The 38-page document, released Wednesday, paints the manufacturer’s quality control practices as inadequate and its workforce as insufficiently trained, blaming it for cost increases and schedule delays in the development of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B. Yet the space agency has neglected to punish Boeing financially for these flaws, arguing that doing so would run contrary to the terms of its contract.

The heavy-lift rocket, a more powerful configuration of NASA’s existing SLS Block 1, is intended to make its maiden voyage in 2028 on the Artemis IV mission, a crewed lunar landing. It has been under development since 2014. Boeing is under contract to build Block 1B’s Exploration Upper Stage (EUS)—which will increase the SLS’ cargo capacity by about 40 percent—as well as the core stages for Block 1 on Artemis I and the upcoming Artemis II. Other SLS contractors include Aerojet Rocketdyne and Northrop Grumman.

A Day Late, A Dollar Short

Originally, the EUS was allocated a budget of $962 million and intended to fly on Artemis II, which in January was pushed to no earlier than September 2025. But by the OIG’s estimate, EUS costs are expected to balloon to $2 billion through 2025 and reach $2.8 billion by the time Artemis IV lifts off in 2028.

The office projects total SLS Block 1B costs will hit $5.7 billion before then—that’s more than $700 million over the Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) NASA made last year. The EUS, at nearly triple its original budget, would account for close to half of those costs.

Add to that an expected six-year delay in the delivery of the system, and the OIG predicts Artemis IV’s launch could be postponed.

“NASA’s fiscal year 2024 SLS Program budget projections do not account for the additional funds needed for EUS development in fiscal years 2024 through 2027,” the report says. “Without additional funding, scheduled work will continue to be pushed into subsequent years as has been the case for the EUS over the last decade, leading to further cost increases and schedule delays.”

For example, the OIG says, NASA is evaluating potential risks to the EUS stage controller and avionics that could delay its delivery by another 14 months. NASA officials disagreed with the analysis.

Mismanaged and Inexperienced

The OIG interviewed officials at NASA headquarters, Marshall Space Flight Center, Michoud Assembly Facility, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and Boeing. It also reviewed NASA and its contractors’ budgets, contract obligations, and quality control documents, among other materials.

In short, the office found that Boeing’s quality management system at Michoud does not adhere to NASA or international standards.

For example, Boeing Defense’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS)—which NASA uses to measure contract cost and schedule progress and is required on all projects with a lifecycle cost greater than $250M—has been disapproved by the Department of Defense since 2020. Officials claim this precludes Boeing from reliably predicting an EUS delivery date.

“Boeing’s process for addressing contractual noncompliance has been ineffective, and the company has generally been nonresponsive in taking corrective actions when the same quality control issues reoccur,” the OIG says.

The DCMA has issued several corrective action requests (CARs), handed down when quality control issues are identified, for the EVMS. Between September 2021 and September 2023, the agency issued Boeing a whopping 71 CARs after identifying quality control issues in the manufacturing of core and upper stages at Michoud. According to officials, that’s a massive number for a system that has been in development for so long.

“Boeing officials incorrectly approved hardware processing under unacceptable environmental conditions, accepted and presented damaged seals to NASA for inspection, and used outdated versions of work orders,” the report says. “DCMA also found that Boeing personnel made numerous administrative errors through changes to certified work order data without proper documentation.”

According to Safety and Mission Assurance officials at NASA and DCMA officials at Michoud, Boeing’s quality control issues stem from a workforce that is, by and large, unqualified.

During a visit to Michoud in 2023, for example, inspectors discovered that welding on a component of the SLS Core Stage 3 did not meet NASA standards. Per the report, unsatisfactory welding performed on a set of fuel tanks led directly to a seven-month delay in EUS completion.

“According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision,” the OIG says. “The lack of a trained and qualified workforce increases the risk that Boeing will continue to manufacture parts and components that do not adhere to NASA requirements and industry standards.”

Complicating matters further is the relocation of SLS core stage production for Artemis III from Michoud to Kennedy, which will require Boeing to transition a decade of production processes developed at the former site to the latter.

The OIG said the manufacturer is developing a more robust, hands-on training program that could revamp its workforce but is long overdue.

“Some technicians reported they had to hunt through layers of documentation to identify required instructions and documentation of work history and key decisions related to the hardware,” the report says.

Further, maintaining that workforce may be difficult—the OIG predicts Boeing will spend an average of $26 million per month on EUS personnel through 2027. That was the norm for the company from February to August 2023.

Boeing management has also dropped the ball at higher levels. For instance, in the leadup to Artemis I, Boeing underestimated the complexity of building the SLS core stage, and EUS funding had to be redirected to that project.

“This ultimately led to a nearly one-year delay in EUS work and an additional $4 billion in funding to Boeing to cover the costs for the core stage development work,” according to the OIG.

In addition, NASA officials believe Boeing’s supply chain woes are of its own making, stemming from late negotiations and contract agreements.

Next Steps for NASA

The OIG report paints the picture of a company in disarray from top to bottom.

The office did not pin the blame entirely on Boeing. It criticized NASA, for example, for spending more than $3 billion over ten years without submitting an ABC to Congress and the Office of Budget and Management. The ABC is the only official cost and schedule baseline used to measure project performance against expectations.

The office’s four recommendations, however, center around the manufacturer.

First, the OIG calls on the associate administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD), alongside the agency’s assistant administrator for procurement and chief of safety and mission assurance, to collaborate with Boeing on a more robust, NASA-approved quality management system. It also recommends officials penalize the company financially for its previous violations.

The OIG further directs the ESDMD to conduct a cost overrun analysis of Boeing’s EUS contract to minimize the impact to Artemis missions. Finally, it asks the associate administrator to coordinate with the DCMA to ensure Boeing’s compliance with EVMS requirements.

NASA agreed with three of the four recommendations and proposed actions to take. Interestingly, though, it rejected the suggestion of fining Boeing.

“NASA interprets this recommendation to be directing NASA to institute penalties outside the bounds of the contract,” said Catherine Koerner, deputy associate administrator of the ESDMD, in NASA’s response to the report. “There are already authorities in the contract, such as award fee provisions, which enable financial ramifications for noncompliance with quality control standards.”

Essentially, the agency believes it can keep Boeing in check by rewarding good behavior rather than penalizing mismanagement. The OIG, predictably, disagrees, characterizing NASA as “unresponsive” to what it considers significant safety concerns.

“In the end, failure to address these issues may not only hinder the Block 1B’s readiness for Artemis IV but also have a cascading impact on the overall sustainability of the Artemis campaign and NASA’s deep space human exploration efforts,” the report says.

Boeing will look to improve some of its quality control issues under the leadership of new CEO Kelly Ortberg, the ex-boss of Rockwell Collins who took over after the ousting of former CEO Dave Calhoun.

Calhoun’s departure this month comes as the company continues to be grilled over the loss of a door plug on a Boeing 737 Max 9 in January as well as persistent issues with Starliner, its semireusable spacecraft under contract with NASA for astronaut rotation missions to the  International Space Station. Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams may end up spending eight months on the orbital laboratory, rather than eight days as intended.

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

The post NASA Investigation Finds Boeing Hindering Americans’ Return to Moon appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“The FAA has opened an investigation into Boeing after the company voluntarily informed us in April that it may not have completed required inspections to confirm adequate bonding and grounding where the wings join the fuselage on certain 787 Dreamliner airplanes,” the agency said in a statement to FLYING. “The FAA is investigating whether Boeing completed the inspections and whether company employees may have falsified aircraft records.”

The FAA noted that Boeing is in the process of “reinspecting all 787 airplanes still within the production system and must also create a plan to address the in-service fleet.”

• READ MORE: Boeing Workers Reluctant to Speak Up, FAA Panel Tells Senate

Boeing stressed this is not an immediate safety-of-flight issue for the in-service fleet.

According to the company, the potential issue was discovered and reported by an employee at the South Carolina 787 final assembly plant.

Scott Stocker, vice president and general manager for the Boeing 787 program, sent an email to all employees praising their teammate for speaking up when he saw “something” in the factory that he believed was not being done right.

According to Stocker’s email, “the teammate saw what appeared to be an irregularity in a required conformance test in wing body join. He raised it with his manager, who brought it to the attention of executive leadership. I wanted to personally thank and commend that teammate for doing the right thing. It’s critical that every one of us speak up when we see something that may not look right, or that needs attention.”

• READ MORE: Boeing Ready to Buy 7.5 Million Gallons of SAF

Stocker said the company investigated the matter and learned that “several people had been violating company policies by not performing a required test, but recording the work as having been completed.” 

Boeing has a zero-tolerance policy for not following quality and safety protocols, Stocker said, adding that company officials informed the FAA about what they found and dispatched an engineering team to assess the impact of the misconduct. The team determined that although it didn’t create an immediate safety-of-flight issue, it will impact customers because the test “now needs to be conducted out of sequence on airplanes in the build process.”

In addition, the FAA said it will continue its investigation and “take any necessary action—as always—to ensure the safety of the flying public,” the agency told FLYING.

The post FAA Launches Investigation Into Boeing 787 Production Line appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

SpaceX’s massive Starship rocket and Super Heavy booster flew for the second time on Saturday, and the results were a mixed bag. Stage separation—the point at which the spaceship’s maiden voyage in April went off the rails—was a success. But like last time, both the rocket and booster exploded and were lost, prompting another mishap investigation by the FAA. Starship will not be able to fly again until the investigation and a launch license evaluation are concluded.

The 400-foot-tall spacecraft took off from Starbase—SpaceX’s launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas, just off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico—Saturday morning after the launch was postponed from Friday. All 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster fired this time, unlike in April, when a handful of them failed.

Starship’s second test flight successfully debuted a hot-stage separation system, one of “well over 1,000” changes SpaceX made to the design, according to CEO Elon Musk. In hot-stage separation, the upper stage engines are ignited while the booster’s engines are still firing and the two stages remain attached. Previously, the company turned off the booster engines first.

According to SpaceX, Saturday was the first time a vehicle as large as Starship successfully pulled off the technique.

Although the new system achieved its goal, the booster promptly exploded—or experienced a “rapid unscheduled disassembly,” in SpaceX parlance—over the Gulf of Mexico, where it was meant to splash down intact. A few minutes later, after the Starship upper stage reached space, SpaceX engineer and livestream host John Insprucker said mission control lost contact with the spacecraft.

“We think we may have lost the second stage,” Insprucker said on the broadcast.

About 47 minutes into SpaceX’s livestream and eight minutes into the flight, as a camera follows the upper stage, an explosion is visible. Insprucker said engineers believed an automated flight termination plan was initiated, though the reason is still unclear. 

Starship had reached about 91 miles in altitude—well past the widely accepted boundary between the atmosphere and space—but was expected to fly more than halfway around the Earth before splashing down off the coast of Hawaii.

“With a test like this, success comes from what we learn, and [Saturday’s] test will help us improve Starship’s reliability as SpaceX seeks to make life multiplanetary,” the company said on Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

Starship’s second voyage lasted twice as long as its first, and SpaceX appears to be getting close to nailing stage separation. However, both of the spacecraft’s reusable components were lost. And the behemoth of a rocket is now out of commission while the FAA investigates—again.

“A mishap occurred during the SpaceX Starship OFT-2 launch from Boca Chica, Texas, on Saturday, November 18,” the agency said in a statement. “The anomaly resulted in a loss of the vehicle. No injuries or public property damage have been reported. The FAA will oversee the SpaceX-led mishap investigation to ensure SpaceX complies with its FAA-approved mishap investigation plan and other regulatory requirements.”

A mishap investigation—which had grounded Starship since April—is standard when a launch does not go as planned. SpaceX will now need to compile a report on what went wrong, as well as actions it can take to ensure the next launch goes smoothly, both of which must be approved by the FAA.

The company will also need to apply for a second license modification in order to add more Starship launches to its manifest, which can involve coordination with other federal agencies such as NASA. 

There is no timeline for either process, but the FAA’s initial mishap investigation opened in April and was closed in September. A modified launch license followed in mid-November.

However, unlike the previous test, a water-cooled steel plate installed beneath Starbase prevented ash and debris from being flung for miles. And having been through the investigation and license evaluation process already, it’s possible SpaceX is able to get through a second round of inquiries more quickly.

Fly Me to the Moon

SpaceX’s “iterative design” or “fail fast, but learn faster” philosophy has allowed the company to make steady progress on its Starlink satellites and Crew Dragon capsules, both of which are launching routinely. It could be argued that’s been the case for Starship so far as well, given the successes the company achieved with Saturday’s launch. 

Still, SpaceX may need to pick up the pace. Musk’s ultimate goal is for Starship to eventually ferry hundreds of humans at a time to the moon, Mars, and beyond. The SpaceX CEO has claimed it will land astronauts on Mars by 2029. Those early arrivals are expected to build a base that could one day support a colony of 1 million on the “Red Planet.” But before Musk turns to other planets, there are projects on Earth riding on his company’s success.

In 2021, NASA picked SpaceX to land humans on the moon for the first time in half a century, contracting it to develop a variant of Starship capable of putting astronauts on the lunar surface. That mission, Artemis III, will be preceded by an uncrewed Starship demonstration flight to the moon and back. It will be followed by the Artemis IV mission, for which SpaceX has already been enlisted.

Simply put, NASA won’t be able to get the U.S. back in the space race without Starship. Already, agency officials are “concerned” about SpaceX’s progress, with one top manager predicting Artemis III will “probably” slide from 2025 to 2026.

Musk and Co. are left with a conundrum. To keep Artemis on schedule, SpaceX will need to conduct more Starship test flights, and fast. But moving too quickly can create outcomes such as Saturday’s, which, despite building on the first flight, caused the FAA to intervene. Then again, there’s little time to waste, and the company won’t be able to learn much about the largest rocket ever built without flying it.

As SpaceX continues to iterate on Starship, the company is also contending with a lawsuit against the FAA, which it joined as a co-defendant in May. The suit, filed by five environmental groups, alleges the regulator wasn’t thorough enough in its assessment of the rocket’s potential impacts on the surrounding wildlife.

Jared Margolis, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff in the case, told FLYING the lawsuit is still ongoing. Margolis criticized the FAA’s written reevaluation of Starship’s environmental impact, arguing the agency should have required more of SpaceX before green lighting both test flights. He said the center is considering adding more claims to its suit for the FAA’s failure to fully analyze the impact of April’s launch.

More recently, SpaceX has come under fire for its workplace safety culture, which a special report from Reuters earlier this month characterized as “lax.” According to the report, investigators used government records and interviews to determine there were 600 previously unreported injuries suffered on the job by SpaceX workers—including one death—since 2014. Several U.S. lawmakers have expressed concern about the report’s findings.

While the lawsuit and Reuters investigation did not impact Saturday’s launch, they present more obstacles for SpaceX to overcome before Starship flies to the moon. Another setback could have a ripple effect on America’s space exploration goals.

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

The post The Implications of SpaceX’s Second Starship Test Flight appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Perhaps the Bengals are simply unlucky. Because this week, the team’s game against its divisional rival the Baltimore Ravens on Amazon Prime Video’s Thursday Night Football was halted not just once, but twice, by another drone. The stoppage was the latest in a rising number of drone-related incursions at NFL stadiums that have worried league officials and U.S. lawmakers alike.

“Without a change in federal law, mass gatherings will remain at risk from malicious and unauthorized drone operations,” the NFL said in a statement to FLYING. “For more than a year, we have been calling for passage of the bipartisan Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, which would empower state and local law enforcement to safely mitigate drones like the two that disrupted the game in Baltimore. It’s time for Congress to act.”

This time, the incident occurred at M&T Stadium in Baltimore rather than the Bengals’ home field at Paycor Stadium (formerly Paul Brown Stadium) in Cincinnati. That first incursion prompted the NFL to change its policy. Since then, officials have stopped games and cleared the field whenever a rogue drone is spotted—which is exactly what happened Thursday night.

The first game stoppage happened with about five minutes remaining in the second quarter as the Ravens were working their way down the field. Referees spotted a red-and-green flashing object hovering inside the stadium, bringing play to a halt.

“Apparently, there was a drone inside the stadium, so they have stopped play,” Prime Video commentator Al Michaels said on the broadcast before the camera switched to the aircraft. “So there you go. And we’ll take a commercial break.”

After the break, everything appeared to be back to normal. That was until the fourth quarter, when players and coaches were forced to the sidelines for a second time. Michaels said officials took an “administrative” timeout and were waiting for the drone, which apparently had reappeared, to leave the airspace. The Ravens, though, said the stoppage was “precautionary” and unrelated to the aircraft.

“We heard there were drones,” Ravens head coach John Harbaugh said in a postgame interview Thursday night. “Is that what you guys heard? We saw them up there. That’s a first. I thought I’d seen it all with the Super Bowl, with the lights going out at the [Ravens-San Francisco 49ers] Super Bowl [in 2013 at the Superdome in New Orleans]. Now we have drones flying around.”

An anonymous team source told The Baltimore Banner that play resumed in the second quarter after the drone’s pilot brought it down. The team would not say whether it planned to investigate further.

Representatives for the Maryland Stadium Authority, though, said police were able to locate the pilot, who claimed to be unaware of the restrictions and did not have a waiver to fly during the game. Details were passed along to the FAA’s law enforcement assistance program, which told The Banner it’s looking into the incident.

A Worrying Trend

Unfortunately for football fans, it’s not just the Bengals and Ravens who have had play disrupted by drones. In fact, Cathy Lanier, the NFL’s chief of security and the chief of police for Washington, D.C., from 2007 to 2016, said in October that the league experienced about 2,500 drone incursions over stadiums and the restricted airspace surrounding them in 2022. That’s nearly double the 1,300 incidents reported the previous season.

Only a handful of these took place during actual NFL regular-season or playoff games. But each incident has forced players to the sidelines—and ignited fears over what the aircraft may be carrying.

One such incursion happened in September 2022, when an unlicensed drone flew over Seattle’s Lumen Field, halting play between the Seattle Seahawks and Atlanta Falcons.

Another took place during the most viewed event in American television. Before Super Bowl LIII between the New England Patriots and Los Angeles Rams kicked off at Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium, an FBI team spotted a drone hovering over the field, just moments before six Air Force F-16s were set to perform a flyover. There was no time to shoot it down. But luckily, the agency told the F-16 pilots to fly at higher altitude and avoided a collision.

The fear among the NFL and other major American sports leagues, such as the NCAA, MLB, and NASCAR, is that the drones could be used to harm players or spectators. So far, incursions have not led to physical injury: The closest call was a 2017 incident during an MLB game between the Arizona Diamondbacks and San Diego Padres, where a drone crashed into the stands just inches away from a spectator.

Still, the potential for a collision with a spectator or player—or for the drones to carry weapons or explosives—has league officials and lawmakers on edge.

“We’re concerned about somebody who would use [drones] in a nefarious way and drop a grenade that would do considerable damage and possibly kill individuals,” Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, told NBC News last month.

No Recourse

The FAA, NFL, NCAA, and other pro sports leagues already have plenty of rules in place to deter drone incursions. The FAA, for example, prohibits drones that fly at or below 3,000 feet above ground level within 3 nm of any stadium that seats 30,000 or more, including one hour before and after games, which is the temporary flight restriction created for stadiums and other large venues following 9/11. Violators can incur civil penalties of up to $37,000 or even criminal prosecution.

The problem, though, is that stadiums lack the infrastructure needed to enforce these rules—and they have little recourse when a drone does enter the airspace.

Plenty of arenas have guards or metal detectors to prevent incidents on the ground. But only a handful—including the Ravens’ M&T Bank Stadium—have any form of aerial security. And that still wasn’t enough to deter Thursday’s rogue drone.

Taking down the buzzing aircraft is an even larger issue. Under the Safeguarding America’s Skies Act of 2018, two U.S. agencies—the FBI and Department of Homeland Security—are authorized to jam or bring down unlicensed drones. That’s it.

Out of about 121,000 requests for FBI and DHS counter-drone support to stadiums since the law took effect, just 77 have been approved, according to Lanier. Federal teams are only sent to major events, such as the Super Bowl, while regular-season games are largely unsupervised. For the most part, the only thing the occupants can do is wait for the drone to leave.

And if lawmakers don’t act soon, not even the FBI or DHS will be able to help. That’s because their counter-drone authority is set to expire on Saturday. FBI Director Christopher Wray said failure to reauthorize the two agencies could leave the U.S. “effectively defenseless” against threats to mass gatherings, airports, and other critical infrastructure—such as sporting arenas.

In July, Peters and Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) introduced Senate legislation that would renew the Safeguarding America’s Skies Act and extend drone jamming and takedown authority to state and local law enforcement. It and a House companion bill have received bipartisan support and the backing of the NFL, NCAA, MLB, and NASCAR.

However, updates have been sparse since the legislation was introduced, and it’s looking increasingly like the FBI and DHS’s authority will expire this weekend, despite the pleas of NFL officials and lawmakers. 

Until it’s renewed—or local staff are given takedown authority—NFL fans may see more drones fly routes over stadiums as players run fly routes down the field.

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

The post FAA Investigating Drone Incursion at Thursday Night NFL Game appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Was just informed that approval to launch should happen in time for a Friday launch,” Musk wrote in a post on his social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

The SpaceX CEO did not elaborate on who gave him that timeline, and some of his previous predictions have failed to come to fruition. This time, however, Musk’s timeline is backed by the FAA: The agency announced Wednesday afternoon that Starship and the Super Heavy booster are cleared for another takeoff.

“The FAA has given license authorization for the second launch of the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy vehicle,” the agency said in a statement viewed by FLYING. “The FAA determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental, policy and financial responsibility requirements.”

The regulator said the modified license applies to all phases of SpaceX’s proposed operation, from preflight preparation to splashdown, but only for one launch. According to an air traffic control advisory on its website, the launch and reentry mission, “Space X Starship Super Heavy Flt 2,” will take place in Boca Chica, Texas—the site of SpaceX’s Starbase launch pad—on Friday. Backup dates are listed as Saturday and Sunday.

Ready for Launch

On October 31, the FAA confirmed it had completed the safety review portion of its Starship license evaluation. A modified license could not be granted until the evaluation was finished.

The announcement came with the caveat that the agency was still working through an environmental review, which a spokesperson told FLYING is the “last major element” of the process. That step required coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to produce an updated biological assessment of the potential impacts of a Starship launch on the surrounding environment.

Aubry Buzek, who runs public affairs for USFWS’s Texas office, confirmed to FLYING that the agency’s formal consultation with the FAA concluded on Tuesday, clearing the way for a license modification. On Wednesday, the FAA published a written reevaluation of Starship’s environmental assessment, concluding that there are “no significant environmental changes” compared to prior documentation.

According to USFWS, the environmental assessment focused on a new water deluge system that was installed on Starbase to shield the launch pad from the flames of Starship’s 33 Raptor engines. In April, the engines blew a massive crater under the launcher and scattered ash and debris as far as the town of Port Isabel, about 6 miles away.

Starbase did not have such a system for Starship’s inaugural launch, which may have contributed to the damage. Musk said plans to install a water-cooled steel plate beneath the launcher were scrapped because it “wasn’t ready in time,” adding that “we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag [concrete] would make it through one launch.”

With a modified launch license in hand, Starship’s second test flight could follow in just a few days—the first one came less than a week after the FAA’s initial green light.

As was the case with that launch, the flight will be broadcast live on SpaceX’s website. In addition to the new flame deflector, it will debut a hot-stage separation system and thrust vector control system for the Super Heavy booster engines.

The flight itself is expected to last about 90 minutes, with the Starship upper stage splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the Hawaiian island of Kauai.

High Stakes

Plenty is riding on the success of the next Starship launch. NASA picked SpaceX to develop a version of the rocket that will land humans on the moon for the first time in half a century during the Artemis III mission, which is scheduled for 2025. Before then, the company will fly an uncrewed demonstration mission to the moon.

But NASA officials are already “concerned” about the number of test flights Starship must complete even before that demonstration. A top NASA manager said Artemis III will “probably” slip to 2026 as a result.

A delay to Artemis III could throw a wrench into NASA’s other mission timelines. The space agency has already enlisted SpaceX to conduct a second crewed landing demonstration in 2027 as part of the subsequent Artemis IV mission. The goal is to develop a lander “that meets NASA’s sustaining requirements for missions beyond Artemis III,” such as docking with the upcoming Gateway space station and accommodating up to four crew members.

Following Artemis, SpaceX said the ultimate objective for Starship is to ferry hundreds of humans at a time to the moon, Mars, and beyond. Musk himself has claimed the firm will land humans on Mars by 2029. The plan is for the first batch of astronauts to set up a small base, with the aim of one day supporting a colony of 1 million earthlings on the “Red Planet.”

For fans of science fiction, it’s an exciting prospect. To get there, SpaceX will first need to prove Starship can reach orbit without exploding, but the hope is for that litmus test to happen in the next few days.

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

The post SpaceX’s Starship Cleared for Second Takeoff After Obtaining Modified Launch License from FAA appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“The FAA completed the safety review portion of the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy license evaluation on October 31,” the agency told FLYING.

The safety review is the “principal component” of the FAA’s vehicle operator license evaluation, which grants companies the authority to launch rockets. In its review, the agency assessed the impact of Starship launches on public health and property damage. It also evaluated SpaceX’s safety organization, system safety processes, and flight safety analysis, as well as quantitative risk criteria related to launch, reentry, and vehicle disposal.

Starship—whose two reusable components, the Super Heavy Booster and Starship upper stage, stand close to 400 feet when stacked together—is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. But its maiden voyage in April began and ended in flames, when the spacecraft lost control and exploded during stage separation just minutes into the flight.

Meanwhile, the impact of Super Heavy’s 33 Raptor engines on the company’s Boca Chica, Texas, launch pad, Starbase, created a massive crater. Starship’s liftoff broke windows, shook buildings, and sprayed ash and debris over an area far larger than expected, including 6 miles away in the town of Port Isabel.

While the FAA’s license evaluation safety review centered around Starship’s impact to people and property, the agency is now working on an environmental review to gauge its effect on nearby wildlife.

Coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act, the FAA must produce an updated biological assessment for Starship. An initial biological assessment, published in October 2021, assessed threats to wildlife surrounding Starbase.

According to USFWS, the ongoing environmental assessment focuses on a new water deluge system installed at Starbase, one of several upgrades the company has made to the launch pad since April. Most launch pads have either a water deluge system or a flame trench to suppress heat and sound. But Starbase lacked such a system during Starship’s first launch, which may have exacerbated the damage caused by the engines.

The FAA initiated a consultation with USFWS on October 19, giving the latter 135 days to issue an amended biological opinion based on the FAA’s assessment. However, it does not expect to take the full amount of time.

The FAA’s completion of Starship’s safety review and the ongoing work toward the environmental review bring SpaceX closer to modifying its launch license, which would clear the way for the massive rocket to fly again. But the company may still have hurdles beyond the FAA’s evaluation.

Starship’s maiden voyage was permitted under the FAA’s April written reevaluation of the programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) it awarded to SpaceX in 2022. But the April explosion brought scrutiny upon the PEA in the form of a lawsuit brought against the FAA by five environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity.

The plaintiffs claim the FAA could have mitigated the damage from the launch and subsequent explosion. Had the agency conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) instead of a PEA “based on SpaceX’s preference,” as the groups allege, the impact may have been less severe.

Both a PEA and an EIS can give an operator the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance required to greenlight a launch. But unlike an EIS, the PEA allowed SpaceX to analyze the potential impact of its own launch proposal and may have authorized Starship to fly sooner. The FAA required SpaceX to take more than 75 actions after submitting its PEA. But the lawsuit alleges these were not sufficient to prevent a mishap.

SpaceX in June joined the suit as a codefendant, and it and the FAA are now seeking to dismiss it. If they lose, the FAA would be required to conduct an EIS, which could represent a major setback for Starship.

However, SpaceX last week said Starship is ready to fly pending the approval of its license modification, and the company should still be able to conduct test flights despite the ongoing lawsuit.

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

The post SpaceX’s Starship—the Most Powerful Rocket in History—Nears Return to Flight appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

That’s been one of CEO Elon Musk’s retorts to those who stand in the way of his goal of commercial space dominance. And at the moment, the regulator may pose the greatest threat.

There appears to be a misunderstanding between the two surrounding Starship’s second test flight, which Musk in June said would happen in “six to eight weeks.” We’re now well past that timeframe. But on Tuesday, the SpaceX, Tesla, and X (formerly Twitter) CEO took to the latter platform to share some good news: the most powerful rocket ever built is “ready to launch.”

Starship is ready to launch, awaiting FAA license approval https://t.co/WjENkdudo9

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 6, 2023

Concurrently, SpaceX posted images of the Starship rocket stacked on top of the Super Heavy booster at the company’s Starbase launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas. 

However, the FAA felt the need to clarify that Starship is still very much under investigation, casting doubt on Musk’s optimism.

“The SpaceX Starship mishap investigation remains open,” the agency told FLYING in a statement. “The FAA will not authorize another Starship launch until SpaceX implements the corrective actions identified during the mishap investigation and demonstrates compliance with all the regulatory requirements of the license modification process.”

The FAA clarified the ball is technically in its court. It’s still reviewing the final mishap investigation report SpaceX submitted in August and identifying the corrective actions the firm must take. Those will include modifications to its launch license to comply with regulatory requirements before it receives another green light to launch. A mishap investigation is standard when a launch or its impact does not go as planned.

Eric Berger of Ars Technica speculated, given the FAA’s update, Starship’s next launch is “likely to occur no earlier than the last 10 days of the month.”

Where Starship’s Problems Began

The FAA has now repeatedly communicated that Starship is not yet ready for another test flight. But that hasn’t diminished the optimism of Musk, SpaceX, and their supporters.

The agency’s investigation follows an April orbital test flight that began and ended in flames. The Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor engines roared to life on the launchpad, sending the 400-foot-tall rocket and booster 24 miles high before they spiraled out of control and exploded. SpaceX said it sent a command to Starship’s flight termination system (FTS) after the rocket and booster failed to separate as planned, causing a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”

The explosion sent debris tumbling into the Gulf of Mexico. But even worse for SpaceX, the fireball created by the first-stage engines severely damaged the launchpad, carving out a massive crater.

The impact would also prove to be an issue for the surrounding area. It sparked a 3.5-acre brush fire and sent ash-like particulate and concrete and metal debris raining down as far away as Port Isabel, a town about 6.5 miles north of Starbase. Residents also reported broken windows, shaking buildings, and ear-splitting noise. Musk described the impact as a “rock tornado.”

The debris field was expected to span about 700 acres or just one square mile, equivalent to that of Starship’s largest explosion to date. Immediately, the FAA grounded Starship, opened its mishap investigation, and began reviewing data on the FTS (which took 40 seconds to initiate after activation) and the environmental impact on the nearby area. Starbase is surrounded by protected wetlands and the Gulf of Mexico.

The launch and explosion also sparked a lawsuit against the FAA brought by five environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Save Rio Grande Valley. The plaintiffs allege the agency allowed SpaceX to self-conduct a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) in lieu of a more robust, FAA-conducted environmental impact statement (EIS) “based on SpaceX’s preference.” They claim the PEA allowed Starship to fly sooner, while an EIS may have mitigated some of the launch’s effects.

If SpaceX and the FAA lose the case and are forced to conduct an EIS, it could add months—or potentially years—to Starship’s launch timeline. SpaceX joined the suit as a codefendant in June, and the company and the FAA are now seeking to dismiss it.

Still, the legal drama hasn’t stopped Musk from sharing what on the surface appear to be promising updates.

Updates to Starship and Starbase

Since April’s explosion, SpaceX has made “over 1,000 changes” to Starship and the Starbase launchpad, Musk told journalist Ashlee Vance in a discussion on Twitter Spaces in June.

The biggest is the addition of a water deluge system to the pad, which should shield it from the fireball and ear-splitting noise created by the 33 lower-stage engines and prevent debris from scattering for miles. The system is “basically like a gigantic upside-down shower head” that blasts water at the rocket while it sits on the pad, Musk told Vance.

The SpaceX CEO said he scrapped plans to install a water-cooled steel plate beneath the launcher for Starship’s first flight because it “wasn’t ready in time.” He later added the company thought the concrete would survive the flames.

The new system was evaluated during a static fire test in August, turning fire from the engines into steam. However, SpaceX reportedly did not apply for the proper environmental permits that would allow it to dispose of industrial wastewater from the test.

The company also upgraded the interstage area between the Starship rocket and Super Heavy booster. The changes will enable a “hot staging” maneuver, allowing the upper-stage engines to ignite before the booster engines finish burning, which Musk told Vance would improve Super Heavy’s mass-to-orbit performance by 10 percent. He added that the next flight will include more uniform engines, contrasting them to the “hodgepodge” of hardware used on the maiden voyage.

Outside of those key changes, SpaceX has conducted propellant load tests and tested a modified version of Starship’s FTS. In recent weeks, it completed hot fire tests of the Booster 9 rocket and upper-stage Ship 25 prototypes that were largely successful.

Starship’s next flight will not carry a payload. Rather, it will seek to demonstrate the performance of the 33 booster engines, stage separation between Starship and Super Heavy, and the ignition of the rocket’s six upper-stage engines. If it’s able to withstand the duration of the flight, it will splash down north of the Hawaiian island of Kauai.

As it gears up for another test launch, SpaceX continues to deploy Starlink satellites, including a record-breaking 62nd orbital launch of the year earlier this week. Musk said SpaceX in 2023 accounts for around eight in ten payload deliveries from Earth to orbit. By 2024, he expects the company to handle nine in ten —and one day, he hopes to exceed 99 percent.

SpaceX also sends astronauts and paying customers to the International Space Station on its Crew Dragon spacecraft through partnerships with NASA and Axiom Space. In a few years, it will provide the system that transports astronauts from lunar orbit to the moon’s surface and back again on NASA’s Artemis III mission, scheduled for December 2025. 

However, the agency all but blamed SpaceX for a potential delay to that timeline, with associate administrator for exploration systems development Jim Free worrying about the company’s “significant number of launches to go.”

Ultimately, Musk and SpaceX’s goal is to one day ferry hundreds of humans at a time to Mars. Musk has stated his hopes to establish a permanent human colony on the red planet by 2050—an aim NASA appears to share.

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

The post SpaceX Starship Is ‘Ready to Launch’ Again—Or Is It? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The agency is investigating some 4,800 former military pilots, who told it they were healthy enough to fly but “might have submitted incorrect or false information about certain medical conditions that qualify for Veterans Administration benefits as part of their most recent FAA medical application.”

The FAA probe, which began around a year ago, discovered that just less than 1 percent of the nation’s more than 600,000 certified pilots could be concealing medical information that would otherwise ground them. 

So far, it has closed about half of those cases and temporarily suspended some 60 pilots who “posed a clear danger to aviation safety.” In most closed cases, pilots have been ordered to correct their records and undergo new aeromedical examinations to restore their medical certificates.

Prior to a June blog post, the FAA had largely hidden the investigation from the public. According to The Washington Post, former Office of Aerospace Medicine (OAM) staffers contracted to review the cases were even told the nature of their work was secret.

“The FAA’s medical staff completed a preliminary review of all of the cases to identify pilots who might have disqualifying medical conditions,” the agency said in the June blog post, which it indicated to FLYING serves as its statement on the investigation. “The FAA identified approximately 60 pilots in this group and notified them that they must cease flying while our staff works with them to reconcile their records.”

The agency noted around 1,250 pilots under scrutiny no longer hold a valid medical certificate, which is not required for those operating light sport aircraft, light twins or singles under BasicMed, or for glider operations. However, the majority of pilots with open cases are being permitted to conduct business as usual.

Sources told The Post that about 600 cases involve veterans certificated to fly for Part 121 passenger operations. But most are commercial pilots who fly for Part 121 cargo, Part 135 charter, or air tour operators.

The Post found that the FAA’s OAM last year allocated $3.6 million to hire former staffers to reexamine the medical records in question. Officials said some pilots failed to disclose their VA benefits because FAA-affiliated physicians advised against it.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs opened its own investigation in 2019, suspecting that some of its members were exaggerating or outright lying about their medical conditions to receive benefits. The VA inspector general’s office cross-checked disability benefits records with an FAA database of veterans certificated as civilian pilots. It uncovered the approximately 4,800 cases with inconsistencies, referring them to the FAA in June 2021.

“I attach great importance to the function of our inspector general, and there is a process there that’s being worked through,” Denis McDonough, secretary of Veterans Affairs, told FLYING. “We continue to stay in touch with him on this.”

The following summer, the FAA began notifying former military pilots their records were under scrutiny.

The number of pilots suspected of falsifying medical information and the FAA’s lack of forthcomingness raise concerns about the transparency of the process. At the same time, the conversation has scrutinized the flaws in the aviation regulator’s medical examination process, which many pilots say incentivizes them to obscure their conditions or disabilities.

“Pilots have been and continue to be frustrated by the FAA’s seeming lack of interest in improving its medical application forms, especially after calls to make it easier to understand, as detailed in [The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s (AOPA)] 2019 comments to the FAA,” an AOPA spokesperson told FLYING.

How the FAA Evaluates Pilots

In the U.S. the FAA requires pilots who exercise the privileges of certain categories of airman certificate—specifically a commercial or airline transport pilot qualification—to hold a standard medical certificate of the class appropriate to the operation.

The first step in the process is to take an exam with an aviation medical examiner—somewhat similar to a general physical at a doctor’s office. Prospective pilots must also report all health professional visits from the past three years and disclose any physical or psychological conditions and medications. Certain conditions, such as bipolar disorder, epilepsy, or substance abuse, are considered automatic disqualifiers.

Others, like depression or anxiety, are considered treatable, requiring the pilot to participate in reporting or monitoring programs to obtain a certificate, under certain conditions. These are assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, the FAA only recognizes four mental health medications—Prozac, Zoloft, Lexapro, and Celexa, all for depression—as safe for flying, in general terms, though they must be reported and monitored. The rest are considered unapproved and could be cause for denial.

• Read More: Why Pilots Don’t Want to Talk About Mental Health—and Why They Should 

Pilots must pass the required FAA medical exams every six months to five years, depending on pilot’s age and the class of medical certificate sought. But these can be more cursory, often taking less than an hour and relying heavily on self reporting for conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which can be difficult to detect. FAA physicians are also not required to examine records of previous doctor’s visits or those outside the aviation system.

Pilots say the current framework incentivizes them to conceal information. According to research by Dr. William Hoffman, a neurology resident and aeromedical researcher for the U.S. Air Force, the bulk (56 percent) of 3,765 pilots surveyed reported healthcare avoidance because they feared losing their medical certification.

Often, pilots limit what they report because it can take months to receive FAA waivers to fly with certain conditions, jeopardizing their careers. Some argue the agency does not adequately communicate what’s required of them, and many say it’s an open secret that the majority lie on medical examination forms. But not everyone is sympathetic.

Accusations Leveled Against Vets—and the FAA

Some have placed more blame on the veterans than the FAA. Per The Post, many agency physicians and former officials said some veterans minimize their health conditions with the FAA to continue flying. But at the same time, they talk them up to the VA to maximize their benefits.

“One of the agencies has been fooled,” said Louis Celli, former executive director of the American Legion, one of the largest veterans’ associations in the U.S.

According to the VA and FAA probes, many pilots gave the agencies conflicting information. He and other sources cited by The Post contend veterans are intentionally gaming the system. But are the discrepancies truly nefarious, or are they a case of simple miscommunication?

The Airline Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) argues the latter. Earlier this year, it urged amnesty for veterans caught up in the investigation, citing past cases in which the FAA awarded leniency to pilots who corrected their applications. It also claimed the agency’s communication and education on medical examinations and reporting is insufficient, causing veterans to make inadvertent errors.

“The volume of FAA inquiries to airmen about VA disability benefits is evidence of a systemic problem, one that has led too many pilots to make inadvertent mistakes or misunderstand FAA medical application requirements,” said AOPA president Mark Baker. “Airmen need a clear pathway to correct their FAA medical records and an understanding of what will happen when they do.”

Some pilots allege the agency is discriminating against veterans because it has access to their disability records through the VA. Rick Mangini, a former Army pilot cited in The Post report, said the FAA notified him in May he was grounded for failing to disclose his sleep apnea. However, he said he checked the box on his application indicating he receives VA benefits for a condition but was unaware he had to specify. He felt he was singled out.

“If they’re going to shine a light on veterans, they need to shine a light everywhere,” said Mangini, characterizing the agency’s actions as “the definition of harassment.”

The AOPA spokesperson added, “Unfortunately, the FAA has not published direction to the impacted pilot population on how these pilots can provide additional medical information to the FAA or how the agency will respond to this information.”

“Pilots must wait to see if they receive a letter from the FAA,” they continued. “Each case is different, so AOPA’s medical certification team has been helping pilots understand the medical certification process and possible outcomes based on similar cases.”

The association said it also works with pilots covered by its legal services plan to help them better understand the legal implications of possible mistakes on applications.

In short, many veterans believe they are being unfairly prosecuted for mistakes on their medical applications or for concealing diagnoses such as mild depression, which have little to no impact on their performance but pose a major roadblock to their FAA permissions. It’s an issue that has plagued the industry for decades.

A Long-Standing Problem

The FAA has known about the problems with its medical examination process for more than two decades. But the agency has so far done little to address it.

A 2002 investigation, called Operation Safe Pilot, uncovered a scam involving some 3,200 Northern California pilots, who were collecting Social Security disability benefits but telling the FAA they were fit to fly. Many worked as commercial pilots. The U.S. attorney’s office in San Francisco prosecuted 45 of these cases, winning convictions or guilty pleas in all of them.

The investigation provided evidence that the issue is not limited to veterans and raised concerns about the scale of the problem. But despite calls for greater scrutiny, the FAA said it lacked the money and resources to implement data-sharing programs between itself and agencies like Social Security or the VA. 

In 2008, it began requiring pilots to disclose whether they receive government disability benefits. But it wasn’t until 2018 that it began sharing pilot medical records with the VA, leading to a handful of additional prosecutions of Northern California pilots.

U.S. passenger airlines have not had a fatal accident since 2009. However, a handful of fatal and near-fatal incidents involving former military pilots signal the need for a reassessment of FAA procedures. It’s unclear whether the agency will improve communication regarding medical examinations or expand its data-sharing program with the VA and other federal agencies in the wake of its investigation.

At the same time, improvement in mental health support for pilots would take away much of the incentive for pilots to leave critical medical conditions undisclosed.

The post FAA Suspects Nearly 5,000 Pilots Concealing Medical Issues to Keep Flying appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

That’s the question the FAA is trying to answer in regard to a near-miss incident between a Cessna Citation and a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 at San Diego International Airport (KSAN) last week.

In an interview with CNN, National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said the Citation came within 100 feet of the airliner. The incident occurred shortly before noon PDT Friday.

According to an FAA spokesperson, an air traffic controller had cleared the Citation to land on Runway 27 then instructed Southwest Flight 2493 to taxi onto that runway and wait for instructions to depart.

“The facility’s automated surface surveillance system alerted the controller about the developing situation,” the agency said in a statement. “A preliminary review of the event showed that an air traffic controller instructed the pilot of a Cessna Citation business jet to discontinue landing because a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 was still on the runway awaiting clearance to depart.”

According to CNN, LiveATC.net archived ATC audio indicated the pilot of the Citation apparently noticed the Southwest 737 on the runway, as the Citation pilot transmitted “Verify Four Hotel Victor is still clear to land?”

The tower controller replied, “Citation Four Hotel Victor go around, fly the published missed approach.” The Citation pilot replied, “Alright, going around, Four Hotel Victor,” and aborted the landing.

The Southwest flight was then instructed to taxi clear of the runway because there was another airliner on a 2-mile final.

“We’re participating in the FAA’s internal review regarding an incident that occurred Friday just before noon local time at the San Diego International Airport, where a Southwest aircraft was cleared onto the same runway that a Cessna Citation aircraft was also cleared to land,” Southwest said in a statement. “Our aircraft departed without event and the flight operated normally, with a safe landing in San Jose [California] as scheduled.”

According to an FAA spokesperson, the agency is sending experts to San Diego to investigate. “The team will determine the closest proximity between the airplanes as part of the review,” the spokesperson said.

The post Near Miss Between Southwest Jet, Citation Under Investigation appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The incident at KBOS happened the night of February 27, 2023, involving a Learjet 60 and a Embraer E-190 operated by JetBlue.

Hop-A-Jet, a private charter company, operated the Learjet 60, which was heading to Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport (KFXE) in Florida. JetBlue Flight 206 was arriving from Nashville, Tennessee.

The Crews Involved

The pilot of the Learjet, age 63, held an airline transport pilot certificate and had approximately 22,544 hours total time, of which 2,317 were in a Learjet 60. He had flown 51 hours in the preceding 30 days.

The copilot of the Learjet, age 23, held an ATP with 2,027 hours total time and 388 in the make and model.

The captain of the Embraer E190, age 36, held an ATP and had a total of 7,505 hours with 1,673 in the E190. The copilot, age 25, also held an ATP and had 2,280 hours total time, of which 75 were in the make and model.

At the time of the incident, the first officer of the JetBlue aircraft was the pilot flying. According to the NTSB, the Embraer was flying the ILS 4 Right and had been cleared to land. The crew of the Embraer was listening to the tower frequency and heard an aircraft being given instructions to line up and wait (LUAW) on Runway 9. Runways 4R and 9 intersect.

“As they entered the flare after crossing the threshold of Runway 4R, about 30 feet above the ground, [the JetBlue pilot] saw an airplane cross 4R on Runway 9 from his left and going to the right, but could not estimate how far away the airplane was,” the NTSB report said.

The jumpseat of the Embraer was occupied by an airline employee who was commuting. The jumpseat occupant was not wearing a headset, and the cockpit speakers were not turned on so he could not hear the communication with ATC.

“It was a clear night, so on an approximately 5-mile final for Runway 4R, I decided to video the night approach/landing,” he told NTSB investigators. “On short final, a business jet can be seen crossing our path on their takeoff roll on Runway 9 as our crew performed a go-around. I did not see the business jet until it passed in front of us. I stopped the video shortly thereafter.”

A screengrab from the video shows the Learjet directly in the path of the larger airplane. The pilot of the Embraer initiated a go-around.

Per the NTSB report, the captain of the Learjet stated it received clearance to cross Runway 4 Left on Taxiway Echo, then take Taxiway Mike to Runway 9.

“He said they had heard a clearance that seemed to be ‘line up and wait’,” the report stated. “He further stated that he probably responded to the clearance, but in his mind they were cleared for takeoff.”

Investigators say a ground-detection system alerted the tower of the aircraft’s proximity to each other, so the tower issued a “go-around” to the Embraer.

Meanwhile, the Learjet continued with the takeoff. During cruise, it received a message from ATC providing a phone number to call upon landing.

“The number was called when they arrived at their destination, and they learned they had taken off without authorization and caused an airplane that had been cleared to land on Runway 4 to execute a go-around, passing about 400 feet above them,” the report noted.

The NTSB concluded that the probable cause of the incident was the “Hop-A-Jet flight crew taking off without a takeoff clearance.”

As part of the investigation, the pilots, copilots, and jumpseat occupant were interviewed.

“I can not understand what happened to me during the clearance,” the Learjet pilot told NTSB. “The only thing that comes to my mind is that the cold temperature in Boston affected me. I was not feeling completely well and had a stuffed nose.”

The post NTSB Cites Unauthorized Takeoff in Boston Near-Miss Report appeared first on FLYING Magazine.