September 4, 2024 - No. 36 In This Issue : Watchdog: Air Force Must Get Better at Holding Contractors Accountable for Bad Spare Parts : Modernization of Passenger Information Requirements Relating to “No Smoking” Sign Illumination :_Cathay Pacific Finds 15 Planes Need Engine Repairs : Air Force Floats Light Stealth Fighter Concept As Its Heavy Fighter Program May Be In Jeopardy : FAA Unveils AI Integration Aviation Roadmap as States Eye Regulations : Fast 5: Dowty Pursues Next-Gen Aircraft Propeller Blades : NASA Scientist Says Patented ‘Exodus Effect’ Propellantless Propulsion Drive that Defies Physics is Ready to go to Space : Boeing’s 777X Finally Gets Its Engines : New B-52 engine the F130 enters next phase of testing : Unleaded Fuel Process Needs A Reboot (Revised) : Widespread Engine Attachment Fitting Cracks Halt 777-9 Flying Watchdog: Air Force Must Get Better at Holding Contractors Accountable for Bad Spare Parts Aug. 30, 2024 | By David Roza Tech. Sgt. Jesse Tolbert, metals technology specialist with the 191st Maintenance Squadron, Michigan Air National Guard, inspects fasteners on an F108 jet engine, Feb. 6, 2024 at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan. (U.S. Air National Guard Photo by Tom Demerly) The Air Force lacks proper guidance and controls for getting contractors to pay it back for defective spare parts, leaving the service with millions of dollars’ worth of broken equipment and sometimes paying even more money to repair it. A new report from the Department of Defense Inspector General found that the Air Force did not seek restitution for 45 defective spare parts worth $5.9 million for the C-130J Super Hercules, because Air Force deficiency reporting personnel did not enforce the warranty for those parts, did not have an effective system for tracking those parts, and did not fully understand the warranty requirements. Beyond the C-130J, the Air Force also could not provide evidence of contractor restitution for 77 defective parts valued at $500,000 for other airframes, including the F-16, F-22, and even the device which arms certain kinds of bomb fuzes. While the Air Force was paid back for 185 other defective parts valued at $19.4 million, it took an average of 81 days to provide evidence of contractor restitution, leading the watchdog to question the service’s process for holding contractors responsible. Restitution could take the form of payment, repaired parts, or replacement parts. “These conditions occurred because the Air Force lacked adequate guidance and controls over the contractor restitution portion of its deficiency reporting process,” investigators wrote. “As a result, the Air Force missed opportunities to hold contractors accountable and obtain restitution for defective parts.” Airman 1st Class Iyana Wells, a C-130 mobility readiness spares package journeyman with the 1st Special Operations Logistics Readiness Squadron, conducts inventory of an MRSP kit at Hurlburt Field, Florida, July 12, 2018. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Dennis Spain) It’s not just a matter of returning taxpayer money; when parts are bad, they put lives at risk. In 2020, an F-16 pilot died when his ejection seat failed to deploy its parachute. Air Force investigators suspected some key parts of the seat may have been counterfeit. “The Air Force’s official inquiry in the months following the accident found that electronics inside the seat were scratched, unevenly sanded, and showed otherwise shoddy craftsmanship,” Air Force Times reported in 2022. The DODIG investigation found reports of many other defective aircraft parts, including hazy F-16 cockpit canopies; inadequate fuel tubes for an F-16 engine; flaps that could not be installed on the exhaust nozzle of the B-1B’s engine; and faulty processors for the C-130J weather radar systems. The service seemed to keep few records of which parts they’d received restitution for; investigators noted that it took more than four months for the service to provide evidence it had received $1 million in restitution for defective B-1 exhaust nozzle flaps. “This information was generally not readily available to Air Force deficiency reporting personnel, and they often had to obtain the evidence from other Air Force organizations, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the [Defense Contract Management Agency], and contractors,” the report said. An official for Air Force Materiel Command told investigators that Air Force deficiency reporting guidance focuses on the investigation portion: identifying the cause of defective parts, and mitigating risks. But the contractor restitution portion leaves much to be desired. For example, the guidance does not address how to track restitution for defective parts, nor does it lay out the key roles or responsibilities for obtaining that restitution. Other branches do it differently. Investigators noted that the Army Aviation and Missile Command does not close out its product quality deficiency reports (PQDR) until the Army receives restitution from the contractor. “An Air Force deficiency reporting official also suggested that keeping the PQDR open until receipt of full contractor restitution would help improve the process,” the report said. The problems were particularly acute for the C-130J, where investigators found Air Force deficiency reporting personnel did not establish a process to track defective parts; follow Air Force guidance to establish a warranty plan and communicate that to Air Force users; or receive training on or fully understand contract warranty requirements. “As a result, the Air Force was unable to recover $3 million for defective parts, and paid approximately $200,000 to repair defective parts under warranty, resulting in questioned costs,” the report wrote. The scale of these issues worried investigators “that similar deficiencies may exist with other major Air Force weapon system programs.” DOD IG listed several recommendations for AFMC to improve the situation, including: • Find out if the Air Force can still obtain restitution for defective parts for which evidence of restitution is missing • Update technical orders to provide details on process, roles, and responsibilities for obtaining restitution for defective parts, then establish a training program for deficiency reporting personnel • Develop and implement controls and oversight for tracking contractor restitution • Require C-130J deficiency reporting personnel establish a process for tracking defective parts to make sure they are repaired or replaced by the contractor under warranty • Develop warranty guidance for C-130J deficiency reporting personnel and communicate it to the relevant parties • Provide recurring training on warranty requirements for defective parts • Review other major Air Force weapon system programs to make sure deficiency reporting rules are being followed AFMC agreed or partially agreed to all of the recommendations, but the DOD IG said it will keep its recommendations open until “we verify that the information provided and actions taken by management fully address the recommendations.” Leadership from the 63rd Fighter Squadron conducts on-the-job training for Senior Airman Brenden Hansen, 56th Component Maintenance Squadron maintainer, March 10, 2020, at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Brooke Moeder) This report is not the first time the Air Force or the military writ large has been called out for its spare parts practices. In 2023, the Government Accountability Office said lack of Pentagon oversight for F-35 spare parts meant that the F-35 Joint Program Office has been unable to review losses worth tens of millions of dollars. “The F-35 Joint Program Office does not track or enter these spare parts into an accountable property system of record that would enable it to capture and store real-time changes to property records,” the report stated. “Currently, the prime contractors maintain this information.” There is a lot of money in spare parts, which at $1.5 billion made up the biggest single item on the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list for fiscal year 2025, but some of that money may be wasted due to aging systems for forecasting parts supply needs. In January, the Air Force paid a quantum computing company $2.5 million to create a more accurate supply chain inventory management system. “At best, a supply chain forecast is an educated guess,” the company CEO said at the time. “At worst, it is a wild guess.” Watchdog: Air Force Must Get Better at Holding Contractors Accountable for Bad Spare Parts Robert Ruiz Deputy Executive Director, Flight Standards, Federal Aviation Administration Modernization of Passenger Information Requirements Relating to “No Smoking” Sign Illumination AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department Of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending its regulations to allow aircraft to operate either with “No Smoking” signs continuously illuminated or with “No Smoking” signs a crewmember can turn on and off. Currently, crewmembers must be able to manually turn aircraft “No Smoking” signs on and off. However, the current regulations were drafted when the Department of Transportation (DOT) permitted smoking at times on commercial flights. These amendments bring FAA regulations into alignment with current practice for aircraft manufacturing and operations. DATES: This direct final rule is effective October 22, 2024. Submit comments on or before September 23, 2024. If the FAA receives an adverse comment, the FAA will advise the public by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of this direct final rule. That document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. Cathay Pacific Finds 15 Planes Need Engine Repairs The Hong Kong airline has canceled dozens of flights to inspect Airbus A350 planes since it found a problem with a Rolls-Royce engine in one of them. Cathay Pacific said that it had canceled at least 34 round-trip flights since Monday and that all flights were expected to return to service by Saturday.Credit... Tyrone Siu/Reuters By Alexandra Stevenson Reporting from Hong Kong Sept. 3, 2024 Updated 2:31 p.m. ET Hong Kong’s flagship airline, Cathay Pacific, said on Tuesday that it had found that 15 of its Airbus A350 planes required repair after an engine component failed on a plane headed to Zurich. Cathay Pacific said it had inspected all 48 planes in its Airbus A350 fleet, adding that three of them had been fixed by Tuesday afternoon. It said it had canceled at least 34 round-trip flights since Monday because of the engine issue. All flights were expected to return to operation by Saturday. The carrier began the inspections after one of its A350 planes took off from Hong Kong International Airport on Monday before it experienced a problem, dumped fuel over the sea for half an hour and had to return to the airport. Rolls-Royce, the maker of the Trent XWB-97 engine that is used in the A350 planes, said Cathay Pacific had secured the spare parts needed to replace its components. Rolls-Royce stock fell 6.5 percent on Monday on the London Stock Exchange after it initially said it could not determine what caused the incident. The stock bounced back partly on Tuesday. “Rolls-Royce will now be in a better position to analyze and determine what the root causes of the failure are, and then it will tell Cathay and other operators what should be done next,” said Warren Chim Wing-nin, the deputy chairman of the aircraft division at the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, a professional organization. Cathay Pacific did not provide details about the engine component that failed, but it said it was the “first of its type to suffer such a failure on any A350 aircraft worldwide.” Dozens of airlines around the world use the Airbus A350. In addition to Cathay Pacific, airlines with the biggest A350 fleets include Singapore Airlines, Qatar Airways, Air France, Delta Air Lines and Air China. Qatar Airways, which has 58 Airbus A350 aircraft, said that the operation of its fleet had not been affected but that it was “continuing to monitor any developments.” A spokeswoman for Singapore Airlines said that the airline was inspecting the Trent engines made by Rolls-Royce that power its Airbus A350 fleet and that there was currently no impact on any of its flights. None of the other airlines responded immediately to requests for comment. Chinese news media reported that the Civil Aviation Administration of China was looking into whether it needed to inspect the A350 engines of its domestic carriers, including Air China, China Southern Airlines, China Eastern Airlines and Sichuan Airlines. Airbus is the world’s biggest plane maker, a coveted position that it has held for five straight years as Boeing, its embattled rival, has faced a crisis over a series of failures with its 737 Max line of airliners. The engine component failure on Cathay Pacific’s A350 plane on Monday was the second engine incident in three days for the carrier. One of its Airbus A330 planes failed to take off from a runway in the southern Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung, because of what the company said was a technical problem. Alexandra Stevenson is the Shanghai bureau chief for The Times Cathay Pacific Finds 15 Planes Need Engine Repairs Air Force Floats Light Stealth Fighter Concept As Its Heavy Fighter Program May Be In Jeopardy The Air Force’s top officer touted the concept as a path to develop a less expensive and more flexible fighter design, which is odd considering a top priority was the service’s NGAD heavy fighter. Thomas Newdick Posted on Aug 20, 2024 7:21 PM EDT Note: Important video in the original article. A notional light fighter concept has been presented by the U.S. Air Force’s senior uniformed officer, providing a thought-provoking insight into one direction that the service’s future combat fleet could take. The concept emerges as Air Force officials are increasingly questioning the requirements for the crewed sixth-generation stealth combat jet being developed as part of its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative. An illustration of the light fighter concept was included as part of a presentation by Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. David W. Allvin, at the Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference, held in London last month and attended by air and space chiefs from around the world. The presence of the illustration was first brought to our attention by The Aviationist. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin. U.S. Air Force photo by Eric Dietrich Eric Dietrich While it must be stressed that the illustrated concept is intended to be notional, it does at least provide clues about how the Air Force would imagine a future light fighter. Looking something like a scaled-down F-35 stealth fighter, the single-engined aircraft is clearly tailored for low observability, with a prominent chine line around the fuselage. The wings are notably similar to those on the F-35, with which it also shares outward canted twin tailfins, although there are no horizontal stabilizers. The relative size of the bubble canopy helps determine the size of the notional light fighter, which is somewhat smaller — although not dramatically smaller — than the Joint Strike Fighter. The light fighter concept is shown during a presentation by Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. David W. Allvin, at the Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference, held in London. Tim Robinson During his address in London — organized by the Air and Space Power Association — Allvin provided a vision of future air forces in which a premium is placed on “building to adapt,” as opposed to “building to last.” This would be achieved, Allvin argued, by focusing on developing new iterations of common software that could be used on multiple platforms. The pace of software development would mean that the relative importance of the corresponding hardware — described by Allvin as a potential “albatross” — would be greatly reduced. This kind of software-led vision is something that we have heard in the past — examples include the ‘Digital Century Series’ approach espoused by Will Roper, the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Under Allvin’s vision, crewed fighters would be more “disposable,” with the cutting edge focused on new software, while hardware could be discarded much more rapidly than is the case today, with the Air Force’s aging fleets. An F-35A, in flight above the Mojave Desert in California, in January 2023. U.S. Air Force F-35 Joint Program Office “The capability to update at the speed of software, this is the edge we can deliver over our adversaries,” Allvin said, noting that, as well as being systems-centric rather than platform-centric, future air forces would also rely heavily on “swarming” to meet operational requirements. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the notional light fighter concept, however, is the timing of its appearance. As we have explored recently, the Air Force’s requirements for a new crewed fighter that will form the centerpiece of the NGAD effort are increasingly coming under scrutiny. In particular, there has been concern about how to mitigate the price tag on this aircraft, which is expected to be almost $250 million per copy. Among the options are sacrificing certain capabilities on that aircraft, or leaning increasingly upon uncrewed assets, including the service’s planned fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. A rendering of an F-15-series fighter flying together with a pair of MQ-28 Ghost Bat loyal wingman drones. Boeing After much speculation about the future of the new sixth-generation fighter, not to mention other elements of the larger NGAD initiative, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall last month confirmed the Air Force was reviewing the NGAD combat jet and just what it will deliver in terms of capabilities and at what cost. “It’s a very expensive platform,” Kendall told Defense News, according to a story published on July 1. “It’s three times, roughly, the cost of an F-35, and we can only afford it in small numbers.” Based on figures from last Fall, published by the F-35 Joint Program Office, the average unit price across all variants, including the aircraft’s F135 engines, in the latest production lots, was around $82.5 million. Late last month, Kendall confirmed that while still committed to NGAD, the Air Force is “taking a pause” on the program, noting also that while the sixth-generation fighter component will have a human pilot to start with, an optionally crewed version might ultimately be developed too. While Air Force officials have stressed that the NGAD — including its crewed combat jet component — is still a top-priority program, it’s clear that they are also open to reconfiguring it, at least to some extent, while presumably also eyeing what might come next. Bearing in mind the NGAD has always been billed as a ‘family of systems’ concept, adding some kind of lower-cost crewed aircraft at a later date — some sort of light fighter adjunct — would not be out of line with the effort’s broader ambitions. A notional crewed sixth-generation stealth combat jet flies together with a trio of drones. Collins Aerospace Were Allvin’s vision to be followed through, then the Air Force’s sixth-generation stealth jet could eventually be accompanied by multiple iterations of light (or at least lighter) fighters, offering a way to provide the kind of combat mass needed for a future conflict with China, for example. At the same time, not remaining wed to a single platform would offer a route to ensuring that software developments were the key driver in moving capabilities forward to keep pace with China’s own rapid air power modernization. Interestingly, there have also been previous signs that some kind of ‘high/low’ fighter mix could be on the cards for the Air Force of the future, as you can read about here. Back in 2021, retired Gen. James M. Holmes, the former head of Air Combat Command, reportedly brought up the idea that the Air Force might consider fielding two distinct versions of the NGAD fighter component, one optimized for long-range/heavy-payload missions of the kind that would likely be required in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as one with shorter range sufficient for the European theater of operations. Presumably, the two designs would share a high degree of commonality, with a focus on modularity and identical aircraft subsystems, reducing risk and increasing commonality. Meanwhile, the long-range requirements of a fighter to operate in the Pacific theater would appear to be a potential problem for any future light fighter, although the development of stealthy tankers could help address those shortcomings. On the other hand, there have also been suggestions that the Air Force should consider procuring an entirely different future fighter. Earlier in 2021, the previous Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. announced the launch of a months-long study into the service’s future force mix, including the possibility it could include a “clean-sheet design.” Described as a “four-and-a-half-gen or fifth-gen-minus” aircraft, such a fighter would be cheap enough to be procured in the numbers required to eventually replace the F-16. U.S. Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., when he was Pacific Air Forces commander, disembarks an F-16 at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, in October 2019. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Mackenzie Mendez The idea mooted by Brown was distinct from simply buying more F-16s, such as the latest Block 70/72 version, something that Will Roper had suggested could happen, in an interview with Aviation Week around the same time. Especially interesting is the fact that Brown had stressed that a new fighter of this kind would have to be based around open-mission systems, allowing it to receive software updates in rapid succession, potentially even during a mission. That kind of thinking also underpins the idea of a future fighter as outlined by Allvin last month. In his vision, Brown described “something new and different, that’s not the F-16 — that has some of those capabilities but gets there faster and uses some of our digital approach.” An F-16 escorts an F-35A at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. U.S. Air Force/Jim Hazeltine What’s common to these ideas is harnessing the potential of digital engineering and advanced manufacturing techniques to rapidly produce aircraft — potentially in relatively small production runs — that can then accommodate fast-evolving software ‘refreshes.’ These will be able to accommodate evolving designs, as well as give the ability to integrate new weapons and sensors faster. The end result should not only be more affordable (a big question in itself) but also better keep pace with dynamically evolving threats, especially those from China. Aside from peer conflicts, there have also been concerns raised that the Air Force, especially with NGAD, is moving too far away from the kind of low-end fight that characterized the last couple of decades of U.S. military operations. There’s an argument, perhaps, for a multirole light fighter that can not only boost combat mass overall but fill for lower-end missions. These would include not only the type of asymmetric combat that the Air Force has been involved in for years in Afghanistan and the Middle East, but also homeland defense and other air-policing-type missions, which don’t require a very expensive high-end fighter. Such concerns were addressed under the Air Force’s Tactical Aircraft (TacAir) study, launched in 2021 “to look at what is the right force mix,” in Brown’s words. Speaking then, the previous Air Force Chief of Staff stressed that the service needs fifth- and sixth-generation fighters (the F-35 and NGAD) “to remain competitive against our adversaries” but that it also needs capabilities for the “low-end fight.” A Lockheed Martin rendering of a sixth-generation combat jet. Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin Against this backdrop, there are also developments in uncrewed technologies and concepts of operations that are changing even more quickly than in the crewed fighter field. For a long time now, the Air Force has been looking at increasingly integrating combat drones within its tactical aviation fleet. With plans for the CCA still taking shape, drones could eventually have an even more dramatic effect on the future of the Air Force and, in turn, could influence plans for future crewed fighters, especially in terms of the optimum force mix. There have also been previous suggestions that the sixth-generation crewed fighter at the center of the NGAD program might not necessarily be best tailored to work with the CCA. While there have been assumptions that CCA has been developed to optimize it for NGAD, Secretary Kendall recently observed that “the CCA concept came along after the service had begun working to develop NGAD.” This suggests that the NGAD requirements may have been largely frozen before the emergence of the CCA program and that a different crewed platform might be better suited to exploiting the synergies offered by these drones. Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall delivers a keynote address at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland in September 2023. U.S. Air Force photo by Andy Morataya Andy Morataya Ultimately, there’s also the possibility that advances in both artificial intelligence (AI) and uncrewed technology are moving so fast now that manned-unmanned teaming as currently envisaged could end up being considered less competitive than the drones operating on their own, working cooperatively and deployed en masse. At some point, having a human involved will only slow down the decision cycle, while potential enemies will likely have no moral qualms about having humans out of the loop, even for deadly kinetic operations. While NGAD is, in the words of Secretary Kendall, “alive and well,” the Air Force is clearly actively looking at the NGAD platform design concept to see if it’s the right one or not. At the same time, the service is very much engaged in a cost battle right now, with well-publicized “affordability problems” threatening NGAD and other big-ticket programs. This further raises the question of whether a program as ambitious as a new light crewed fighter is even viable, regardless of the final unit cost and how that compares with the NGAD crewed fighter. For some time now, however, there have been signs that the service is looking at the possibilities for less-expensive combat aircraft, as well as the potential tradeoffs that might be involved. In that sense, Allvin’s notional light fighter concept is the latest in a line of efforts to rethink how the Air Force’s combat fleet should be best configured to meet the challenges to come. FAA Unveils AI Integration Aviation Roadmap as States Eye Regulations By PYMNTS | August 28, 2024 | From the Texas Capitol to federal aviation authorities, policymakers are scrambling to address the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. As lawmakers in the Lone Star State debate AI regulation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maps out safety protocols for AI in aviation, OpenAI’s support for California’s AI content labeling bill underscores the urgency of balancing innovation with public safety and transparency. This is the week in AI regulation news, from California to Texas. FAA Charts Course for AI Integration in Aviation The FAA has unveiled its initial “Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence Safety Assurance,” a 31-page document outlining its strategy for safely incorporating artificial intelligence technologies into the aviation sector. The roadmap establishes guiding principles for AI safety assurance in aircraft and aircraft operations. It emphasizes working within the existing aviation ecosystem, focusing on safety enhancements and taking an incremental approach to AI integration. “The recent acceleration in the development of artificial intelligence provides new opportunities to leverage the technology to support a safe aviation system, while posing new risks if not appropriately qualified and used,” David H. Boulter, FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, wrote in the document. “In the face of these challenges and opportunities, we have developed this roadmap to explain our approach to developing methods to assure the safety of the technology and introduce it for safety.” “It lays out a strategy to pursue both the safety of AI and the use of AI for safety,” he added. The document identifies five critical areas for enabling safe AI use: collaboration, FAA workforce readiness, assuring AI safety, leveraging AI for safety improvements and aviation safety research. The FAA plans to collaborate with industry, other government agencies and international partners to develop harmonized global AI safety assurance methods. The agency will also enhance its workforce’s AI knowledge and adapt existing safety assurance methods for AI systems. The FAA said it plans to update the roadmap periodically to reflect progress in safety assurance and adapt to rapidly evolving AI technology. OpenAI Backs California Bill Requiring AI Content Watermarking OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT, has voiced support for a California bill that would mandate tech companies to label AI-generated content. The bill, AB 3211, aims to address concerns about AI-generated material, ranging from harmless memes to potentially misleading deepfakes about political candidates. OpenAI Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon emphasized the importance of transparency and provenance requirements for AI-generated content, especially in an election year. The company believes that new technology and standards can help people understand the origin of online content and distinguish between human-generated and AI-generated material. The bill has passed the state assembly unanimously and cleared the senate appropriations committee. If it passes the full state senate by Aug. 31, it will advance to Gov. Gavin Newsom for final approval. This legislation is part of a broader effort in California to regulate AI. This legislative season, lawmakers attempted to introduce 65 AI-related bills. However, many of these proposals have already been abandoned. Texas Lawmakers Grapple With AI Regulation Challenges This week, the Texas Senate Business and Commerce Committee initiated a deep dive into AI regulation, signaling the state’s intent to address the rapidly evolving technology. During a nearly four-hour hearing, the 11-member committee heard testimonies on AI’s wide-ranging implications, from improved efficiency in state agencies to concerns about misinformation, biased decision-making, and consumer privacy violations. State officials reported significant benefits from AI adoption. However, stakeholders also raised alarms about AI’s potential misuse. One lawmaker noted the potential for a “dystopian world” without proper safeguards. The committee is now tasked with crafting legislation that curbs AI’s negative impacts without stifling innovation. Texas has previously enacted laws addressing deep fakes in elections and pornography. As it considers broader AI regulation, the state is looking to other jurisdictions for guidance. California and Colorado have introduced AI-related bills, though both face challenges in implementation. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and House Speaker Dade Phelan established in February an AI Council to study state agency AI use and develop a potential code of ethics. The council’s report, expected by the end of the year, may further shape Texas’ approach to AI governance. As Texas navigates this complex landscape, its decisions could have far-reaching implications, potentially setting a precedent for other states grappling with similar technological challenges. The ultimate goal remains to balance AI’s economic benefits against potential harm. Recommended FAA Unveils AI Integration Aviation Roadmap as States Eye Regulations Stripe’s Cross-Border Payments Volume in Asia Grows 30% The Importance of Change Management in Unlocking B2B Payments Innovation Walmart Aims to Supercharge eCommerce Growth With Marketplace Push See More In: AI, AI regulation, artificial intelligence, California, FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, Legislation, News, OpenAI, PYMNTS News, regulations, Texas Tightening Belts — Not Collars PYMNTS Intelligence research indicates that, even in times of financial pressures, consumers are less inclined to make cutbacks on the products that they buy for their pets than on those they buy themselves. According to last year’s study, “Consumer Inflation Sentiment Report: Consumers Cut Back by Trading Down,” which surveyed over 2,000 U.S. consumers, 47% of shoppers had opted to buy from a cheaper merchant for at least one grocery item due to inflation. Despite 33% downgrading their sources for personal care products and 32% for snacks, only 19% of grocery shoppers said they had chosen cheaper alternatives for pet food and supplies. The report also highlighted that 36% of grocery shoppers switched to more affordable versions of the same products, trading down to options such as store brands. Supplementary findings revealed that although 26% of consumers did this for their snacks and 25% for sugary treats, only 12% of shoppers had opted for lower-quality pet food and supplies, making it the category with the smallest proportion of such changes compared to other grocery items. “People are still bringing pets into their family and at increased rates,” Jonathan Wainberg, GM of Synchrony’s Pet business, told PYMNTS in an interview earlier this year. “And they are spending more.” Fast 5: Dowty Pursues Next-Gen Aircraft Propeller Blades Keith Mwanalushi August 27, 2024 Jonathan Chestney, engineering leader at Dowty. Credit: Dowty Jonathan Chestney, engineering leader at GE Aerospace subsidiary Dowty, speaks with Aviation Week Network about advances in aircraft propeller blade design and their impacts on maintenance processes. How are you defining the next generation of composite propeller blades? The drive for sustainability has brought about renewed interest in propellers. We are facing arguably the greatest opportunity for propellers since the first conversion of a jet engine into a turboprop configuration in the 1940s. The potential exists to expand beyond current established boundaries to respond to the industry need for reduction of carbon. Dowty has been focusing its efforts on areas of efficiency, speed and noise to ensure that we are fulfilling our purpose to promote the future of sustainable propeller flight. Enhancement in analysis techniques such as computational fluid dynamics, supported by testing, has demonstrated that meaningful improvements in both efficiency and noise can be achieved. Blade shapes are becoming ever more complex to deliver these improvements, requiring continued innovation in the structure to ensure that safety, durability and reliability are maintained. Again, analysis tool advancements have been required to ensure structural performance keeps track with aero-acoustic performance. The flexibility afforded by use of polymer matrix composites is perfectly suited to the needs of these advanced blade structures. Dowty has been working with composite blades for over 50 years, with its first all-composite blade entering service on the Saab 340 aircraft in 1984. Is the automation of blade manufacturing a significant challenge? Many techniques have been developed, primarily around aerostructures where deposition rates are the main driver, but blades require complex curvature with small radii to be achieved and this limits the use of many automation paths. The use of braiding has been popular, and continued development of these techniques has proven most beneficial for blades. This continues to be the case for the latest blade shapes. Manufacturing techniques must also be capable of industrialization to deliver at the rates necessary for meaningful environmental change within the committed industry timescales. Automation is just one element of the solution; the full benefits of digital technology are also critical to maximize efficiencies and create the foundations of the digital twin necessary to achieve through-life cost-effectiveness. How are newer, more efficient fuel sources like sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and electric propulsion impacting propeller manufacturing? There is no clear path forward beyond incremental improvements with today’s propulsion technologies, and we are nearing the limits of what can be achieved with thermal efficiency gains in gas turbines. The industry is looking forward with alternative fuels, including SAF and hydrogen, and increasing levels of electrification. We are aligning our technology roadmaps with requirements from the wide range of disruptive powertrain technologies, including fully electric, hybrid-electric, hydrogen fuel cell (liquid and gaseous), SAF, hydrogen for combustion and open rotor configurations. These emerging technologies offer varying degrees of promise but there are questions still to be answered about feasibility and cost-effectiveness. We need to be ready to accommodate all options, especially since one of the few points of agreement in the industry is that no one solution will fully address the sustainability need. What are the key characteristics emerging for the future manufacturing of propellers? Firstly, weight: the use of composites in blades delivers valuable weight benefit, but this must be accompanied by similar focus on the remainder of the propeller system. The use of composite in fairings, low-weight high-strength metal alloys and application of additive techniques are all being explored. We also consider industrialization: it is vital that manufacturing technology is scalable and ready to deliver at rate. Finally, environmental sustainability is one of the propeller imperatives that must be met. Life-cycle analysis has shown that, while aerodynamic performance is easily the most important factor for propellers, reduction of carbon through the manufacturing process will always require focus, too. Consideration of raw materials, energy usage in manufacture, and design for recyclability are all factors vital for future manufacturing technology. Are technologies evolving quickly enough to cater to new composite repairs? Product robustness and maintainability have always been priorities for Dowty, and propellers are designed with repairability in mind. One aspect that we consider through the product development process is the ability to maintain equipment with existing, available technology, including inspection and repair techniques, wherever possible. Exciting technologies are emerging that will simplify and improve inspection. Some may be integrated into structures during manufacture, and others utilized in repair shops. Both should reduce maintenance costs and potentially improve the safety of repair activities. We also seek to improve our repair techniques in parallel with manufacturing techniques so that maintenance and acquisition costs are minimized. NASA Scientist Says Patented ‘Exodus Effect’ Propellantless Propulsion Drive that Defies Physics is Ready to go to Space Christopher Plain ·July 19, 2024 Note: See videos and photos in the original article. A patented experimental propellantless propulsion drive is finally ready to go to space, according to its inventor, a veteran NASA scientist with decades of expertise in electrostatics. Dr. Charles Buhler, the technology’s creator, says the propulsion system may represent a working version of Quantized Inertia, a theory first proposed by University of Plymouth professor Mike McCulloch. The proposition has been subjected to criticism from mainstream scientists in the past because it seemingly violates Newton’s third law of motion. The controversial technology, which The Debrief covered in April, is privately owned by Exodus Propulsion Technologies and is not affiliated with NASA. After almost a decade of research, design, and testing, Buhler says he and his team are confident they have verified the force, one his team calls the Exodus Effect(TM), in “nearly every way conceivable on Earth.” The final step required to officially demonstrate the validity of their discovery is to send the propulsion drive unit into space. “We’ve done everything we could have in vacuum chambers here on Earth. We’ve tested it every which way you can, but the real validation is to have this thing move in space,” Buhler told The Debrief in a lengthy interview. “That’s the bottom line.” Propellantess Propulsion Drives in Space After numerous delays, a similar device dubbed the Quantum Drive did successfully make it to space last November. However, a failure in a satellite component unrelated to the drive scuttled that effort. To date, none of the propellantless drive inventions that physicists say shouldn’t work have actually been tested in space, including the infamous EMDrive, which Buhler believes his work may help explain. “The idea not only violates Newton’s third law of motion,” wrote Rochester Institute of Technology astrophysicist Brian Koberlein in a May 2017 Forbes piece that scrutinized the EMDrive, adding that “it violates special relativity, general relativity, and Noether’s theorem. Since these are each well-tested theories that form the basis of countless other theories, their violation would completely overturn all of modern physics.” “There are rules that include conservation of energy,” Buhler countered in a statement provided to The Debrief in April, “but if done correctly, one can generate forces unlike anything humankind has done before.” “It will be this force that we will use to propel objects for the next 1,000 years,” Buhler said. “Until the next thing comes.” New Test Video Shows How the Technology (Allegedly) Works Along with several test videos that appear on the company’s website, the Exodus Propulsion Technologies team recently allowed Tim Ventura, the host and co-founder of the Alternative Propulsion Engineering Conference (an organization The Debrief once termed “The World’s Most Exclusive (and Strange) Anti-Gravity Club”) to film a series of live tests in Exodus’ laboratory in Lake Merit, Florida. According to Ventura, the film shows two failed tests, one successful test, and an artificially sped-up version of a pair of previously completed tests used to depict a more dramatic example of the Exodus Effect. “I wanted to show the failed tests and the successful one, just so people know how hard this is,” Ventura told The Debrief. Along with the video, Ventura also conducted numerous interviews with Buhler and his colleagues, all of which are available on the APEC YouTube channel. When asked by The Debrief to explain the construction of the devices shown in the successful test video, Buhler said that his team’s test articles utilize basic materials and don’t require exotic or expensive rare earth metals. In fact, one of the most valuable components in the original drive designs is ordinary styrofoam. “Most of the videos that you will see are Styrofoam thrusters,” Buhler explained. “They have the asymmetrical capacitive plates. We encompass them in Styrofoam.” Encompassing the propellant mass in styrofoam not only keeps the ion wind down, but according to Buhler, the versatile and low-cost material can also stand the high voltages that air thrusters require. Other lightweight materials can experience sparking at these high voltages, which can cause an experimental failure and damage to the test article. Dr. Charles Buhler executes a test of his company’s patented Exodus Effect (TM) in their Merit Island, Florida facility. Image Credit Exodus Propulsion Technologies, Tim Ventura, APEC. “You’re putting about 30, 40 thousand volts on these guys, and you just don’t want them to spark through,” Buhler told The Debrief. “So styrofoam helps to kind of prevent that breakdown. And it also protects the air from breaking down, too, and creating an ion wind. We do not want ion wind. We don’t want to break the gas down, don’t want to cause a spark.” Buhler said that styrofoam is also very light, which is particularly beneficial in Earth-bound tests. “When you are trying to do motion, you want as little mass as possible,” he explained. Test video shows a successful test of an Exodus Effect (TM) “spinner” made of Styrofoam and two conductive plates. Image credit: Exodus Propulsion Technologies. Notably, Buhler said that the drive configurations they tested in vacuum chambers, which best approximate the environment of outer space, did not contain Styrofoam. That’s because the material is notoriously difficult to use in this environment. “I think it explodes,” Buhler said with a smirk. Exodus Prepares Scientific Paper Following Two Year ‘National Security’ Patent Delay In addition to preparing a scientific paper detailing the years of exhaustive research and testing and their recent successes, Buhler told The Debrief that his company has finally received a long-delayed patent for the Exodus Effect. “After being released from a 2-year national security hold, the first patent describing the Exodus Effect(TM) has finally been issued by the USPTO,” the company’s website explains. “The process of generating the Exodus Effect(TM) is repeatable, predictable, published and well-understood. Both acceleration and thrust (Newtons) are quantifiable and supported by 3rd-party validations.” With the patent now in hand, which will help them protect the value of their research should it prove to work in space, the Exodus team says they are preparing to write a potentially peer-reviewed paper breaking down their research and the discovery of what Buhler and his colleagues firmly believe is a new force currently unrecognized by science. However, with over 1,500 test articles and over 3,000 data sets to date, the affable researcher says it will be a monumental task to go through it all for a proper, comprehensive scientific paper. “My partner [Exodus co-founder Andrew Aurigema] is too good at making these,” Buhler quipped. “So there’s a lot of data to go through.” Buhler Clears Up Controversy over “One Gravity of Propulsion” Claim In April, The Debrief reported that Buhler’s team claimed their device was able to counteract the full force of Earth’s gravity. As many scientists and journalists rightly pointed out, a test apparatus that weighs “30 t0 40 grams,” as Buhler specified at that time, would be too heavy for a drive producing a mere 10 millinewtons of thrust to counteract the full force of gravity exerted on it. When asked to clarify the discrepancy, Buhler told The Debrief that his team stands by their claim that their most successful tests produced enough force to lift the actual propellant mass, hence the “one gravity of thrust” claim. The confusion, he explained, comes from the fact that the test article, rig, and accessories used to show the force acting on a device weigh roughly 30 to 40 grams, whereas the actual propellant mass is much lighter. “What I meant to say is the thruster itself that generates 10 millinewton forces weighs only about 760 milligrams,” Buhler explained. “The framework that we put these things in weighs about 30 to 40 grams.” Buhler says this means that although the entire rig doesn’t lift off of the ground, the most powerful results tested using his device show it is exerting enough thrust to counteract the force of Earth’s gravity on the apparatus’ tiny propellant surface. “It’s just the thrust-making surface itself,” said Buhler. “All of the peripherals we don’t add into that. That’s how we kind of quantify from one test to another to validate our performance. That’s the metric that we use. How much thrust does the surface area make? What is the thrust it makes per a given weight? That’s where we see the ‘one gravity’ come in.” Ion Wind and How-To Videos for Testing the Exodus Effect Although Buhler and his partner have built and tested hundreds of different designs and configurations, the team says they have found that shape is not important. Instead, the NASA veteran told The Debrief that what matters to him and his team is being able to verify the force through good old-fashioned science. “The configuration is just a different way to test the thrust,” Buhler explained. “Some may be more fun to watch—spinners, rotators—but we want to see it on the force meter. As scientists, we can quantify exactly the thrust because we measure the force of these devices within Faraday cages.” For their latest experiments, Buhler says his team used a commercial omega force meter that is accurate down to a resolution of about 100 micronewtons. Notably, the researcher says his team isn’t measuring the force of the article. Instead, it is metering the force it is creating inside the Faraday cage since it is a more reliable form of measurement that helps eliminate other outside electromagnetic fields that could potentially skew the results. “We measure the force on the actual Faraday cage itself,” said Buhler. “It’s completely encased, so the electric fields can’t escape.” Next, the Exodus team says they would like to make additional detailed videos on how to build these thrusters. “They’re very simple to make,” Buhler explained. “The challenge is testing them. “That’s the challenge. It’s a very small force.” However, the career electrostatics expert cautioned against casual efforts to build Exodus Effect thrusters due to the incredibly high voltages required. “[We] don’t want people without high-voltage experience experimenting with this,” he cautioned. Instead, the founder of NASA’s Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy Space Center said he would recommend colleges and commercial laboratories that have the proper equipment and experience reach out to him for the details so they can build and test their own devices. In fact, Buhler says he hopes his devices can follow the path of easy-to-build ion thrusters that popped up on the internet a couple of decades ago, turning them from a hobbyist toy to a valuable tool for educators looking to teach their students about the effect of ion wind. “This is the analog to that (ion thruster),” Buhler told The Debrief. “This is the same. I would like to see this go through the same process. Where people can build them in their homes and garages or even at universities and then test them and see this new force. Because it’s different than the ion wind.” Efforts to Increase and Stack the Exodus Effect When asked about the possibility of amplifying the force to increase its utility, Buhler says they have likely exhausted the current path to improving its strength. However, he does note that advancements in chemistry could lead to improvements in the thruster’s performance. When asked about the possibility of increasing the Exodus Effect using newly discovered metamaterials like graphene, Buhler said there are a number of scientific disciplines, including advanced materials, that may help improve the thruster’s output. However, he also said that in his experience, the best path forward might be perfecting the generation of the force at a smaller scale and then seeing if you can scale it up to a larger, more practical space drive. “There’s almost endless possibilities when you’re talking about making high electric fields,” he explained. “So you try to do that on a microscopic scale if you can and try to see if you see the forces.” “Once you get something that is small enough and light enough that you are happy with it, you see if they stack. You see if they add up. You then see if you can compile them together. So instead of worrying about making the force itself stronger, let’s just see if we can add ‘em all up.” External Validation and Going to Space When asked if anyone has validated his team’s experimental results outside of hobbyists, Buhler recounted an odd encounter he had with a fellow scientist at last month’s Electrostatic Society of America Conference. “One of the scientists came up to me, a fellow who does ion wind propulsion, and he told me he was able to see this effect in his vacuum chamber,” Buhler told The Debrief. “And I said, ‘I bet it went in the other direction, of the ion wind.’ And he said ‘yes, it actually did go in the other direction.’ Another thing that’s so interesting about this discovery is that it actually moves in the direction of the ion wind. Think about that: rockets are moving in the direction of their propulsion!” The other scientist in question had been Adrian Ieta, a professor at Oswego State University in New York. Also an electrostatics expert, Ieta was recently awarded a patent for his own ion propulsion technology breakthrough. “He was very perplexed by the negative mass he was seeing on his scale,” Buhler noted with a bemused shrug. He also said that based on their conversation at the conference, the two researchers hoped to collaborate in the future. “I think we’ll work together,” Buhler said. Buhler also says his team would welcome anyone with the proper equipment and experience to try to replicate their results, particularly given their goal of publishing the discovery of the Exodus Effect in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. “If anyone’s willing to validate it in high vacuum systems, that would be helpful,” he said. “I think that’s worth doing.” Fortunately, Buhler says that more help may be on the way, thanks to the significant recognition his team’s work received following publication of The Debrief’s April story regarding his work, which he says has opened up a lot of possibilities. “It’s been fantastic!” Buhler said. “We’ve gotten a lot of interest (from) all around the world. A lot of scientists have reached out to me. A lot of people from all walks of life have reached out, which has been nice.” “I have a lot of emails backed up that need attention,” he added. When asked about any reactions he received from his NASA colleagues based on the previous coverage (a process he described as “making me famous”), Buhler says the response has been overwhelmingly positive. “A lot of them have reached out. A lot of them are trying to help, to help me get it into space.” As for when his device may finally get the chance to go to space, Buhler remained optimistic that the money would soon become available. “We have a lot of contacts now to help us down that direction,” Buhler said of the often tens of thousands of dollars required to hop a ride aboard a commercial satellite launch. “So thank you for that.” Boeing’s 777X Finally Gets Its Engines January 18, 2019 William Kucinski (Image source: Boeing) Note: See photos and videos in the original article. Less than a year after the GE9X turbofan first flew on its Boeing 747 testbed, GE Aviation and Boeing have installed the record-breaking engine on the aircraft it was designed for: the Boeing 777X . Two massive GE9X engines are now hang under the wings of the Boeing 777-9X flight test aircraft. With a 134-inch diameter fan, the new GE9X engine is larger than its GE90 predecessor; however, it produces 105,000 pounds of thrust – 10,000 pounds less than some GE90 variants. That’s partly due to the additional lifting power of the 777X’s 5,025 square foot wings, which decrease engine power requirements and fuel consumption by about 20 percent. While the 777X will be Boeing’s largest twin-engine airliner yet, the company also focused on making it its most efficient airliner as well. The fan case is made from lightweight composites and the 16 fourth generation fan blades are made from carbon fiber composite material. The fan blades are made using direct metal deposition (DMD), a process where powder metal is propelled into a laser that fuses the metal to an additively produced component or part. It can be used to manufacture, remanufacture, reconfigure, repair, and restore parts. It can also extend the lives of components by applying corrosion resistant coatings. Read more: A Phased Approach to Optimized Robotic Assembly for the 777X Other key features include a next-generation 27:1 pressure-ratio 11-stage high-pressure compressor; a third-generation twin annular premixing swirler (TAPS) III combustor for high efficiency and low emissions; and ceramic matrix composite material in the combustor and turbine. Read more: Boeing completes assembly of the first 777X The GE9X are still in development and will finish environment regulation testing on the 747 testbed within the coming months. Over 700 engine orders for the GE9X have been placed. Three additional 777X flight test airplanes will be built after the first flight test, which is currently scheduled for the first quarter of 2019. Introduction is planned for December 2019, with first delivery in 2020. New B-52 engine the F130 enters next phase of testing By Ben Sampson 8th August 20243 Mins Read Rolls-Royce F130 under test (Image: Rolls-Royce) Ground testing on the F130 engine that will be used on the US Air Force’s B-52 Stratofortress for the next thiry years has started in Indianapolis. The US Air Force has a fleet of 76 Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers, each powered by eight engines which it wants to keep in service “through 2050”. The B-52A first flew in 1954. The US Air Force selected Rolls-Royce’s F130 to re-engine the aircraft in 2021, awarding it a US$2.6 billion contract to supply 608 engines. The engine produces 17,000 lbf and is a variant of Rolls-Royce’s BR725 commercial engine. The F130 series of engines already powers aircraft in the US Air Force fleet, including the E-11A and C-37 aircraft. Sea-level testing of the First Engine to Test at Indianapolis will run the initial software release for the F130 in the recently refurbished Test Cell 114. In addition, engineers will finish Rapid Twin Pod Tests with the F130 this week at NASA Stennis. These tests were the first time F130 engines were run in the dual-pod engine configuration that will be used on the B-52 aircraft. The tests produced critical performance data, validating Rolls-Royce’s analytical predictions – including performance in crosswind conditions, de-risking the integration of the F130 engine onto the B-52. Rolls-Royce said that the testing at NASA Stennis has played a key role in meeting initial testing goals. The test data will inform the production configuration of the F130 engine Critical Design Review (CDR), which is expected to be done before November this year. Candice Bineyard, director, early life cycle and naval programs – defense at Rolls-Royce said, “We are thrilled to take the next step in the program with F130 sea-level testing in Indianapolis. To date, our testing program has confirmed our predictions and allowed us to stay on track to deliver this fixed price contract for the US Air Force. “The F130 engine has demonstrated incredible dispatch reliability, which will translate to lower lifecycle costs for the B-52, as well as improved fuel efficiency. As we kick off testing in Test Cell 114, we want to thank our partners at Boeing and the Air Force as we move forward in the program together.” Test Cell 114 was refurbished as part of a US$1 billion modernization program at Rolls-Royce’s Indianapolis facility aimed at delivering innovation and advanced manufacturing capabilities to the US Air Force and other customers with American labor. The F130 engines will be manufactured, assembled and tested in Indianapolis, which is Rolls-Royce’s largest production plant in the USA. The F130 engines will be used on the B-52s for the remainder of the aircraft’s life. The Rolls-Royce BR family from which the F130 is derived is used in commercial business and regional jets and have amassed over 30 million hours of operation. Unleaded Fuel Process Needs A Reboot (Revised) The fuel replacement process needs leadership and direction from you-know-who. Russ Niles Updated Aug 23, 2024 4:42 PM EDT So, after a blissfully uneventful week in fuel news here is where we're at. The only candidate trying to develop an alternative to 100LL that's following the clearly preferred method of obtaining approval says it's impossible to make a "drop-in replacement." The company that has received an FAA STC approving its high-octane fuel for all spark ignition gasoline aircraft engines and all airplanes that can instantly replace 100LL hasn't been able to sell it in quantity because fuel distributors refuse to carry it. The third candidate that says its fuel is better than both those hasn't moved the needle on getting the approvals it needs. All three of them have been accused of lying about the others to the point where consensus on anything will be next to impossible (there's that word again). And the whole process seems to be under the control of a few specialized trucking companies, who appear, at this moment anyway, to be in control of whether any of the fuels eventually get to market. I guess the big question is where we go from here. There are those who favor blowing up the whole process and starting over and I admit some sympathy for that cause. From the start there have been allegations of bias and even corruption at work from all corners and the lofty goals of the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) and End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) to have this Coca Cola moment and work together in harmony to clean up piston aviation has devolved into name-calling and backstabbing. We have a detailed argument listing the wrongs that have been perpetrated and suggesting that the FAA clean house at EAGLE to eliminate anyone who might have a conflict of interest. Since that would effectively require the resignation or firing of virtually everyone there, it seems impractical. The fallout from that nuclear option would inevitably infect any new process that hoped to reach consensus on, well, how to reach consensus. And I guess that's why it's probably the inevitable and most efficient route to a new fuel. Democracy, free speech and free enterprise be damned. Someone needs to take charge here and that is the FAA. The agency needs to take responsibility for the process of approving the new fuel. Kumbaya, baby. As it stands there are three different evaluation processes for three different fuels. General Aviation Modifications Inc's G100UL has been approved by the FAA through the supplemental type certificate process and is theoretically ready to use in any gasoline engine in any aircraft except helicopters. The STC is problematic in that it requires aircraft operators using the fuel to purchase the STC. GAMI is also declining to pursue a fuel specification through an industry consensus process, such as ASTM. It doesn't trust ASTM and notes that the FAA made a specific determination that the certification meets or exceeds the testing standards for ASTM. And that's where the trucking companies enter the picture. They won't touch a fuel that doesn't have an ASTM spec and it would appear there's nothing anyone can do about that, at least not now. It's not clear exactly why the fuel distributors are blocking sale of G100UL. All of their arguments about compatibility, liability and insurance availability have seemingly been answered and the FAA is unequivocal in its evaluation of GAMI's fuel. The FAA has approved the most recent revision of the G100UL Avgas specification, which is labeled revision -12C9. In that document, there is the following statement: "The FAA has, in fact, made a determination that this Specification and Standard for a High Octane Unleaded Aviation Gasoline provides not only an equivalent, but, in fact, an enhanced level of quality control of the properties and performance of the aviation gasoline produced under this specification and distributed throughout the supply chain, as compared to the traditional governmental, military, or industry voluntary consensus-based standards (including ASTM) which have previously defined and controlled the production and distribution of aviation gasolines use for spark ignition piston engines," The other thing to note is that G100UL has been around for more than a decade. It's been used in the GAMI-owned SR22 for 12 years and run in aircraft ranging from small experimentals to the 2,000-horsepower radials in a Douglas A-26 Invader. LyondellBasell was hoping to make a splash with its UL100E at Oshkosh by sponsoring the fuel for an entrant in the AirVenture Cup Race but that fizzled when the engine blew in the Lancair for reasons unrelated to the fuel. So far, doubts have been cast about G100UL's overall suitability as a 100LL replacement, but I haven't seen any significant evidence that it won't perform as such. The biggest knock on it is that it relies on some pretty nasty chemicals to achieve the high level of performance it seems to have achieved, but I doubt the other two contestants are any less noxious. Gasoline is a horribly toxic stew of harmful substances and you really should wear rubber gloves when you do your preflight fuel check. There was a brief controversy ignited when the fuel bladder in AOPA's fuel test bed Beech Baron started leaking at AirVenture. The leak was traced to a patch on one of the decades-old bladders and GAMI says it had nothing to do with the fuel. LyondellBasell is going through the full congressionally mandated PAFI process that will lead to "fleet authorization" and an ASTM specification. This is clearly the method preferred by the board of EAGLE. It ticks all the boxes for evaluation and it would be just so damned convenient. Too bad it doesn't work. The company says there is no way for a fuel that doesn't have lead or manganese in it to boost its base octane level to 104 or more, which it says is required for a true "drop-in replacement." Manganese has been tried as a lead replacement but it clogs up combustion chambers. LyondellBasell says only about 80% of engines will be able to use unleaded fuel without performance limitations or even mechanical modifications to prevent detonation. The big problem is that the 20% of engines orphaned include the big bore Continental 550 and Lycoming 540 series engines that actually use more than half of the avgas burned in the U.S. LyondellBasell says those issues can be addressed mostly through paper modifications, but there will be performance and fuel consumption compromises. It is not, therefore, the "drop-in" replacement that is the stated goal of both PAFI and EAGLE. LyondellBasell says it's going to continue with the process because it's the only process that can lead to a fuel that can be used by all aircraft. "The only testing programs specifically designed to identify and address these limitations are the PAFI and EAGLE programs. PAFI testing is the most comprehensive and collaborative testing program designed to date. It was designed by the FAA and OEMs to identify the capabilities and limitations of unleaded fuels that pass its stringent qualification requirements," LyondellBasell spokesman Daniel Pourreau said in an email statement to AVweb. "To date, UL100E is the only unleaded fuel to have passed the high hurdle of PAFI qualification testing and to enter the full-scale testing phase. Full-scale testing includes compatibility testing on over 160 materials, 10 engines, and 9 aircraft. In the STC process, fuel developers define the testing protocols, and a local FAA ACO decides if this is adequate for certification, without the benefit of industry input or decades of fuel testing experience. "Any deficiencies identified in our fuel’s performance vs. 100LL during PAFI testing will be addressed by the OEMs with either 'paper' or 'mechanical' modifications. This will increase the number of aircraft that can safely fly on UL100E. The goal of PAFI/EAGLE remains to identify an unleaded fuel that is safe to fly in all piston aircraft in the GA fleet. "PAFI provides a mechanism for the FAA and OEMs to address any safety or operational limitations before fleet authorization is granted and the fuel is deployed. The STC process offers no such mechanism, which is why LyondellBasell and VP Racing Fuels remain committed to the PAFI process and working with the FAA and Industry to ‘leave no plane behind' as we transition to unleaded avgas." Swift Fuels' bid is going through the STC process and ASTM. Swift is particularly adamant that ASTM is an absolute requirement for any successful fuel candidate because it is the standard accepted by the network of distributors that move the fuel to market. Swift hasn't offered much in the way of details on how its testing is going, just that it's going. There is just zero chance that any kind of consensus will be reached on which of these fuels will be the eventual winner in what has become a confusing and disjointed process that is rife with controversy. There is also zero chance that it won't become mired in legal battles as time goes on, further delaying implementation. The challenge with that is that this initiative doesn't really have anything fundamentally to do with aviation and the FAA isn't driving the process. Let's not forget that all this came about because of an endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that will outlaw lead in aviation fuel. The only reason we're not hearing from the EPA is that the FAA cut a deal promising to have the unleaded replacement by 2030. Considering the process made in the four years since those handshakes were made, it suddenly doesn't feel like six years is very much time at all. Clearly, the current process is a failure. Far from engendering a cooperative and collaborative approach to what seems like should be a straightforward engineering challenge, it has collapsed into a schoolyard brawl in which the principal is missing in action. The FAA needs to take action to get this back on track, and I would suggest a standardized evaluation process that tests each fuel in the same ways and to the same criteria is a place to start. Such a move will undoubtedly create even more controversy but it's a painful necessity to ensure aviation has a say in its future fuel. The EPA already has the authority and ability to mandate the elimination of lead in avgas. It's not going to wait indefinitely to use it. Of course we could always just leave it up to the truckers. An earlier version of this blog incorrectly attributed a quote concerning the testing methods employed on G100UL to the FAA. In fact, the passage was written by GAMI and then included in a fuel specification approved by the FAA. Widespread Engine Attachment Fitting Cracks Halt 777-9 Flying Guy Norris Sean Broderick August 29, 2024 Boeing has inspected and apparently removed the thrust links on WH004, a member of the test fleet that last flew in November 2021. Credit: Matt Cawby Cracks in engine attachment components that have stalled Boeing’s 777-9 certification program were found in a fourth test aircraft that has not flown in nearly three years, Aviation Week has learned. The latest discovery, on WH004, is expected to help narrow down Boeing’s investigation into the failures in the thrust links—assemblies that connect the airframe with the aircraft’s GE Aerospace GE9X engines. • New problem forces 777-9 flight-test pause • Issue affects links between airframe and engine • The issue came to light in mid-August, when the affected part was found completely fractured on WH003 following one of a series of seemingly routine flight tests out of Kona, Hawaii. That led Boeing to inspect the rest of the test fleet, including WH004, which has been inactive for two years and nine months while Boeing worked on earning Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) with the other three. Analysis of data from Aviation Week Network Fleet Discovery and FlightAware show that WH003, the third aircraft to enter the test fleet, has flown a total of 214 cycles and about 515 hr. Since the FAA granted TIA on July 12, however, its activity rate has increased markedly, with 37 cycles and 28 flight hours amassed through its last flight on Aug. 15. WH001 is the fleet leader, with 840 cycles and 1,800 hr., while WH002 has racked up 570 cycles and 1,200 hr. But only 27 of these flights have come since TIA. WH004 has flown the least of the four 777-9s, having accumulated just 62 cycles and 178 hr. between its September 2020 debut and its idling during a prolonged runup to TIA. With engine cowls open for thrust link inspection, lead 777-9 test aircraft WH001 remains grounded at Everett, Washington. Credit: Matt Cawby Cracks were found in at least one of the two titanium thrust links on one of WH004’s engines, multiple sources confirmed. Boeing declined to discuss the inspection findings. The company is keeping customers up to date, although a lack of findings so far mean Boeing’s reports have included little of substance, multiple sources tell Aviation Week. Among the key issues that remain unclear is what part of the assembly is failing, where the cracks are occurring and why. Each of the 777-9’s GE9X engines includes two fail-safe thrust links for redundancy. The links transfer vertical and lateral mechanical stresses between the engine and aircraft. The Boeing-designed thrust links attach to the fan frame and carry mechanical loads—as well as engine torque about the engine axis and thrust—to the aft engine mount at the rear. The first aircraft to exhibit the thrust link problems, WH003, is being repaired prior to returning to Seattle. Credit: @b777xlovers As Boeing works to return its grounded 777-9 test aircraft to flight, the company is evaluating whether each airframe’s usage pattern played a role in the damaged parts. However, the discovery of cracks on WH004, with relatively low flight time, points to a design issue, manufacturing problem or a material flaw—rather than the result of tests exceeding aircraft design tolerances. The thrust-link assemblies are produced by an unidentified supplier and are made of titanium. While the investigation’s focus is expected to include a review of the material quality used in this initial batch of thrust links, it is also likely to delve into the manufacturing processes involved in the welding of the assemblies. One former FAA engineer with certification experience tells Aviation Week that none of the 777-9s have flown enough to cause low-cycle fatigue damage. Low-cycle fatigue usually occurs when stress on a material exceeds its yield point, causing it to fail or fracture. “The flight-test loads and cycles should not cause typical low-cycle fatigue cracking and a component failure,” the engineer says. “The difference between the cycles and loads should not be a factor.” High-cycle fatigue of the specific assembly cannot be ruled out, the engineer says, adding that high-frequency resonance will likely be one of Boeing’s focus areas. Boeing is working to return WH003 to Seattle from Kona. Details shown to Aviation Week reveal that the complex task of temporarily removing the aircraft’s engines at a remote location began the week of Aug. 19, with the first engine—No. 109—coming off the left wing around Aug. 23. Detaching the engine enabled Boeing engineers to remove, replace and inspect the two new thrust-link-welded assemblies. Engine No. 109 was reinstalled on Aug. 27, and work shifted to repeating the process for the right wing-mounted engine, No. 107. As of Aug. 28, the retrofitted thrust links are expected to be attached and inspected and then contained within the reattached engine by early in the week starting Sept. 2. Curt Lewis