Prior to 1960, no maximum retirement age existed. Although it’s a colorful story, ripe with questionable political ethics, the maximum retirement age for U.S. pilots operating in a Part 121 environment was arbitrarily established at 60 and remained so for 47 years until it was changed to 65 in 2007. //
In 1959, the CEO of American Airlines, C.R. Smith, publicly convinced the first FAA administrator, Elwood Quesada, that after age 60, pilots begin to suffer disqualifying medical issues, notwithstanding being significantly challenged in the transition from props to jets. No substantive studies, medically or otherwise, were presented for such arguments. Privately, Smith was simply attempting to reduce the number of higher-paid older and more senior pilots.
It would seem that the same strategy of a medical argument is repeating itself in the current environment. Although some truth exists as to aging pilots succumbing to more ailments and requiring the use of more sick time leave, past studies indicate that sudden incapacitation, such as a cardiac arrest causing an accident, is highly unlikely. Because of initial screening and continued FAA medical exam scrutiny, the airline pilot population trends healthier than the general population. As for cognitive skills, the argument has often been made that pilots who demonstrate successful performance during recurrent training cycles in a classroom and in a simulator are definitive proof of mental capabilities. //
One of the larger hurdles is the fact that ICAO rules still restrict pilots over 65 to fly internationally. But based on recent ICAO agendas, it would seem the organization is seriously considering lifting the ceiling. If ICAO’s research studies bear out that airline pilots’ above-average health does not pose a risk to the flying public even in cases of sudden incapacitation, why have a ceiling at all? Why establish another arbitrary age? //
Pilots flying under Part 91 and Part 135 operations have no age restrictions. They fly in the same environment as airline pilots, so the only justification seems to be that those operations put less people at risk per flight. With some exceptions, air traffic controllers still must retire at age 56. Why would a healthy controller be any different than a healthy airline pilot to continue on the job?
If airline pilot mandatory retirement age has no ceiling, recovery from sudden pilot incapacitation should be a training requirement. Recognition is key, especially during critical phases of flight like takeoff or landing. Perhaps as was initially instituted for age 65, a restriction for pairing pilots in the same cockpit at certain ages should be considered. Can the public, let alone airline pilots, embrace two 75-year-olds on the same flight deck? //
My argument for mandatory airline pilot age is simple. If no substantive study with accurate data quantifies a particular age whereupon medical and cognitive issues indicate enough of a decline to create a risk to the flying public, then why define another arbitrary age?
A group of lawmakers in Congress is putting forward a bill that would undo much of the more than 50-year-old rule banning most supersonic flight over U.S. land.
The Supersonic Aviation Modernization Act, introduced Wednesday by Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina and Representative Troy Nehls of Texas, would instruct the FAA to revise a 1973 statute prohibiting nonmilitary air travel that exceeds Mach 1 over land. The rule was introduced to limit sonic booms, which are not only loud but capable of damaging property on the ground below.
The proposed bill would allow civilian aircraft to travel at Mach 1 and faster provided no sonic booms reach the ground. Its supporters said American companies have already developed “quiet supersonic” technology that makes the current ban irrelevant. //
The Supersonic Aviation Modernization Act is cosponsored by Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Mike Lee of Utah, and Tim Sheehy of Montana, together with Representative Sharice Davids of Kansas.
Duffy said during Monday’s press conference. “In July of 2024, the Biden [and] Buttigieg FAA moved control of the New York Newark airspace from New York [N90] to the Philadelphia Tower [Philadelphia TRACON].”
He said that as part of the move, the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) system which processes radar data for Newark stayed based in New York. Telecommunication lines would feed this data from New York to Philadelphia TRACON, where controllers would then handle New York arrivals and departures.
“The Biden [and] Buttigieg FAA bungled this move without properly hardening the telecom lines feeding the data which was already well known to be error-prone,” he said. “Without addressing the underlying infrastructure, they added more risk to the system.”
The safety nightmare continues at Newark Liberty International Airport, where all air traffic control will be manned by just one fully qualified person during its busiest time tonight, The Post can exclusively reveal.
One air traffic controller (ATC) and a trainee will operate every flight in and out of Newark between 6.30pm-9.30pm — despite 15 staffers being the standard requirement for a shift.
A New York-based ATC, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described the situation as “pure insanity” and warned that the schedule shows the control tower for the airport will operate “at bare bones” while between 168 and 180 planes are usually scheduled to take off and land.
On a typical day, the global 787 fleet conducts approximately 2,100 flights, transporting roughly 480,000 passengers daily – about 14.5 million people monthly. //
Boeing announced that its pioneering 787 Dreamliner fleet has transported over one billion passengers faster than any widebody commercial airplane in history, achieving this milestone in under 14 years since entering service.
The global fleet of more than 1,175 Dreamliners has completed nearly 5 million flights covering over 30 million flight hours. //
The 787 Dreamliner has fundamentally transformed the aviation landscape by enabling airlines to efficiently operate previously unprofitable long-haul routes.
With its exceptional fuel efficiency and extended range capabilities, carriers have established more than 425 new nonstop routes, connecting cities that previously required multiple stops or weren’t served at all. //
The aircraft’s operational capabilities have made it particularly valuable for airlines like Qantas Airways (QF), which operates the longest nonstop 787 route from London to Perth spanning 7,829 nautical miles.
At the other extreme, TUI Airways (BY) utilizes the Dreamliner for shorter high-demand routes including the 65 nautical mile hop between Aruba and Curaçao. //
The Dreamliner’s commercial success is reflected in its position as the bestselling passenger widebody in aviation history, with more than 2,000 orders from 89 airlines, operators, and lessors. The aircraft operates across more than 85 countries and serves over 520 airports worldwide.
In the case of MEL 32-12-01 covering missing gear door seals, the prescribed remedy involves maintaining the extended gear position temporarily after takeoff. //
-
During normal operations, gear retraction typically occurs within 10 seconds after takeoff
-
The system applies automatic braking to wheels during retraction to prevent gyroscopic forces from spinning wheels from entering the gear bay
For aircraft operating with deactivated brake units (another MEL condition), extended gear position becomes especially important.
The spinning mass of wheels (exceeding 100kg each) creates substantial gyroscopic forces that could stress the landing gear system if retracted while still spinning rapidly. Natural deceleration time prevents potential damage.
Between October and December 2024, the airline did not have a single passenger involuntarily denied boarding, according to statistics published by the Department of Transportation.
In comparison, Ameican Airlines involuntarily bumped more than 3,200 people from its flights during the same period.
Why do shockwaves extend past the body that created them? As seen in this photo, the shock doesn’t stop in the air the plane is effecting, but continues on. I always assumed it was high pressure air from the shock extending out, but now I’m not too sure. //
Shocks are not because of the pressure. Shocks happen because of the turning -- the pressure jump is a result of the shock. – Rob McDonald Mar 14, 2024 at 17:27
A shock wave generated at 30,000 feet at Mach 1 cannot be heard on the ground for precisely the reason you surmise in your comment.
The US Air Force has conducted tests with supersonic aircraft and has this to say:
Under standard atmospheric conditions, air temperature decreases with increased altitude. For example, when sea-level temperature is 58 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature at 30,000 feet drops to minus 49 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature gradient helps bend the sound waves upward. Therefore, for a boom to reach the ground, the aircraft speed relative to the ground must be greater than the speed of sound at the ground. For example, the speed of sound at 30,000 feet is about 670 miles per hour, but an aircraft must travel at least 750 miles per hour (Mach 1.12, where Mach 1 equals the speed of sound) for a boom to be heard on the ground.
Spoiler alert – no. Concorde did not return to the skies on April 1st, 2025. Instead, we paid tribute to the legendary supersonic jet by recreating two Concorde flights on Flightradar24. Here’s a look at what happened. //
We thought it would be fun to use April Fool’s Day as an opportunity to recreate two of Concorde’s most iconic flights, giving these beautiful aeroplanes one last chance to cross the Atlantic (albeit virtually).
The Air France (AF/AFR) Concorde F-BTSD departed Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) at 08:00 local time, and arrived at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) after a 3 hour and 50 minute flight. Later at 11am UK local time, British Airways (BA/BAW)‘s Concorde G-BOAG left London Heathrow Airport (LHR) for JFK, landing 3 hours and 33 minutes later.
It has been about a year since we reported on the major revelation that many thousand original North American Aviation manufacturing drawings survived destruction during the 1980s because one of their employees, Ken Jungeberg, saved them from incineration. Furthermore, as we also discussed last year, AirCorps Aviation worked out a deal with Jungeberg in 2019 to secure these historic artifacts for their longterm preservation. Ever since their arrival at AirCorps last winter, Ester Aube, the company’s manager for their technical documentation division, AirCorps Library, has been working diligently to preserve and catalogue this massive archive. With so many drawings to review, this would be a daunting task for anyone to undertake successfully, but Ester has applied her keen intellect, professional training and substantial skillset to systematically document and collate these drawings into a practical and valuable resource for aircraft restorers, historians, and the aviation-minded public at large. Additionally, Aube has delved deeper into the process, tracing personal details for several NAA technicians who originally drafted these drawings, because their stories are no less important to the narrative than the documents themselves; this aspect of aviation history has received little prior attention from the wider world …until now.
AirCorps Aviation of Bemidji, Minnesota has just announced that they have acquired a massive trove of original manufacturing drawings for North American Aviation (NAA) covering types such as the P-51, T-6, B-25 and P-82. This is a remarkable development, and all due to a lone engineer at NAA named Ken Jungeberg who had the foresight to save these drawings when they were days away from destruction at North American’s plant in Columbus, Ohio during the late 1980s. But before we discuss this find, it is perhaps first worth reflecting upon what it represents…
Just a few of the thousands of WWII-era North American Aviation aircraft manufacturing drawings which Ken Jungeberg saved. (image via AirCorps Aviation)
The American aircraft industry produced just under 300,000 aircraft between 1940 and 1945, a staggering feat by any measure, especially considering that just 3,600 rolled off U.S. assembly lines during the entirety of 1940. While aviation companies such as Boeing, Douglas, Curtiss and their like would design the aircraft, and put them together at their factories, it was simply impossible for them to both make all of the components and subassemblies on site and keep up with production demand. They had to subcontract out the bulk of this work once a design received an order for full-scale production. Indeed, much of America’s entire manufacturing base was involved in this effort – from small ma and pa furniture shops to industrial giants like Ford and Chrysler – whether they were making map cases or wing panels. Some companies, such as Ford, even had their own aircraft assembly lines, like the one in Willow Run, Michigan which built B-24 Liberators.
But have you ever wondered how it was possible to have such a prolific output of high quality aerial machinery when each aircraft assembly line received component parts from so many different independent subcontractors? How was it possible for all of those many thousands of parts to fit together properly in such a repeatable fashion?
The answer is pretty simple; it all came down to the quality of the manufacturing drawings which the aircraft company engineers created during their design process. If you had a coherent set of accurate drawings showing how to make each part, and how to put each assembly together, then you could rely upon skilled workers at disparate factory locations to produce components whose dimensions complied with design tolerances. Of course, there were times when problems arose, but when they did, the engineers usually found solutions. But a coherent set of manufacturing drawings was key to this effort.
However, every single component, from the tiniest rivet to the entire aircraft, required drawings to properly describe them. Obviously, the more complex parts and sub-assemblies required multiple drawings, sometimes hundreds. Highly skilled draftsmen and women created all of these drawings by hand by – usually using pencil on vellum drafting paper. Drawings could sometimes be massive too, extending ten feet or more. The finished product was designed to be practical, fully describing the part and how it fit into an assembly. Drawings were often exquisitely beautiful too – more works of art than simply functional. //
But then along came AirCorps Aviation with their AirCorps Library project. For a small annual subscription of just $50, you have access to serious engineering details, including manuals, for several dozen American WWII-era aircraft designs. They have also digitized the engineering drawings for a number of these aircraft too, such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair and B-17 Flying Fortress. While they haven’t digitized everything available yet for each aircraft design – it’s a massive process – it is a fascinating resource for anyone with even a passing interest in WWII aviation. //
This is why the news about the preservation of more than 15,000 original drawings produced by North American Aviation that relate to such iconic designs as the T-6 Texan, P-51 Mustang and B-25 Mitchell is such a revelation. AirCorps Aviation has gained access to these drawings, and is presently cataloguing and copying them for their subscription library. However, the fact that these drawing still exist at all is down to the dedicated efforts of just one man, Ken Jungeberg. His name will resonate in aviation lore for generations to come due to his foresight in saving such historically important documents. For further details on this remarkable news, we will let AirCorps Aviation’s Ester Aube continue the story…
Thousands of original North American Aviation technical drawings undergo preservation and cataloguing, highlighted in museum exhibit. //
In April of 2023, Ester Aube finalized and installed an exhibit at the EAA museum using the drawings and telling the story of the draftsmen from North American and highlighting their contribution to the war efforts. When the collection was initially received from Ken Jungeberg, they had promised to do something to help get the story of the draftsmen out to the general public and get some of the drawings in public view so that people could enjoy and learn. The exhibit will be in the museum until September of 2025. “I chose some, cherry-picked some really amazing drawings to highlight in that exhibit,” says Aube. //
With so many drawings and aircraft to sort through, Aube started the project working on a specific aircraft, the P-51, because both AirCorps Aviation and the many aircraft in the warbird community would get a lot of benefit from such extensive original engineering drawings. At this point she estimates she has catalogued a little over 15,000 drawings just for the Mustang, and has also ventured into the smaller size drawings for the early B-25 models, which will be her next branch to catalogue. “The cataloging process is very labor intensive,” she says. “So I’m cataloging part number and the description, which under normal circumstances isn’t as important. But because this collection contains so many experimental and pre-production drawings, you have to catalog the description because that part number isn’t listed anywhere in a parts catalog or it’s not referenced.” North American did have a part numbering system, but all the pieces of data are needed or else the searchability is difficult. So part number, description, the date it was drawn, name of the draftsman, the material the drawing was done on, and the factory it was made in all are recorded during the cataloguing process. There are drawings from factories in Inglewood, Kansas City, Dallas, and even some from the Canadian Car Foundry in Ontario, Canada’s largest aircraft manufacturer during World War II.
Ken Jungeberg’s efforts saved a vast collection of North American Aviation’s WWII engineering drawings from being lost. In this interview, Ester Aube of AirCorps Aviation shares his story and her role in their preservation. //
During World War II, long before the advent of computer-aided design, thousands of skilled draftsmen meticulously created tens of thousands of engineering drawings for every aspect of each aircraft model produced. These drawings were not only precise and detailed—ensuring different factories could manufacture components to exact specifications—but also works of art in their own right. Without the dedication of preservationists and archivists, many of these irreplaceable documents might have been lost forever. Thanks to the vision of a select few, however, these drawings are being safeguarded—not just as historical artifacts but as invaluable resources for the warbird restoration community. In 1988, Ken Jungeberg, head of the Master Dimensions Department at North American-Rockwell’s Columbus plant, was granted permission to save a large collection of non-current engineering drawings from the company archive. //
In this video interview, Ester Aube, Manager at AirCorps Aviation, shares Ken’s story and her role in preserving these invaluable engineering drawings.
https://youtu.be/eK--vNanN_U
Delta Air Lines is celebrating its 100th anniversary with a grand renovation of the Delta Flight Museum, reopening on April 7. Located at the airline’s Atlanta headquarters, the museum showcases a century of aviation history with expanded exhibits, interactive experiences, and rare aircraft like the Douglas DC-3 and Spirit of Delta Boeing 767.
A customer received $100,000 from American Airlines after getting a ticket they bought for $1,000 refunded. //
The honest customer did not want to keep the money since it wasn't theirs. So the person dialled customer care at American Airlines and told them about the mistake. However, every agent insisted that the refund was perfectly correct. When that didn't work, the person wrote emails to the airline's Revenue Protection group and even put the matter on social media. But nothing worked. //
So the customer then filed a "dispute" about the refund with American Express. //
The refund was received on Feb 21, and the airline acknowledged that a mistake had happened days later. However, it still couldn't be fixed. The airline processed an adjustment on Feb 27, and to the shock of the passenger, charged them $28 million.
This spiralled into a whole other issue since American Express suspended their account due to “high credit exposure" on March 1. The person tried to get in touch with people at Amex but could not reach a person of authority outside of normal business hours. Others who were available at those hours did not have the authority to correct a $30 million error.
Finally, Amex acknowledged the multiple errors on March 3 and removed the $28 million charge the next day. Things didn't end there as the process of fixing the problem had led to $300,000 being refunded, besides currency conversion costs and losses of $75,000.
American Airlines and American Express have apologised for the error and offered an undisclosed amount as compensation to the passenger.
The Boeing E-4B, known as the “Doomsday Plane,” is the airborne command center for the United States government during national emergencies meant to ensure continuity of government command after nuclear attack, major natural disasters, or terrorism. And it’s a fleet of old Boeing 747-200s that’s difficult to find parts for. //
The E-4 was developed in the early 1970s as the National Emergency Airborne Command Post. The first was delivered in 1973 (“E-4A”) and three of the planes were upgraded to higher specs (“E-4B”) in 1985. Four E-4Bs are currently in operation, maintained by the 1st Airborne Command out of Offutt Air Force Base outside of Omaha. //
Since the planes are now 50 years old, they’ve become incredibly costly to maintain. The Government Accountability Office estimates a cost of $372,496 per flight hour, and spare parts procurement is difficult as there’s no longer an active world fleet of similar aircraft.
Last April, the Air Force awarded a $13 billion contract to Sierra Nevada Corporation for developing the next-gen Doomsday Plane” called the Survivable Airborne Operations Center. These will be ex-Korean Air Boeing 747-8s. The first of these aircraft arrived at Sierra Nevada facilities late last year to start conversion. The fleet will grow to 10 “E-4C” aircraft by 2036. //
David says:
March 30, 2025 at 2:49 pm
The little-known HBO’s “By dawn’s early lights”, with Powers Boothe and James Earl Jones, almost takes place entirely in a Doomsday plane during WW3. Highly recommended.
Why should passengers not delay donning emergency oxygen masks after they deploy from the overhead compartments?
A
As soon as the oxygen masks fall down, the flight crew will know, and they will make it an immediate priority to get the aircraft down to an altitude where the masks are not needed anymore because the outside pressure is high enough to breathe by. This takes less than the time the oxygen generators last for.
(Usually descending will take much less time than the masks are good for -- the critical design factor for the oxygen mask duration is that if you happen to be over tall mountains when the pressure drops you may need to fly for a bit of time to reach terrain low enough to dispense with the masks. There are a few places, such as over the Tibetan plateau, where airline flights simply don't go because it's too far from sufficiently low terrain for the masks to last).
There is no realistic chance of the oxygen generators running dry while you still need them. If you delay putting your mask on, all you buy is a danger of fainting or otherwise being unable to don it (from low pressure, not depletion of oxygen in the air) before you decide to put it on -- and then you may end up in a low-oxygen state for long enough to risk permanent harm.
There's a reason why the safety briefing always instructs you to put your own mask on before helping others -- because the time it takes to help someone else may well be enough to incapacitate yourself. //
In a typical decompression, there will be a gradual loss of pressure. However, by the time the masks drop, the pressure has already dropped a fair amount. There is no set time that it takes for pressure to drop. It could be very gradual, or it could be explosive decompression that happens extremely quickly. As a passenger, aside from the obvious explosive decompression, you will not be able to tell how fast the pressure is dropping. And because of how hypoxia works, you many not even be able to tell that you are not getting enough oxygen. So you have no way to tell how long you can safely wait before putting on your mask. Without enough oxygen, you eventually die.
So by not putting on the mask, you are risking death. What is the benefit of waiting to put on your mask?
Airlines operating under FAA regulations are required to carry certain amounts of oxygen, depending on the flight. FAR 121.333 covers the requirements for oxygen supply during an emergency descent.
For airliners certified to FL250 and below, they must carry 30 minutes of oxygen for 10 percent of passengers, but only if they can safely descend to 14,000 feet in 4 minutes.
If they cannot safely descend, or if the airplane is certified above FL250 (as most airliners are), there must be at least 10 minutes of oxygen for all passengers, and enough for 10 percent of passengers for the duration of flight with cabin altitude between 10,000 and 14,000 feet. //
At high altitude, the time for useful consciousness is measured in seconds. Pilots are trained to take on the mask immediately when the alarm goes off.
The problem of your approach lies in two uncertainties:
Uncertainty of cabin pressure. Unless you happen to have carried a altimeter with you, of course.
Uncertainty of the oxygen level in your blood. Prolonged hypoxia may cause permanent brain damage.
For your reference, the time of useful consciousness at FL350 is 30 seconds only. If it was a rapid decompression, then the fog which formed instantaneously may have obscured your vision for a good 10 seconds. Granted, at FL150 you'd have 30 minutes. But you wouldn't know. And most passengers simply wouldn't have known the aircraft's attitude the moment it happens. It is simply too risky (for both pilots and passengers) to wait while oxygen supply is available. //
it's important to understand that 100% oxygen at 11 km is possible because pressure is still 22 kPa, greater than the physiological minimum of 16 kPa. If it was below 16 kPa (e.g. at 13 km), even if this 100% O2 supply was in excess for our body needs, it wouldn't be transferred to our blood without increasing its partial pressure to 16 kPa, either by providing more oxygen, or adding another gas to the same quantity of oxygen. Hence at 13 km a pressurized mask would be necessary.
–
mins Commented Dec 27, 2016 at 2:23
@mins, yes, above certain altitude even 100% O₂ won't help, but adding other gasses won't change anything, because what matter is that partial pressure of oxygen is at least ~14 kPa (You need 11.6 kPa more O₂ than CO₂ to displace the later from the hemoglobin, plus a bit more for the process to be sufficiently efficient. Exhaled air has around 14.5% of oxygen and that is still plenty for mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.). Total pressure only matters to prevent excessive drying above the Armstrong limit, that pressure is 6.8 kPa (18–19 km; then you need full pressure suit).
– Jan Hudec Commented Dec 27, 2016 at 11:10
The airspeed was 136 knots, or roughly 155 mph, according to the preliminary findings.
The report, which doesn’t provide a final cause for the crash, added that the jet’s right main landing gear collapsed after making contact with the runway.
“At touchdown, the following occurred: the side-stay that is attached to the right [main landing gear] fractured, the landing gear folded into the retracted position, the wing root fractured between the fuselage and the landing gear, and the wing detached from the fuselage, releasing a cloud of jet fuel, which caught fire,” the report stated. //
Astro 9007 Da FAC
6 hours ago
Read the prelim report - east yo find on-line. VVI at touchdown >1100 fpm. Book recommends 600 (RJ Manual). Design load limit was a measly 750 or so VVI.... oops.
By the time adversaries detect the Raptor, it has often already fired missiles and maneuvered to a superior position. On the other hand, the F-15 might outrun its targets but retains a larger radar cross-section and can be tracked and engaged by many more enemies.
The Eagle relies on its high thrust-to-weight ratio and robust radar suite for air intercept, whereas the Raptor leverages stealth and sensor fusion to stalk its prey.
Each philosophy that is imbued in the two designs reflects the doctrine from the eras of their development. The 1970s favored dominance through speed and heavy weapons, while modern tactics focus on evading detection and maximizing electronic warfare (EW) techniques.