Tough as nails, able to get in and out of small unimproved runways or high mountain lakes, while carrying a ton of freight, ponderously slow and superbly stable, the Beaver led a renaissance in backcountry air service. It also set standards for safety and reliability in the far-flung wilderness of northern North America.

It spread those attributes around the world, achieving previously impossible results from the Sahara to Mount Everest and both poles. There were 1,167 built, and they remain coveted and useful platforms in myriad roles almost 80 years after the first was finished in 1947.

• READ MORE: WWII-Era ‘Philippine Mars’ Transport Seaplane Headed to Arizona Museum

CF-JOS (now C-FJOS) has toiled most of its life on British Columbia’s rugged West Coast, initially as a lifeline for loggers, miners, and anglers, and most recently, as one of dozens of Beavers providing scheduled floatplane passenger service for Harbour Air Seaplanes between Vancouver and Seattle and about a dozen coastal communities. 

C-FJOShas been written off twice and rebuilt (Beavers are often rebuilt from the data plate alone), has tens of thousands of hours and a million stories, including its own electrifying one. Now, at 68 years old, this seemingly vintage aircraft sits at the forefront of a massive technological renaissance in air travel. 

In 2019, Harbour Air fitted C-FJOS with a magniX electric motor, batteries, and control system, and it has since accumulated more than 78 flights. Based on the experience of the past four years with C-FJOS, Harbour Air has ordered 50 electric propulsion systems from magniX to convert its whole fleet of Beavers and will likely become the first airline to use electric power in scheduled passenger service, possibly by 2026.

In doing so, the chunky, awkward-looking, sheet-metal creation of another era will climb slowly past sleekly modern multicopters and other futuristic designs to serve the market the new aircraft were supposed to generate.

It’s a story of innovation tempered with practicality that is a common thread in the development of aviation as it takes on a future that demands a nimble and responsible industry.

The original Beaver was a fuel hog whose radial engine spewed so much oil in normal operation that de Havilland put an oil filler spout in the cockpit so the sump could be replenished in flight. That unrestrained use of petroleum products is receiving considerable scrutiny these days and the public, through its governments and regulators, want an aviation industry that can get it anywhere on earth in less than a day without beating up the planet.

• READ MORE: Elfly Adds Facilities at Torp Airport to Build Fjord-Hopping Electric Seaplane

It’s a tall order. It takes a lot of energy to hoist a few hundred people to 35,000 feet and move them thousands of miles. But progress is being made, and the goal of making aviation a net-zero-carbon creator by 2050 is considered doable.

Electric aviation is just part of that solution. Hybrid systems using hydrogen show promise, but it’s unlikely that hydrocarbon-fueled aircraft will become obsolete anytime soon. But with developments in the production of sustainable aviation fuels, much of it from agricultural waste and overcapacity, they can be made much better for the environment.

The quest for environmental stewardship in aviation has already paid dividends. The latest  aircraft engines are up to 30 percent more fuel efficient and have the side benefit of being much quieter than previous generations because noise is the sound of energy being wasted.

The environmental shift is also leading to a change in aircraft design philosophy, although it’s fair to say that most of the futuristic designs on the drawing boards are nothing new. 

The physics of flight are well understood, and the blended bodies and truss-braced wing concepts now being explored are the results of technology catching up to those seemingly radical designs.

In the longer term, there are concepts that seem right out of science fiction that are being seriously studied. One that stands out is using nuclear fusion to power aircraft.

• READ MORE: Connecticut Airport Keeping Seaplanes on the River

But if that sounds ridiculously far-fetched (and by the way the concept of nuclear-powered aircraft emerged in the late 1950s), imagine telling one of the folks at de Havilland in 1956 building CF-JOS that it would fly on electric power. 

The plane was built at the height of the Beaver’s popularity. Orders were pouring in from all over the world, and its many innovative and performance features for the time made it a state-of-the-art aircraft.

Creativity and big ideas have always driven aviation, and there’s no sign of that letting up. But what’s interesting and different about the industry is that when something is developed that just plain works, its life is practically endless through continuous improvement. Just ask a Harbour Air pilot, or the crew of a B-52, which is about the same age as a Beaver and is forecast to have a service life of 100 years.

This feature first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: From Radial to Radical appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The aircraft—registered as PS-VPB—was operated by Brazilian carrier Voepass. The airline confirmed the accident in a statement Friday afternoon.

Per the carrier, the flight was planned to operate from Cascavel to Sao Paulo-Guarulhos International Airport (SBGR). The 58 passengers and four crewmembers on board were killed, according to media reports. There was no word of any casualties on the ground.

In a translated Facebook post, Voepass said it has “activated all means to support those involved.”

The aircraft first began service in 2010, joining Voepass’ fleet in 2022.

Videos on social media show the turboprop aircraft, reportedly inbound for landing, involved in what appeared to be a flat spin before crashing. ADS-B data indicates the aircraft dropping by up to 24,000 feet per minute.

This article first appeared on AirlineGeeks.com.

The post ATR 72 Crashes in Brazil appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to EarthX, lithium-ion batteries are significantly lighter than traditional lead acid batteries.

“If you’re replacing the Concorde RG24-11 lead acid battery, you go from a 26.5-pound battery to a 7.2-pound battery—that is 19.3 pounds of instant weight reduction,” EarthX said in a statement. “That gives you a few more pounds of useful load.”

In addition, the life span of the EarthX battery is twice that of a lead acid battery. EarthX also points out that it cannot “freeze, boil over, lose electrolyte, corrode, or sulfate.”

• READ MORE: Electric Regional Aircraft Developer Lands Battery Manufacturing Hub

For pilots who have ever been surprised by a dead battery, the EarthX has a battery management system (BMS) that communicates directly to the pilot if there is anything outside of normal operation through either a flashing or solid LED light.

“This provides useful information not only for the pilot, but also your mechanic, to make the best-informed decisions,” EarthX said.

Once the EarthX is installed, a new weight and balance for the aircraft needs to be done, as is standard procedure when an STC is applied. EarthX does the STC paperwork for the customer, free of charge.

The 24V TSO-certified battery is available for $999, and the 12V TSO-certified battery for $699.

The initial kit for installation ranges from $195-$295, depending on the airframe.

More information can be found here. 

The post EarthX Aircraft Batteries Earn STC Approval appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

This question is being asked at flight schools across the country as the CFI world and the nonaviation media are sharing the story of 36-year-old Philip Everton McPherson II, from Haddon Township, New Jersey. McPherson faces one count of involuntary manslaughter for the crash of the Piper PA-28-140 on September 28, 2022, that killed student pilot Keith Kozel, 49.

A federal grand jury indicted McPherson on August 1. He was arrested at his home on August 5.

• READ MORE: NTSB Releases Prelim Report on Fatal Oshkosh Accident

McPherson’s commercial and CFI certificates were surrendered to the FAA more than a year before the accident because he had failed a 44709 ride (reexamination for airman privileges).

FLYING Magazine obtained a copy of the 11-page indictment that said McPherson “acted with gross negligence because he knew that he was not competent to safely fly an aircraft as the pilot in command.” According to the indictment, his commercial pilot and instructor certificates were surrendered to the FAA in October 2021 after he failed a reexamination ride.

McPherson was employed by ProFlite Aero Services in Easton, Pennsylvania. FLYING’s attempts to contact the flight school for comment were unsuccessful. The website for the business is no longer in operation.

According to the indictment, in 2021 the FAA received a hotline complaint about McPherson’s alleged poor airmanship that included going off the runway on two different occasions while flying with a student, resulting in substantial damage to the aircraft.

• READ MORE: PC-12 Crash Claims Members of Prominent Gospel Singing Group

The first off-runway event was on November 18, 2020, when during the second attempt to land a Cessna 172 in a gusting crosswind the aircraft went off the side of the runway and the nosewheel failed, and the aircraft flipped onto its back. The winds near the site were reported as 13 knots gusting to 25.

The second event was on March 6, 2021, but FLYING was unable to locate the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident report for it.

The indictment notes the FAA made several attempts to reach McPherson—first by letter then by telephone—as part of its investigation to set up a reexamination ride. When he finally did the reexamination flight with the agency, he botched a go-around and the FAA safety inspector had to take the controls to prevent a crash, per the indictment.

After surrendering his commercial and CFI tickets, McPherson was granted a temporary certificate that allowed him to fly by himself or with another instructor in order to gain the skills necessary to regain his certifications. The temporary certificate carries the warning: “Carrying of Passengers Prohibited.”

McPherson did not request another reexamination ride, nor did he ask for an extension of the temporary certificate, which expired on November 8, 2021. But he continued to serve as a flight instructor carrying passengers.The indictment includes two pages of the initials of students and dates of flights.

He faces an additional 40 counts of serving as an airman without a certificate as he continued to fly with passengers and as an instructor between October 12, 2021, and September 2022.

The Fatal Flight

According to the NTSB, the fatal flight took off at 1:40 ET. McPherson told the agency the purpose of the flight was to go to a towered airport nearby so Kozel, the student who had 51 hours, could practice towered-airport operations.

McPherson instructed Kozel to perform a soft field takeoff. The aircraft was sluggish during the takeoff roll and had trouble obtaining airspeed. Kozel flew the airplane in ground effect trying to build up airspeed, and at least once the aircraft settled back on to the runway.

• READ MORE: NTSB Releases Details on 2 Lockheed 12A Crashes

McPherson allowed the takeoff to continue, but when the aircraft had trouble climbing above 200 feet, he took the controls. He told NTSB investigators that the engine was not producing full power, and there were trees ahead of them and no open places to land.

The Piper struck the trees and became inverted, coming down hard and catching fire. McPherson told investigators that Kozel was unresponsive after the crash. McPherson claimed he was injured but was able to drag himself away from the burning airplane. He told investigators he saw people approaching him and begged them to get Kozel out of the wreckage, but the fire was consuming the aircraft.

A witness account of the accident differs. The witness said he pulled McPherson from the wreckage and then tried to rescue Kozel, but the flames drove him back.

It should be noted that the Piper Cherokee only has a door on the right side of the fuselage. The instructor traditionally sits on the right side of the aircraft.

The NTSB ruled the cause of the accident to be a “partial loss of engine power for undetermined reasons.” The investigation noted that the weather conditions at the time were conducive to the “development of serious icing at glide power and was between the range for icing at glide and cruise power and serious icing at cruise power.”

According to the investigative docket, at the time of the accident McPherson reported having 1,350 hours total time of which 700 was in Piper Cherokees, with his last flight review or equivalent happening in March 2021. He also reported having flown 40 hours in the previous 90 days.

McPherson was arrested at his home in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August 5. He pled not guilty to all the charges and was released the same day after posting a $50,000 bond and surrendering his passport.

If convicted he could face a maximum possible sentence of 128 years in prison and a $10.25 million fine, and a $4,100 special assessment. He has been assigned a public defender. 

According to the Office of the Inspector General, the case is being prosecuted by assistant U.S. attorney Robert Schopf and special assistant U.S. attorney Marie Miller.

The post Illegal CFI Faces Charge of Involuntary Manslaughter appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In an August 6 letter to Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) president Jason Ambrosi urged the manufacturer to reconsider its proposal to reduce cockpit crew from two to one from entering the commercial aviation environment.

• READ MORE: Airbus, Avincis to Explore Europewide Electric Air Taxi Operations

Ambrosi cited the recent CrowdStrike cybersecurity incident as an example of the risks associated with an overreliance on technology. Ambrosi stated that technology should complement human expertise and monitored airline operations rather than replace it.

“Technological advancements can and have enhanced aviation safety, but in order to maintain and enhance our current level of safety, technology alone will never replace the indispensable role of two pilots in the flight deck,” Ambrosi said in the letter.

In addition to ALPA, the letter garnered support signatures from leaders of the European Cockpit Association and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations, which represent tens of thousands of pilots around the world.

This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post Associations Urge Airbus to Reconsider Single-Pilot Cockpit Proposal appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The flights were conducted at the Pittsburgh Air National Guard Base under a waiver from the Air Force. Merlin has contracts to develop autonomous flight systems for several Air Force platforms and the 1960s-era tankers are the first in line.

• READ MORE: U.S. Air Force, Merlin Partner for KC-135 Autonomous Flight Demo

Merlin said the first flights gathered data on how to design and fine-tune the robotic controls.

“Autonomous capabilities are essential to increasing operational capacity for the USAF and enhancing national security, emphasizing the importance of these data collection flights to properly inform the integration design ahead of flight demonstrations,” Merlin CEO Matt George said in a news release. “Over the last few months, we’ve achieved important milestones on the KC-135 that allow us to strengthen the relationship between the pilot and the aircraft as well as enhance safety and operational efficiency aboard a vital military aircraft.”

This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post Merlin Tests Autonomous Controls on KC-135 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Once a pilot adds an instrument rating, they’re legal to fly an ILS in blowing snow all the way to 200-foot minimums with an 1,800 RVR. But few of us would actually attempt such a demanding task with only our training and perhaps a bit of experience in actual conditions under our belt. I’ll call those folks “pilots with an instrument rating,” differentiating them from someone with more experience who would confidently undertake that operation. I’ll call that person an “instrument pilot.”

So, if your goal is to gain high levels of proficiency, experience, and comfort to ultimately grow from being a pilot with an instrument rating into an instrument pilot, how can you do that? I’m glad you asked because that’s just what we’re going to cover here.

Why Do It?

Why might you want to do this? It’s a lot of work, will take time, and generally involves nontrivial expense. What’s to be gained? Everybody’s answer will be somewhat different, but I can help you find yours.

Perhaps the most important question is, “Why did you get the instrument rating in the first place?” Maybe you did it to meet career aspirations. Or possibly you did it just to improve the utility of your basic private certificate, allowing you to go when the weather had been keeping you on the ground as a VFR pilot. 

In both of those cases, I’ll—perhaps argumentatively—encourage you to be the best pilot you can be. As a professional, your clients will certainly expect and deserve that. You should be able to competently complete any flight that’s both legal and safe for the aircraft. If you can’t, well, reread the previous sentence.

• READ MORE: How to Meet Instrument Rating Requirements

But what if it’s just you trying to go visit a friend? Don’t you deserve the same level of competence and confidence in the management of your flight and control of your airplane? It’s common during those personal flights to bring along a friend or family member. They deserve the same level of consideration as any paying passenger, so you owe it to yourself and your passengers to, again, be the best pilot you can be.

On top of all that, there’s a certain degree of pride involved. How would you feel after that ILS at the destination if your needles were bouncing from peg to peg, and you somehow managed to luck out enough to see the runway as the needles passed through the center? Compare that with the satisfaction, and yes, the pride, in sliding down the approach with needles that barely migrated off the center circle. Challenge yourself to always do better, and you’ll rarely find yourself performing poorly. But if you do, you’ll almost certainly know exactly why, and you’ll resolve to recognize the same situation next time and surely use that recognition and anticipation to perform better.

What’s the Difference?

I’ve talked about pilots with an instrument rating versus instrument pilots, but what’s the difference? Defining “instrument pilot” is a bit easier, so I’ll start there. Note that all this is a distinction of my own creation, so if you talk with others about it, you might get that thousand-mile stare until you explain.

An instrument pilot is one who has had enough training, enough experience, and most critically maintains enough proficiency that they can handle most anything that a given flight might be expected to throw at them. That doesn’t mean comfortably flying your Cessna 182 into an area of moderate icing. But it does mean that the pilot is both comfortable and competent to handle an inadvertent encounter with more significant weather than on the day of the check ride. 

• READ MORE: Instrument Rating Can Expand Your Travel Horizons

That weather might include ice, moderate turbulence, significant gusty crosswinds, and, yes, lower visibility and ceilings than forecast—possibly all at the same time. Naturally, these conditions will produce a greater concentration and focus on the job at hand by the pilot, but they shouldn’t bring so significant a ramping of anxiety that performance or judgment suffers.

On the other hand, a pilot with an instrument rating is a newbie. But by newbie I don’t mean that the instrument check ride was recent enough that legal currency hasn’t yet lapsed. I mean that the pilot doesn’t have much (or any) experience with a broad enough range of weather and atmospheric conditions to remain mostly calm and focused in handling that. This pilot likely still views anything worse than basic VMC as a reason to reexamine the go/no-go decision and might (or should) have personal minimums not much lower than 1,000-3.

Your Path Via the Right Seat 

Say you recently aced your instrument-rating check ride. Or perhaps you’ve long had the rating but never really had both the opportunity and confidence to “get your nose wet” much more than in benign conditions. Regardless of your starting point, how do you get to be a confident, competent instrument pilot? 

Like many things in aviation, the answer to that question is “it depends” and has multiple paths. 

Say your ultimate goal is employment as a pilot. It doesn’t matter whether you want to end up at the airlines, freight pilot, charter pilot, or even personal or corporate pilot. Work hard to build your experience to the point where you can get that first job beyond a CFI at the local flight school. 

Your short-term goal should be to fly in the right seat in a two-pilot operation, so possibly the entry-level freight or medical transport jobs might not be the best choice. 

Having that experienced captain next to you will serve multiple purposes. First, it will allow you to experience more varied conditions than you might feel comfortable tackling on your own, especially at first. Also, while your captains might not be CFIs, you’ll receive a lot of instruction. Many captains in this environment understand your need for experience and further education and happily provide it. Others might not want that role, leaving you to provide your own education through quiet observation.

• READ MORE: Instrument Rating: Why Are You Waiting?

Either way, flying with someone who’s both more experienced and has ultimate responsibility for the outcome of the flight is a wonderful way to learn. You should be as cautious and as methodical as you would be if you were solo, but ultimately it will be the captain who evaluates the conditions and assures the safe outcome. This allows you to learn the safe capabilities and limits of that operation in those conditions. You get to see what can be done and how to do it.

This route also will expose you to multiple captains, each with a different style. I remember vividly when I went through upgrade training at an airline, a member of management came into our class on the first day and asked us to reflect on our time in the right seat and try to identify the best captain we had flown with. After we considered that, he then asked us to think back over the same experiences and identify the worst captain we had flown with.

Everyone in the class had the same reaction. We were unable to identify a single-best captain. Instead, multiple captains were identified, each with some different traits that made us think of them. But everyone was instantly able to identify the single-worst captain with whom we had flown. 

As the class discussed, the manager then simply told us to determine the traits in the best captains that we wished to emulate and exactly what made that one person the worst captain and vow to never do any of those things we disliked.

If you’ve got your CFI or CFII, do as much advanced instruction as you can. Lacking a CFI, go around to all the pilots you can find and offer to fly with them as a safety pilot. Doing either of these won’t be as beneficial as flying with some 10,000-hour captain, but it’s still valuable experience to aid in your growth as an instrument pilot.

Learn from the Left Seat

But what if you don’t want to become a professional pilot and just want to be the best possible private pilot you can with the tools you have? There are a lot of paths you might choose, and I’ve got some recommendations that you can find your own variations along.

First, you must fly as often as possible. Every time you fly as pilot in command (PIC), fly IFR. I don’t mean 20-30 hours a year. I mean 10 hours or more a month, usually just about every week. This allows you to continue building on your experience rather than the ever-so-common two steps forward, one back. Even if the weather is “severe clear,” fly in the system to gain more experience and comfort within it. Rarely accept a visual approach at the destination. Fly an approach, even if it’s in VMC without a view-limiting device. If you can take a safety pilot, fly under the hood.

Don’t be afraid to tackle increasingly challenging weather conditions. Sure, if you just got your instrument ticket, you want to be very careful. But as you gradually gain more experience, put it to use. If you have a trip planned and the weather forecast stretches your comfort, that’s good. I often say that you can’t expand your comfort zone from within it. If the operation stretches your comfort more than you’re willing, find an instructor with plenty of experience and ask them to accompany you.

Watch for those marginal VMC and benign IMC days and go out to the airport and fly a few approaches on your own. As you do that more often, you’ll gain more comfort with those conditions.

I’m a strong believer in the value of simulators. I’m not going into a long discussion of sims, but here are a few basic points: If you can afford it, fly an approved sim, a Basic or Advanced Aviation Training Device (BATD/AATD). The difference to you at this point is largely irrelevant, so pick what’s available. Also, to the greatest extent possible, find something that simulates as closely as possible the aircraft you fly, both from an aerodynamic perspective as well as the panel. 

One of the lowest-cost approved simulators I know comes from Gleim Aviation. It’s a BATD that emulates a Cessna 172 SP with your choice of analog six-pack instruments or a Garmin G1000. If this is sufficiently close to what you fly, it’s an excellent choice for only $8,500.

If what you fly isn’t readily emulated with an approved simulator (which is common), you can build your own. My personal belief is that a sim that isn’t approved but closely emulates your aircraft is superior to an approved sim that isn’t close. That’s my thinking, but others disagree. 

My reasoning is simple. This is my example, but it applies broadly across the entire GA fleet. I fly a Cessna 340. Nobody makes an ATD for a C-340. The closest is usually a Beech Baron, but Precision Flight Controls can emulate a 414. Then, my airplane has full EFIS—there’s not a round dial on the panel. ATDs for any type might offer a G1000, but the retrofit stuff in my airplane is far different from a G1000. So to emulate my aircraft, I need to build the sim myself, and that won’t be approved for logging time. I’m OK with that. If I need to log some instrument time, I’ll go rent an approved sim for a few hours or get the time in my own airplane under the hood with a safety pilot a few times a year.

Once you’ve got access to a sim, fly it regularly, always in low-IMC. Fly approach after approach. Some weeks you’ll just fly approaches, repositioning yourself to the IAF and going in from there. Other weeks, practice with failures. On other sessions try doing a full flight from departure to destination. 

As you fly the sim more, add precipitation, ice, gusty winds, etc. In other words, build the severity of the weather until you can handle most anything. 

Then after completing one of these paths, you too will be an instrument pilot.

But There’s a Risk

Not long after I retired from 121 flying, I fell out of currency and needed the ol’ six-in-six to regain it. I hopped into an AATD and flew the requisite approaches, holds, etc., using raw data with no autopilot or flight director. The instructor was impressed. I was too, as I had never flown that sim before.

I figured it was all my experience as an instrument pilot. After all, that level of proficiency doesn’t leave you too quickly—or so I thought. Then a couple years later, repeat. Um, my performance was dismal, even with the flight director. What happened?

Well, instrument flight skills are highly perishable. If you’ve spent years comfortably flying as a proficient instrument pilot, well, reread that previous sentence. Once you no longer fly that often, you will lose those skills you worked so hard to gain. Trust me, it’s only through constant exercise that you can retain them.

So here’s my warning: Once you gain the competence and proficiency that you seek, you’ve got to continue working to maintain it. If you don’t keep flying at nearly that frequency, you risk reverting to just another pilot with an instrument rating. Although you might not have to start over to regain instrument-pilot status, you will have to work at it. You invested too much to get there in the first place, so don’t allow that proficiency to lapse.

This feature first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: Instrument Rating vs. Instrument Pilot appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to the study, Alaska had 4,996 private jet departures per 100,000 residents and a total of 36,650 departures in 2023, averaging over 100 flights daily.

• READ MORE: Finding Freedom by Flying in Alaska

Wyoming and South Dakota also ranked high with Wyoming reporting 24,263 jet departures a year and 4,173 registered aircraft, while South Dakota had 26,944 annual departures and 2,961 private jets. Montana, North Dakota and Nevada rounded out the top six, while surprisingly no East Coast states made the top 10.

In fact, despite the significant wealth in New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, these states had the fewest annual private jet departures per 100,000 residents.

“America flies more private jets than any other country in the world, with a grand total of 3,123,007 departures in the U.S. in 2023,” Rustic Pathways CEO Shayne Fitz-Coy said.

This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post Study Reveals Alaska Leads U.S. Private Jet Departures appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Restoring trust starts with meeting our commitments, whether that’s building high-quality, safe commercial aircraft, delivering on defense and space products that allow our customers to meet their mission, or servicing our products to keep our customers running 24/7,” Ortberg’s message said. “It also means meeting our commitments to each other and working collaboratively across Boeing to meet our goals. People’s lives depend on what we do every day, and we must keep that top of mind with every decision we make.”

Boeing’s reputation took a tumble in the wake of the 2018 and 2019 737 Max crashes that were attributed to a design flaw, resulting in a 20-month FAA grounding of the aircraft and the January 2024 loss of a door plug during an Alaska Airlines flight.

The latter has been the topic of two days of hearings before the National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy noted that the agency still needs to determine how the jet (Alaska Airlines Flight 1282) left the Boeing factory in Renton, Washington, missing four crucial bolts that held the door in place.

• READ MORE: NTSB Hears Testimony of Boeing Retaliation for Workers’ Mistakes

Ortberg will be based in Seattle, stating that it is important to be close to the place where the bulk of Boeing’s aircraft are made. William Boeing, the founder of the company, chose the Puget Sound because the first airplanes were made of spruce, and the area was rife with spruce forests. When aircraft manufacturing turned to metal, Boeing adapted, creating Washington factories in Everett, Renton and Seattle.

In 2001 when Boeing moved its headquarters to Chicago, and later Virginia, many industry experts suggested the aerospace giant’s focus had shifted from turning out quality products to increasing profit, even if it meant cutting corners. They also predicted that having the headquarters so far from the main factories would result in a degradation of product quality.

Ortberg announced he would be spending his first day on the job on the factory floor in Renton, “talking with employees and learning about challenges we need to overcome, while also reviewing our safety and quality plans.”

Ortberg, who brings more than 30 years of experience to his new role, vowed to be transparent with Boeing employees.

• READ MORE: Boeing Names New CEO to Lead Through ‘Consequential Period’

“Soon I’ll be visiting many of our sites and I look forward to meeting with teammates around the world,” his message to employees said. “In speaking with our customers and industry partners leading up to [Thursday], I can tell you that, without exception, everyone wants us to succeed.”

In addition to winning back the trust of the air traveling public, Ortberg will be faced with improving Boeing’s financial situation. The 737 Max crashes and door plug accident have sent the company’s stock prices into a nosedive.

The post First Day at the Office for New Boeing CEO appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

With many industry pundits predicting a general aviation future centering around electric-powered GA aircraft, part of the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) generation of less expensive and more adaptable electric aircraft, this grant combined with over $176,000 in matching funds will kick off a 12-month performance period with the culmination of one planning report that will address the AAM preparation requirements of 36 general aviation airports, specifically those airports distressed and at risk in the Appalachian counties of Kentucky, North Carolina, and Ohio.

An influx in general aviation activities is known to boost local economies with the expectation of economic growth opportunities as they integrate the sustainable electric aviation future in Appalachia.

This effort is just one of the endeavors that ARC undertakes as it supports multiple economic projects along the Appalachian Region. ARC states that these investments help build community capacity and strengthen economic growth in Appalachia, which has historically seen distress in those counties.

This article first appeared on Plane & Pilot.

The post Preparing Appalachian Airports for Electric Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.