time employees in [Florida’s] Brevard County, including 449 employees at CCSFS that are directly impacted by local launch activities,” the filing reads. “Blue Origin has invested more than $1 billion in capital expenditures to develop [Launch Complex-36] as the first privately built heavy-lift launch complex in the world.”

The company said it worries about the safety of property and personnel during a Starship launch anomaly, such as an explosion, fire, debris, or loud noise. It also argued that Starship operations could impede Blue Origin’s access to shared infrastructure and “limited airspace and maritime resources.”

Starship and the Super Heavy booster hold about 5,200 metric tons of liquid methane for propulsion—the force of which, Blue Origin claims, would impede company and government activities at Kennedy due to the anticipated requirement of a safety margin around the site.

The firm urged the FAA to place a cap on the number of Starship launches, specify and limit launch times, and invest in infrastructure that would make Kennedy and CCSFS safer and more accessible for other launch providers.

It also suggested that SpaceX and the government be required to compensate Blue Origin or other companies whose commercial activities are impacted by Starship, as well as mandatory penalties for SpaceX should it violate the EIS or its license.

Given Bezos’ history with Musk, it’s difficult to say whether genuine concern, a desire to hamper the competition, or both prompted the comment.

Blue Origin is developing an alternative to Starship, New Glenn, but the rocket has faced delays and has yet to fly. New Glenn has collected a handful of customers, including Amazon’s Project Kuiper and NASA, which intends to launch it to Mars on its maiden voyage later this year.

NASA was at the center of the most publicized dispute between Blue Origin and SpaceX. After the space agency tapped SpaceX as the sole provider of a human landing system (HLS) for Artemis missions to the moon, Bezos in 2021 took NASA to court, arguing that it had promised two contracts.

The company would ultimately lose that battle. But the space agency in 2023 announced Blue Origin as the second Artemis HLS provider. Both companies are now working with NASA to develop a revamped plan for the Mars Sample Return Program, each receiving a $1.5 million contract.

The firms are also competing in the military sphere. In 2022, Blue Origin lost out on a pair of Pentagon contracts at the expense of SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But earlier this month, it secured its own agreement with the U.S. Space Force for 30 military launches, worth up to $5.6 billion.

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

The post Blue Origin Urges FAA to Cap SpaceX Launches at Kennedy appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The manufacturer on Tuesday announced the acquisition of Verocel, a software verification and validation (V&V) company focused on the certification of aerospace software—with a particular focus on autonomous designs. Unlike competitors such as Archer Aviation or Joby Aviation, which plan to fly autonomous in the future, Wisk intends for its Gen 6 to fly itself at launch.

Verocel’s flagship offering, VeroTrace, assists manufacturers with software certification definitions, tracking, and submissions to the FAA. Wisk intends to use it to support Gen 6 certification, but it said the software may also be used in “future software development projects for Boeing.” In addition, more than 50 Verocel engineers based in Massachusetts and Poland will join Wisk.

“High-integrity software development is critical for our mission to certify an autonomous, electric aircraft, with V&V being a significant portion of the total software certification effort,” said Brian Yutko, CEO of Wisk. “Verocel’s specialized and talented team will bring with them deep experience and rigor, helping to accelerate our autonomous certification project that is already well underway.”

According to Verocel, team members have extensive knowledge of Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, or DO-178C—a document used by regulators including the FAA, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and Transport Canada to approve commercial aerospace software.

The company is part of several aerospace industry standards committees including a special committee within the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), the EUROCAE Working Group, and the FAA’s Overarching Properties Working Group. Over the course of 25 years and more than 160 projects, it has performed work for Boeing and GE Aerospace, among others.

“Not only is this a chance to directly apply our expertise to the certification of a groundbreaking technology, but this is also an incredible opportunity for Verocel talent to excel within Wisk and the broader Boeing ecosystem long term,” said Jim Chelini, president of Verocel.

Beyond V&V, Verocel also develops the safety computers used in the FAA’s Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), which is intended to improve the accuracy and availability of global positioning systems (GPS). WAAS allows an aircraft to rely on GPS for all phases of flight, including vertical landings.

Wisk is staring down a more rigorous certification process than its competitors, and the acquisition of Verocel is intended to get the ball rolling faster. The manufacturer aims to introduce the Gen 6 before the end of the decade in markets such as Los Angeles and the Greater Houston Area, where it is developing a vertiport hub at Sugar Land Regional Airport (KSGR).

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

The post Boeing Air Taxi Subsidiary Wisk Aero Acquires Verocel appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The FAA—which so far has published final airworthiness criteria for two air taxi designs, Archer Aviation’s Midnight and Joby Aviation’s flagship model—issued an advisory circular (AC) that would create the foundation for certification of powered lift vehicles, such as eVTOL aircraft. The AC, which lays out acceptable means for showing compliance with FAA Part 21 requirements for special class aircraft, is open for comment for 60 days.

EASA, meanwhile, updated its special condition for vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (SC-VTOL) rules to incorporate new requirements agreed upon with the FAA, covering safe flight and landing, handling qualities, and single-point failures.

Simultaneously, the regulators together revised Safety Emphasis Items (SEI) lists—which determine an agency’s level of involvement in aircraft validation projects—for parts 23, 27, and 29. According to the FAA, the partners have reduced SEI requirements and placed greater responsibility on the authority actually certifying the aircraft.

“The FAA and EASA have achieved a significant milestone on the path to certifying eVTOL aircraft,” the FAA said in a statement. “This also marks important progress in our effort to more closely align rulemaking and policy initiatives between the United States and the European Union. We’re committed to ensuring the safety of the flying public both at home and abroad.”

Both the FAA and EASA have announced ambitious initiatives designed to cement their respective AAM industries as the world’s biggest and best. But before tackling challenges such as eVTOL infrastructure, which will require a network of vertiports and electric chargers to support the aircraft, the regulators first need to define clear certification pathways for the novel designs.

The FAA’s new criteria, intended for powered lift designs with maximum weights of 12,500 pounds and a maximum capacity of six passengers, were developed using standards in FAA parts 23, 27, 33, and 35. The regulator said it leveraged its work on Archer and Joby’s type certification applications to develop the standards, claiming they will create a more efficient path to developing the certification bases for powered lift projects.

For example, the FAA will no longer need to publish airworthiness criteria in the federal register for public notice and comment, as it was required to do for Archer and Joby’s aircraft, for designs that use the standards in the AC. Applicants can now propose certification bases that draw from previously approved designs, such as Archer’s Midnight, or use equivalent level of safety findings to adopt existing airworthiness criteria for their own projects.

EASA, which had already published an initial set of standards for VTOL projects, made a few key changes in the second issue of its SC-VTOL criteria. Unlike the FAA AC, it will not be subject to public consultation.

The most notable change is an increase of the maximum certified takeoff mass (MCTOM) from 7,000 pounds to about 12,500 pounds, one of many examples of the regulator adjusting standards or wording to better align with the FAA AC.

Another key provision is the introduction of a requirement around electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWIS), which transmit data and signals across aircraft systems. Manufacturers will need to prove these can be operated without risk.

So far, China’s EHang is the only eVTOL manufacturer in the world to achieve type certification, awarded by China’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAAC) for the company’s EH216-S in October. Already, the manufacturer has completed commercial demonstration flights and begun mass production.

Things are moving a bit slower in the West, much to the chagrin of U.S. lawmakers and regulators, who don’t anticipate AAM operations at scale until 2028. It’s no secret that Western officials are wary of Chinese drones and electric vehicles, and the country’s growing AAM industry could be a threat to their dominance in that sphere as well.

Monday’s announcements should help accelerate the technology’s growth in the U.S. and Europe. In the coming months, expect the list of eVTOL companies with type certification bases to grow beyond Archer, Joby, and the handful of companies, among them Lilium and Volocopter, collaborating with EASA.

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

The post FAA, EASA Release New Certification Criteria for Air Taxis appeared first on FLYING Magazine.