August 28, 2024 - No. 35 In This Issue : Final Rule: Use of Supplemental Restraint Systems : What does “design-induced pilot error” mean? : American Airlines participates in first-of-its-kind research on contrail avoidance : With the purchase of six new A-29 Super Tucano aircraft, the Uruguayan Air Force will advance in replacing its A-37B Dragonfly attack aircraft : Reliable Robotics Performs Automated Cargo Deliveries for U.S. Air Force : GAMI Answers G100UL Criticisms Point By Poin : Textron eAviation Wants to Lead Mainstream Business Aviation to an Advanced Air Mobility Future : XB-1 Completes Second Flight : FAA Proposes New Cybersecurity Standards For Aircraft : Company closer to hypersonic passenger aircraft that would fly around the world at Mach 9 Robert Ruiz; Deputy Executive Director, Flight Standards, Federal Aviation Administration (Best in the business. [Ed.]) Final Rule: Use of Supplemental Restraint Systems SUMMARY: This rule prohibits civil aircraft operations conducted with supplemental restraint systems (SRS) unless operators meet certain requirements for ensuring passenger and crewmember safety during all phases of the operation. The FAA expects these requirements to increase the safety of individuals on board civil aircraft operations conducted with SRS. This rule addresses recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. Additionally, this rule will codify, with updates, an Emergency Order of Prohibition currently in effect addressing safety concerns regarding the use of supplemental restraints. The rule applies to all civil aircraft operations conducted with use of SRS. The rule does not apply to parachute operations, rotorcraft external-load operations, or public aircraft operations. DATES: Effective October 21, 2024. What does “design-induced pilot error” mean? Charles Grimes Note: See important photos in the original article. The B-17 had a habit of “crashing” on landing. The gear retracted on landing, the belly settled onto the runway causing the propellers to strike the runway thus destroying the engine(s), not to mention the damage from metal grinding on asphalt while sliding to a stop. It took awhile, but they finally figured out the problem. The B-17 was the first plane to use hydraulics for both gear and flaps. On approach, pilots lowered both flaps and gear. After landing, the pilot has to raise the flaps. Both were actuated by identical switches inches apart This is the actual panel, the landing gear switch is highlighted on the left and the identical flap switch on the right. It was all to easy for an exhausted pilot to mistake the gear switch for the landing [flap. Ed) switch and inadvertently raise the gear. This was the first inkling that machines should be designed to fit humans, not the other way round. Eventually, manufacturers designed a landing gear handle that resembles a wheel. And moved them apart. In the case of Airbus, waaaaay apart American Airlines participates in first-of-its-kind research on contrail avoidance FORT WORTH, Texas — American Airlines announced today the findings of a first-of-its-kind study on contrail avoidance, with results verified by satellite imagery, aimed at reducing aviation’s environmental impact. Contrails form when airplanes fly through layers of humidity, and they can persist as cirrus clouds for minutes or hours depending on the conditions. While these extra clouds can reflect sunlight back into space during the day, certain contrails can trap heat within the Earth’s atmosphere at night. The study, led by Google Research and Breakthrough Energy and with support from American, tested whether it is possible to identify atmospheric zones that are likely to create contrails. The team then determined whether pilots could avoid making contrails in flight when supplied with data regarding the location of these zones. “American is grateful for the opportunity to work with our partners at Google Research and Breakthrough Energy to help advance the science on contrail avoidance,” said Jill Blickstein, Vice President of Sustainability at American. “The results from this small-scale test are encouraging, and, while clearly there are more questions to answer about how to operationalize contrails avoidance across our industry, we’re excited to have played a role in establishing this first proof point. And we’re looking forward to sharing what we learned with stakeholders in the aviation industry and beyond.” After collecting large data sets — such as satellite imagery, weather and flight path data —Google Research and Breakthrough Energy used artificial intelligence (AI) to develop contrail forecast maps. A small group of American pilots flew 70 flights over six months, using AI-based predictions to make small modifications to routes that were projected to create contrails. “Our contrails predictions combine the latest in AI research with massive amounts of satellite imagery, weather data and flight data,” said Juliet Rothenberg, head of product for Climate AI at Google Research. “We now have the first proof point that commercial flights can use these predictions to avoid contrails, as verified in satellite imagery. We’re grateful for our partnership with American Airlines and Breakthrough Energy – together we’ve taken a significant step towards understanding a high-potential climate solution.” After the test flights, Google Research analyzed satellite imagery and found that flights where pilots used the AI predictions to avoid creating a contrail reduced contrail formation by 54%, as measured by distance, compared to flights where pilots did not use the predictions. This first proof point — albeit on a small number of flights — shows that a commercial flight can verifiably avoid creating a contrail. Additional research is necessary to determine if this success can be replicated and scaled. “Avoiding contrails might be one of the best ways to limit aviation’s climate impact, and now we have a clear demonstration that it’s possible to do so,” said Marc Shapiro, Director of Breakthrough Energy Contrails. “This study is a great example of what happens when creative, ambitious organizations work together to better understand and solve a tough problem, and we're grateful for American’s and Google’s partnership.” American is working to make its operations more sustainable with more-fuel efficient aircraft powered increasingly by low-carbon fuel and new technology. To achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the airline has set a number of ambitious intermediate targets. Earlier this month, American issued its 2022 Sustainability Report, providing updates on the company’s strategy and progress on key issues over the year, including climate change. Learn more in Google Research’s video and blog post. Cautionary statement regarding forward-looking statements and information Certain of the statements contained in this release, including goals for and projections of future results, the expected execution and effect of our sustainability strategies and initiatives and the amounts and timing of their expected impact, should be considered forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on the company’s current objectives, beliefs and expectations, and they are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside the company’s control, that may cause actual results and financial position and timing of certain events to differ materially from the information in the forward-looking statements. Please see the company's latest Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the company’s other filings with the SEC for a discussion of risk factors as they may relate to forward-looking statements. The company does not assume any obligation to publicly update or supplement any forward-looking statement to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting these forward-looking statements other than as required by law. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof or as of the dates indicated in the statement. With the purchase of six new A-29 Super Tucano aircraft, the Uruguayan Air Force will advance in replacing its A-37B Dragonfly attack aircraft Por Redacción 26 August, 2024 Through the purchase of six new A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft from Embraer, the Uruguayan Air Force (FAU) will soon begin the process of replacing its A-37B Dragonfly aircraft. This was confirmed today, August 26, with an official statement from the Brazilian aerospace company, which announced the sale of these combat aircraft after concluding negotiations with the Uruguayan government. In July, reports indicated that negotiations between the Uruguayan government and Embraer for the purchase of six A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft to equip the Uruguayan Air Force had been progressing. Among the main arguments in favor of this deal were the necessary control of the neighboring country’s airspace and the renewal of its combat fleet, as highlighted today by the FAU commander, General Luis H. De León. Regarding the confirmation of this significant acquisition, the high command stated, “It should be noted that since 1981 our country has not acquired new combat aircraft. This purchase will generate great motivation and professional satisfaction within the Air Force.” This statement should be understood in the context of Uruguay’s limited acquisitions in this area, with the A-37B Dragonfly attack aircraft being the primary combat aircraft at the end of their service life and with limited operational capability. Embraer highlighted that the six new A-29s will provide new capabilities to the Uruguayan Air Force, including “… control of illegal activities, border surveillance, reconnaissance, and advanced training” thanks to their operational flexibility and significant logistical support provided by the company to its operators. With this acquisition, Uruguay joins the growing fleet of A-29 Super Tucano in the region, with these aircraft already in service with the Air Forces of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and, more recently, Paraguay. It is worth noting that the Paraguayan government also confirmed the purchase of six attack aircraft at the end of last July as part of its plans to strengthen its national airspace control capabilities. EMB-314 Brazilian Air Force. Conceptual image of one of the future Super Tucano of the Paraguayan Air Force. While no further details were provided, the Brazilian company stated that deliveries to the FAU would begin in 2025. The sale package for the six units includes mission equipment, integrated logistics services, and a flight simulator. Additionally, it was indicated that the Uruguayan government has committed to purchasing an additional batch of five units in the future, with this option presumably included in the current contract. Reliable Robotics Performs Automated Cargo Deliveries for U.S. Air Force By Inside Unmanned Systems Reliable Robotics has announced that it recently completed a series of automated missions across airfields in California and Nevada for the Department of the Air Force. In conjunction with Air Combat Command, Reliable demonstrated aircraft automation capabilities as part of the Agile Flag 24-3 exercise transporting cargo between military bases and airports, some hundreds of miles apart, on demand over the course of a week. Image: Reliable Robotics. The exercise was designed to be representative of the Indo-Pacific region, demanding agility, readiness and multi-domain operations. “The Air Force has a unique opportunity to redefine efficiency through autonomous operations, which can enable persistent maneuver in contested environments and simultaneous cargo delivery instead of our current sequential system. Autonomy in small platforms reduces risk and opens up the ability to land in more places including damaged runways or unimproved surfaces,” said Colonel Max Bremer, Mobility COE Senior Advisor, Chief of Special Programs Division, Air Mobility Command. “Military exercises like Agile Flag provide a venue for us to more closely evaluate how technologies like autonomous systems operate in real missions.” Automated flights of a Cessna 208B Caravan included autotaxi, autotakeoff, en-route navigation and autolanding. All flights were managed by Reliable’s remote pilot while an onboard pilot monitored. Reliable deployed a mobile control station onsite at Mojave Air and Space Port, which served as a base of operations for the military exercise. The rapid deployment of Reliable’s mobile control station enabled onsite demonstrations of the remote piloting side of the operation for Air Force and NASA personnel. Over the weeklong exercise, Reliable flew to eight locations, transporting essential cargo. All flights were expedited and scheduled “on-demand,” and did not require deployment of any additional infrastructure for automated flight, demonstrating the additional utility and flexibility automation can provide. Preparation for the exercise required obtaining military airworthiness and flight safety approvals for expanded operations from the U.S. Air Force. NASA Armstrong executive leadership came to observe Reliable’s Agile Flag operations at Mojave. “We are excited to see the dual-use automation system Reliable has developed for commercial and defense customers,” said Brad Flick, Center Director at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center. “It’s good to see the maturity of their technology.” “We are proud to participate in military exercises. Agile Flag provided us the opportunity to show how our autonomous flight system benefits defense missions and to demonstrate timely mission readiness,” said Dr. David O’Brien, Major General (Ret.), and Senior Vice President of Government Solutions at Reliable Robotics. “We remain committed to serve and support the U.S. Air Force and other branches of our nation’s military.” GAMI Answers G100UL Criticisms Point By Point GAMI founder George Braly offers responses to a series of criticisms and questions about G100UL, his company’s unleaded replacement for 100LL. Russ Niles Updated Aug 27, 2024 11:13 AM EDT Note: See the comments after this story in the original article. Last week's blog was more of an update on progress so far on the replacement of 100LL with unleaded high-octane aviation fuels. In the comments section a reader who uses the title BestGlideSpeed gave a long list of questions and criticisms of General Aviation Modifications Inc.'s (GAMI's) G100UL. Many of the points made by BestGlideSpeed have been made by others and others we haven't heard before. GAMI founder and Chief Engineer George Braly has addressed them in a point-by-point response to the post. His intent was to post it as a reply to BestGlideSpeed's comment in the comment section but he agreed to allow us to run it as this week's AVweb Insider. Here is his intended reply without any editing except to add formatting to make the replies distinct from the assertions made by BestGlideSpeed. We at AVweb believe this to be the fundamental issue affecting the future of light aviation and we welcome all comments made with the good faith intention of furthering the discussion. That means we're inviting any of the players and stakeholders in this issue to use this space to make their views known, with the knowledge that whatever they put forth is open to rebuttal and debate. Some of what Braly has to say is provocative and we expect it to bring reaction. Let's have it. Russ Niles, Editor-In-Chief BestGlideSpeed posted the long message critical of G100UL Avgas - - which is re-quoted below. On behalf of GAMI, I (George Braly, Head of Engineering) am commenting on his message. ************ I’m not certain if this is a news story, or if Russ just enjoys throwing rocks at a hornets' nests to see all of the commenters get riled up. At this point no news is simply, well, no news. As an engineer developing new products for market, I understand that a typical, successful development project always includes the following: 1. Unrealistic demands of what the new product must be able to do. Not in the case of G100UL. The original design criteria, set out in writing to the FAA in the spring of 2011, were each fully met, and even exceeded. 2. A never ending system of hurry up and wait. Yes. There has been a lot FAA imposed “waiting” and not a lot of “hurry up” 3. Unrealistic demands that after everyone sat on their hands burning up the clock, you must now save everyone else’s bacon and get the ball across the finish line in record time. No such urgency from the FAA has yet come to light. 4. Individuals who have no understanding of the science, industry, or use case are the ones setting the project priorities. There has, at times, been some of that from the FAA. But mostly the impediments have been designed by the proponents to simply slow the G100UL avgas project down or to stop it, completely. 5. Self interested individuals continually ignore realities and proclaim “just go with my favorite answer now” because the unresolved concerns fall outside of their very limited set of priorities. A lot of that very recently with respect to the coverage of the last 2% of the fleet of aircraft - rotorcraft. 6. The list goes on ad nauseam - and that is when things go well. Things went “well” from 2012 to 2015. Then stagnated for four years. Then went backwards for 6 months. Then, beginning in July, 2020, the Washington AIR-1 assigned a really GREAT new team of engineers and we managed to finish the project in 24 months. A project that the government gave ten years to resolve is only four years along. The scope of that government project included TWO PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS: a) The PAFI / EAGLE project and b) The STC pathway. The second of those two pathways is now a resounding success with every single spark ignition engine in the FAA database approved to use G100UL Avgas. No exceptions! From my perspective, I am impressed with the progress that has been made in that amount of time. Respectfully, I would suggest that almost no person in the FAA who is not financially or career “motivated” with affiliation to the manifestly failed PAFI / EAGLE program would agree with you. The taxpayers have spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on the failed UL AvGas/PAFI/EAGLE programs over the last 20 years. The taxpayers have absolutely ZERO to show for that expenditure. Ronald Reagan once observed that there is nothing that lasts so long in Washington as a “temporary program.” The fact that Russ is proclaiming all to be lost and we need a complete reboot with the FAA jack boot on the neck of fuel manufacturers to obtain it is just adding himself to the list as another obstacle to getting anything done. On the contrary. Russ’s observations, and Paul Bertorelli’s from 18 months ago, are precisely on point. I give kudos to at least one organization being honest enough to say that a “drop-in” replacement is not possible. That statement calls to mind the old Chinese Proverb: One should not tell the Chinaman that he cannot do something he has already done! A full “drop-in” replacement has already been approved by the FAA. Any statement to the contrary is either based on a lack of knowledge, or some hugely contorted definition of the phrase “drop-in” to mean something very different than the meaning given to that term by the FAA and most other participants. To accept that statement we have to understand what a “drop-in” replacement entails. It is easy to say “I fly behind a Jabiru engine and I don’t need the same octane as some of the big block engines, so let’s just go with XXX”, but that is not a drop-in replacement for the industry. Whatever replacement we ultimately come to will be a system of compromises. There is no compromise with the use of G100UL Avgas. In fact, G100UL Avgas is able to allow enhanced performance of the existing fleet of high powered radial engines - - by allowing those engines to be up-rated in BHP back to their original war time military ratings. Some of us will come out of this perfectly pleased, and some of us will be left out in the cold. No one is left out in the cold - - except the major producers of 100LL who have tried to obstruct and delay any development of a “drop-in” replacement for 100LL. Consider: GAMI’s fuel is not approved for rotary wing. You cannot get rid of 100LL and leave all of the rotary wing aircraft grounded. News helicopters, med-evac, offshore platform, Wrong. Every single rotary wing [gasoline] engine is already approved for use with G100UL Avgas. Robinson Helicopter (which makes 80% of all of the helicopters) has fully tested G100UL avgas using their independent test protocols that they developed for their testing of PAFI/EAGLE fuels. Robinson has told GAMI that G100UL Avgas is the only unleaded fuel to ever pass their rigorous flight test helicopter profile. Robinson has written a complete engineering report and that has been submitted to the FAA to facilitate the early addition of the rotorcraft airframes (the engines are already approved) to the Approved Model List. . . . the list goes on and on. [If the “list goes on….” Then, please, send me an email and let me know what other items are “on the list.” gwbraly@gami.com. GAMI’s fuel is approved by the FAA via STC - this approval only means that if I fly a certificated fixed wing aircraft, I am allowed to use it and not get busted by the FAA. That is false. The FAA approval means the FAA has found the use of G100UL Avgas to be equally safe, or actually safer than the use of 100LL. Their words were: “… as good as or better’ than 100LL. It is not an industry approval, and it by no means is a blanket mandate, indemnification, or adoption. There is no such thing as an “industry approval.” Period. Parade Rest. Nor has there ever been. The purpose of an ASTM specification (by its own terms, in paragraph 1.1, is to facilitate the sale and purchase of 100LL by “purchasing agents.” It is not approved by the engine manufacturers, it is not approved by the airframe manufacturers, Actually, Cirrus has fully tested G100UL Avgas. Recently, the senior manager at Cirrus has told his staff and has told one of the industry groups that “Cirrus has no technical objection” to the use of G100UL Avgas.” … it is not approved by the insurance companies. Wow. What complete nonsense! ! ! You have been reading too many “statements” from Curt Castagna at NATA. FACT: Each of the major distributors has directly advised GAMI directly, that they have obtained the same product liability insurance for their sale of G100UL Avgas as they have for 100LL. Two years ago, the insurers told one of the two largest distributors the following (at Lloyds, in London): “If the FAA approves G100UL Avgas, then Lloyds will insure it. No additional charge for the premium. FURTHER MORE, Vitol Aviation was able to add G100UL Avgas to its policy with no increase in premium. … , and it is not approved by the fuel distributors/sellers. Actually, each of the major distributors has reviewed the G100UL Avgas FAA approved specification and told GAMI that they had no objection to that specification. Note, distributors and sellers do not approve or disapprove of fuels. And none of them have stated to GAMI that they have any reason to ‘disapprove’ of G100UL Avgas . The FAA has no authority to mandate via STC that Lycoming engines must run on GAMI fuel that distributors must sell it, and insurance companies must indemnify it. The STC only gives permission to the pilot to buy it. Correct. Nor does the FAA mandate that Lycoming must approve the use of 100LL or UL94 or UL82. THAT is not the FAA’s job. We have one fuel that proclaims itself the elixir of all aviation engines, but refuses to allow the industry to examine it. WRONG. Wrong, again. And Again. From your series of false statements, it appears that you may be reading too many press releases from NATA and GAMA, and similar organizations. GAMI has in fact allowed the industry to examine G100UL avgas. Lycoming and Continental have each sent engineers to GAMI and have flown G100UL avgas and compared it back to back with 100LL and have each stated to GAMI that they cannot tell the difference in operation when compared to the use of 100LL. We have another manufacturer that says we are working on the best solution we can, but there is no silver bullet and our solution will not be a drop-in replacement for 100LL. We have a third that is working on it but is keeping their efforts close to the vest. That would be LyondellBasel/VP Racing and Swift Fuel. Both of the sponsors of each of those two fuels have acknowledged, publicly, that neither of those two fuels will be able to be used on the higher performance portion of the fleet (8.5:1 CR N.A. engines and turbocharged engines) without substantial engine modifications and/or limitations added to the operating instructions. I doubt that GAMI’s fuel is as perfect as they claim. GAMI has never claimed it is “perfect.” Please do not make false accusations. There are too many red flags. In the end, there will be compromises. Please elaborate and identify the “red flags” and the necessary “compromises” which you, in good faith, believe to exist? We may need to move to multiple fuels to provide a simple well performing fuel to those who do not need such high octane, and a “compromise” version of 100LL that the EPA can live with in smaller quantities for the larger engines, rotary wing engines, and any others that absolutely require the higher octane. We may need to choose a boutique fuel that gets us most of the way there, but only after modifications to the engines that require higher octane. The thought embodied in the previous two paragraphs may well be some of the worst proposals and/or concepts for a “solution” to the TEL lead problem ever articulated in public. Either or both would be a disaster for general aviation piston powered aircraft owners. Likely, we will need to kick the can down the road and extend the 10 years. The amount of lead contributed to the environment by aviation fuel is infinitesimally small when compared to the world’s annual consumption of lead - so small that is not measurable in the environment. Yes, the lead contribution is small. But continuing to be a “lead denier” will likely not work out well. In addition, the benefits we have all enjoyed in the automotive world from getting rid of the lead will also take place in aircraft engines. Double or triple the oil change intervals. No more routine cleaning of spark plugs. Likely, in our future, greatly extended TBO’s. All of those are likely to occur. There is no perfect solution, and typically it is not the first suitor to knock on your door. We have 10 years to fully develop every option and then make a well informed decision about the compromises that we will need to make as an industry. Respectfully, if you think the States of California, Oregon, WA, CO. WI. NY, and a number of others are going to wait more than another 12 to 24 months, then you are not well informed with the activity going on in those states. For those who want to see GAMI be central to that solution, my recommendation is that GAMI take advantage of the next few years to continue to perfect their product and completely satisfy the testing requirements of every industry group out there. A) No “industry group” has even come to GAMI to make any suggestion for any further “testing”. B) Please provide some details as to what aspect of G100UL you believe needs to be improved upon? They should resolve the limitation that excluded rotary wing. The addition of helicopters to the AML STC is nearly completed. See the previous comments on that subject about Robinson. They should be testing their fuel with Lycoming, with Continental, with Jabiru, with Rotax, with ASTM, with Cessna, and with Piper. G100UL Avgas has already been rigorously tested to the FAA’s highest standards. Lycoming and Continental have both tested G100UL and found no deficiencies. Nor have they pointed out any to GAMI. NOW HEAR THIS: ASTM DOES NOT TEST FUEL! ASTM considers testing done by fuel sponsors – just like the FAA – and then only writes a specification. Which is not approval to even put one drop of fuel in the wing of an aircraft. They should include representatives of insurers and distributors in those efforts. GAMI has done that for distributors. Insurers do not get involved in any such activity. Where on earth did you come up with THAT concept? Sitting on their secret formula and saying “we don’t trust anyone” is doing themselves no favors while their competitors work diligently for a solution that the industry can openly embrace. Obviously, once again in the long series in this response, you are not well informed. The complete specification for G100UL Avgas, Revision -12C9 has been posted on GAMI’s web site www.g100ul.com and, more specifically, https://www.g100ul.com/faq#specification since before Oshkosh. In addition, any of the distributors and/or OEMs that has asked to see that document have been furnished that document, over the course of the last several years. Textron eAviation Wants to Lead Mainstream Business Aviation to an Advanced Air Mobility Future Along with Embraer, the U.S. group is the only established private aircraft maker to so far embrace electric and autonomous technology. The Nexus eVTOL aircraft from Bell is one part of Textron's portfolio of electric aircraft. (Image: Textron) By Charles Alcock • Managing Editor October 21, 2022 This year Textron Aviation has made a big leap forward in executing its strategic plan for a leadership role in the so-called advanced air mobility (AAM) revolution. Alongside rival Embraer, it is the only other mainstream business aircraft manufacturer to be assembling a credible product portfolio of electric and autonomous aircraft. The U.S. aerospace and defense group sees the new sector gaining serious momentum from around 2030, and by then it could potentially have several new electric aircraft ready to enter service next to a product line that already includes the ubiquitous King Air and Caravan turboprop families and Citation business jets. In March 2021, Textron signaled its ambitions with the formation of its eAviation division under the leadership of former Textron senior vice president of sales and marketing Rob Scholl, reporting directly to group chairman and CEO Scott Donnelly. Just over 12 months later the surprise acquisition of electric aviation pioneer Pipistrel in April 2022 well and truly turned theory into practice, providing the basis for several new aircraft now in the development pipeline. The deal also seems to have breathed new life into the plans being hatched by Textron’s helicopter division Bell for its Nexus eVTOL vehicle. After seeming content for the industry to assume that this project was on the back burner, Scholl told AIN that Bell is now building the first prototype and expects to be ready to start flying it in 2024 or 2025. “Our design is a bit bigger than what we’re now seeing in the [eVTOL] air taxi sector, weighing 8,000 pounds, with a 50-foot wingspan and a range of 100 nm,” Scholl told AIN. “We believe this is a pragmatic choice to reflect applicable technology and regulatory considerations.” This represents a significant range increase over earlier iterations of the Nexus that were expected to fly no further than around 60 miles. The new Nexus will be able to fly at 120 kts and its wingspan has been increased in order to meet current FAA vertical flight regulations. The larger and longer-range model unveiled at an NBAA show press conference on Monday looks markedly different from a succession of earlier technology demonstrators that Bell has been working on over the past five years. With about the same dimensions as the Grand Caravan, it features an open rotor system with four stationary units for vertical lift and a pair of tilting rotors for the transition to cruise flight. One of the main reasons Textron sees AAM services taking somewhat longer to gain momentum than start-up rivals pushing for launch in 2024 or 2025 are the challenges associated with new infrastructure requirements, especially in terms of airspace management, and also new regulations. “We need to be more focused on how we increase airspace capacity, how do we increase communication to get aircraft talking to each other,” Scholl stated. “If anyone can do it, Textron can.” In his view, ground infrastructure for eVTOL operations is somewhat less of an immediate imperative as he feels the new services can get started mainly with existing infrastructure, rather than by, “building hundreds of new vertiports.” Textron is looking to build on its long-established engagement with leading regulators like the FAA and EASA to contribute to putting the AAM building blocks in place. The Nexus program team now consists of some 50 full-time engineers, most of whom are based in Textron’s Pawnee Campus Glass House in Wichita, Kansas. Additionally, the group is tapping not only Bell’s engineering resources, but also colleagues from Pipistrel (providing battery expertise) and from other Textron units, including automotive supplier Kautex and propeller specialist McCauley. Despite a declared willingness to accelerate Nexus’s path to market, Textron appears to see more immediate potential for fixed-wing electric aircraft. These include Pipistrel’s Velis Electro trainer, which is still the only type-certified aircraft with a growing customer base in Europe that Textron now wants to expand through achieving FAA approval. At this past summer’s EAA AirVenture show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Textron announced plans to step up certification efforts for Pipistrel’s Panthera general aviation model. At first, the focus is on the standard model powered by a new Lycoming piston engine, but Scholl pointed out that the group’s new Slovenia-based subsidiary has already flown a hybrid-electric technology demonstrator as part of the Horizon 2020 Mahepa research and development work backed by the European Union. Also now in the eAviation mix is Pipistrel’s Nuuva family of uncrewed cargo air vehicles, including the in-development V300 model. This has already been deployed for airspace integration testing in Europe and is intended for middle-mile freight distribution work. The Slovenian company is also offering an uncrewed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platform called the Surveyor. This medium-altitude model has a flight endurance of up to around 30 hours. Pipistrel has also been working on an electric 19-passenger regional airliner called the Miniliner that bares a passing resemblance to Textron’s Beech 1900 commuter. The Miniliner is intended to operate on routes of around 300 nm, connecting small airports with little or no scheduled airline services to bigger international gateways. Scholl said this project is still in the works, albeit with a somewhat longer timeline than some of the other market opportunities now pre-occupying the eAviation team. Parent company Textron Aviation recently announced a partnership with hydrogen propulsion system developer ZeroAvia to electrify the Cessna Grand Caravan. The companies are working to secure a supplemental type certificate to install the 600 kW ZA600 powertrain on the turboprop single by 2025. “Getting the business economics right is a big part of the challenge for sustainable aviation,” Scholl concluded. “Textron is uniquely positioned to lead the AAM sector. Few companies will make it to market and be successful.” XB-1 Completes Second Flight Landing gear retracted and extended for first time, digital stability augmentation demonstrated successfully Note: Please go to the original article to see awesome videos and photos. Today, Boom’s XB-1 supersonic demonstrator aircraft successfully executed its second flight at the Mojave Air & Space Port in Mojave, California. Following its historic first flight in March 2024, XB-1 continues to progress through its flight test program, targeting supersonic flight by the end of the year. The XB-1 program provides the foundation for the design and development of Overture, Boom’s supersonic airliner, while establishing a safety-first culture. Just weeks after XB-1’s inaugural flight, Boom secured the first-ever Special Flight Authorization (SFA) to Exceed Mach 1 from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA Proposes New Cybersecurity Standards For Aircraft The Federal Aviation Administration introduced changes to its cybersecurity standards for new aircraft and equipment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued Wednesday. According to the agency, the proposed… Amelia Walsh Updated Aug 22, 2024 2:34 PM EDT The Federal Aviation Administration introduced changes to its cybersecurity standards for new aircraft and equipment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued Wednesday. According to the agency, the proposed rules would tackle cybersecurity threats for transport category aircraft, engines and propellers. The goal is to standardize the FAA’s cybersecurity criteria, which would help lower certification costs and time while maintaining the current safety levels. Under the proposed rules, any aircraft with more than 19 passenger seats or a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 19,000 pounds will be required to undergo a cybersecurity risk assessment. Manufacturers will then need to address any vulnerabilities. The FAA noted that the new mandates were introduced as flight equipment has become more connected to internal and external data networks and services—including satellite communications and internet-connected devices. The agency is accepting comments and feedback on the proposed rules until Oct. 21. [See copy of FAA notice HERE.] Company closer to hypersonic passenger aircraft that would fly around the world at Mach 9 • Venus Aerospace is working on a jet engine-rocket engine hybrid system • The system would be capable of reaching Mach 9 • The company has just completed its first test flight Published on Aug 21, 2024 at 6:30 PM (UTC+4) by Alessandro Renesis Last updated on Aug 22, 2024 at 7:04 PM (UTC+4) Edited by Tom Wood Note: Please see photos and a video in the original article. Aerospace company Venus is one step closer to hypersonic flight. The company has successfully completed its first test flight, which is theoretically the first on its way to Mach 9. For reference, Concorde could ‘only’ fly at Mach 2. Sure, we’re a long way from Mach 9 still, but this is a positive step. The test flight was part of the program that Venus is currently working, with the ultimate goal being an aircraft that’s capable of flying Mach 9. They call it the ‘Starglazer‘, and while the plane is still in its prototype phase, the technology behind it is being tested in the real world. From supersonic to hypersonic Venus Aerospace’s test drone successfully completed its inaugural flight this year. That’s the good news, but the bad news is this drone is only capable of supersonic speeds. According to Venus, this is the best way to scale up and build an RDRE (rotating detonation rocket engine) capable of flying hypersonic’ cheaply and quickly’. The test was conducted with a 300lb drone flying at 12,000 feet at Mach 0.9, or 1,111 km/h. How does Venus Aerospace’s Starglazer actually work? Venus Aerospace Stargazer is designed to use two types of engines, namely a combination of conventional jet engines and rocket engines. The aircraft would use conventional jet engines for take-off and rocket engines would only deploy once the plane reaches 170,000 feet. We should point out that Venus isn’t the only company that’s working on hypersonic aircraft. Hypersonix, an Australian startup, is working on a plane known as Dart AE, which would be capable of flying at Mach 7. Mind you, there’s a key difference between Starglazer and Dart AE. While the former is ideally designed as a testbed for hypersonic commercial flights, the latter is a military project, which is currently being developed in partnership with the US DoD, the Department of Defense. Curt Lewis