This article is based on an official preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and verified data regarding the investigation.

NTSB Releases Preliminary Findings on Hammonton Midair Collision

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued its preliminary report regarding the fatal midair collision between two Enstrom helicopters that occurred on December 28, 2025, near Hammonton, New Jersey. The report confirms that the two aircraft were operating in close proximity in uncontrolled airspace shortly before impact.

According to the NTSB’s initial factual findings, the accident took place at approximately 11:25 a.m. EST, about 1.5 miles from the Hammonton Municipal Airport (N81). Both pilots, who were the sole occupants of their respective helicopters, sustained fatal injuries. The investigation highlights that visual meteorological conditions (VFR) prevailed at the time, with clear weather and light winds reported in the area.

While a final determination of probable cause is expected to take 12 to 18 months, this preliminary document establishes the factual timeline and conditions surrounding the tragedy.

Flight Details and Sequence of Events

The collision involved an Enstrom F-28A (registration N520H) and an Enstrom 280C Shark (registration N280MG). Investigators established that both aircraft departed from Hammonton Municipal Airport shortly before the accident. Data retrieved from ADS-B flight tracking and witness statements indicate that the helicopters were flying near each other, with some witnesses describing the flight path as “tandem” or formation-style.

The NTSB report notes that the collision occurred at a low altitude. Following the impact, both helicopters descended rapidly into a farm field near Basin Road and the White Horse Pike. The wreckage distribution spanned approximately 100 yards, consisting of separated rotor blades and fuselage components.

Wreckage and Post-Crash Fire

The preliminary examination of the crash site revealed distinct outcomes for the two airframes:

• N280MG (Enstrom 280C): Upon impacting the ground, this aircraft was immediately engulfed in a post-crash fire which consumed the majority of the fuselage. The pilot, identified as 71-year-old Michael Greenberg, sustained fatal injuries at the scene.
• N520H (Enstrom F-28A): This helicopter impacted the ground nearby but did not catch fire. First responders extricated the pilot, 65-year-old Kenneth L. Kirsch, who was transported to a trauma center where he later succumbed to his injuries.

Pilot Background and Operational Environment

Information gathered by investigators and local authorities paints a picture of two experienced pilots who were familiar with one another. According to the report details, the pilots were friends who frequently flew together. On the morning of the accident, they had shared breakfast at the Apron Cafe located at the airport prior to their departure.

The airspace surrounding Hammonton Municipal Airport is Class G/E uncontrolled airspace, meaning there is no operating air traffic control tower to direct separation. In this environment, pilots rely strictly on “see and avoid” principles and communication via the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF).

Investigation Focus Areas

The NTSB has stated that the ongoing investigation will focus on several key areas to determine why the aircraft collided:

• Visual Lookout: Investigators will analyze cockpit visibility and potential blind spots inherent to the Enstrom F-28 and 280 series to determine if physical obstructions prevented the pilots from seeing one another.
• Formation Protocols: The inquiry will assess whether a formation flight was pre-briefed and if standard safety protocols for formation flying were adhered to.
• Electronic Data Analysis: Recovered GPS units and mobile devices will be analyzed alongside ADS-B data to reconstruct precise flight paths and closure rates.

AirPro News Analysis

The tragedy in Hammonton underscores the critical risks associated with formation flying in general aviation, particularly in low-wing or rotorcraft environments where visibility can be restricted. While Enstrom helicopters are widely regarded for their stability and safety, with no history of systemic defects that would suggest a mechanical cause for this event, the geometry of a helicopter’s structure can create significant blind spots.

In uncontrolled airspace, the “see and avoid” concept is the primary defense against midair collisions. However, when aircraft intentionally operate in close proximity for formation flight, the margin for error evaporates. We anticipate the final NTSB report will heavily scrutinize the pre-flight coordination between the two pilots, as effective formation flying requires rigorous briefing and standardized procedures that go beyond casual coordination.

Sources

Sources: NTSB Preliminary Report, FAA, Local Authorities (Hammonton Police Department)

This article summarizes reporting by Reuters and journalists Dan Catchpole and David Shepardson.

Boeing 737 MAX 10 Cleared for Critical Phase 2 Certification Testing

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted authorization for the Boeing 737 MAX 10 to enter the second phase of its flight testing program, marking a significant regulatory step for the largest variant of the manufacturer’s narrowbody jet. According to reporting by Reuters, this approval moves the aircraft from internal company trials to formal, regulator-supervised testing.

This development represents a pivotal moment for the delayed program, which is essential to Boeing’s strategy in the high-capacity single-aisle market. While the authorization signals technical maturity in key systems, the aircraft still faces a timeline extending into late 2026 or 2027 due to outstanding engineering hurdles, specifically regarding the engine anti-ice system.

Moving to “Type Inspection Authorization”

The transition to Phase 2, known technically as Type Inspection Authorization (TIA), is a major gate in the certification process. According to sources cited by Reuters, the FAA approved this move recently, allowing FAA personnel to board the aircraft for official evaluation.

During Phase 1, flight tests are conducted primarily by the manufacturer to gather preliminary data. Phase 2 shifts the responsibility to FAA pilots and engineers, who validate safety-critical systems such as avionics, structural integrity, and handling qualities. Data collected during these flights contributes directly to the final certification credit required for the aircraft to enter commercial service.

Market reaction to the progress was positive. Following the public emergence of the news on January 9, 2026, Boeing shares (NYSE: BA) rose nearly 3%, reflecting investor optimism that the program is stabilizing.

Commercial Momentum and Backlog

The certification progress coincides with renewed commercial interest in the MAX 10. Just days prior to the certification news, Alaska Airlines finalized a record order for 105 MAX 10 jets, underscoring the industry’s demand for the airframe despite its prolonged gestation.

The MAX 10 is critical for Boeing as it competes directly with the Airbus A321neo, which currently dominates the high-capacity narrowbody segment. Boeing holds a backlog of over 1,200 orders for the MAX 10 from major carriers including United Airlines, Delta, Ryanair, and Alaska Airlines. These airlines have been forced to adjust fleet plans repeatedly as the certification timeline has slipped from original estimates.

Remaining Hurdles: The Anti-Ice System

Despite the TIA milestone, the MAX 10 is not expected to enter service immediately. The primary obstacle remains a required redesign of the engine anti-ice system. In specific dry air conditions, the current system can cause overheating in the engine inlet’s composite structure, posing a potential safety risk.

Boeing has developed a permanent fix for this issue, but the solution itself must undergo certification and implementation. This engineering work is a primary driver behind the projected entry-into-service window of late 2026 or 2027. Additionally, the aircraft must meet updated requirements for pilot alerting systems, a mandate strengthened by Congress and the FAA following historical safety incidents.

AirPro News Analysis

We view the entry into Phase 2 testing as a necessary “proof of life” for the MAX 10 program, but not a finish line. The gap between TIA approval and final certification is typically 12 to 18 months, particularly given the FAA’s current “safety first” regulatory posture. The regulator has capped Boeing’s production rates to ensure quality control, meaning that even once certified, the ramp-up in deliveries will likely be gradual.

For airlines like United and Alaska, this progress validates their decision to stick with the MAX 10 rather than defecting entirely to Airbus, whose A321neo production lines are already sold out for years. However, the 2027 timeline means carriers will continue to face capacity constraints in the near term.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing?
Phase 1 is manufacturer-led, where Boeing collects data to prove the aircraft is ready. Phase 2 is regulator-led, where FAA pilots conduct the testing to validate that data for certification.

When will the 737 MAX 10 carry passengers?
Current projections estimate entry into service in late 2026 or early 2027, pending the certification of the engine anti-ice fix and final FAA approval.

Why is the MAX 10 important?
It is Boeing’s largest narrowbody jet, designed to carry more passengers and compete with the popular Airbus A321neo. It allows airlines to lower the cost per seat on busy routes.

Sources

• Reuters

This article summarizes reporting by WFSB and includes data from official FAA and LATAM Airlines statements.

LATAM Boeing 767 Suffers Major Tire Blowout Upon Landing in Atlanta

A LATAM Airlines flight arriving from Lima, Peru, experienced a significant landing gear failure at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) on the evening of Tuesday, January 6, 2026. According to reporting by WFSB and confirmed by federal regulators, the aircraft blew multiple tires immediately after touching down, stranding the jet on the runway for hours.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has launched an investigation into the incident involving Flight LA2482. While the mechanical failure caused substantial disruption at the world’s busiest airport, officials confirmed that the plane came to a safe stop and no injuries were reported among the passengers or crew.

This event marks another high-profile maintenance incident involving the Boeing 767 airframe, occurring just days after regulators issued new directives regarding landing gear inspections for the aging fleet type.

Incident Details and Passenger Accounts

Flight LA2482, operated by a Boeing 767-300ER (Registration CC-CXF), touched down on Runway 26R at approximately 7:38 PM EST. According to details emerging from the investigation, the aircraft suffered a blowout of all eight tires on the rear main landing gear assembly upon landing.

Inside the Cabin

Passengers onboard described a frightening conclusion to the international flight. Witnesses cited in reports by WFSB and other outlets characterized the landing as “rough” and “hard,” noting violent vibrations as the aircraft decelerated.

The physical force of the landing was reportedly severe enough to cause interior damage to the cabin. Passenger accounts indicate that a bathroom door was dislodged from its hinges during the rollout. Despite the intensity of the event, the cabin atmosphere reportedly remained relatively calm once the aircraft came to a halt.

“The plane landed safely and came to a controlled stop on the runway. No injuries were reported.”

, Summary of FAA Statement

Advertisement

Following the incident, passengers remained onboard for approximately two to three hours while emergency crews assessed the stability of the landing gear. Eventually, travelers were deplaned via stairs onto the tarmac and bussed to the international terminal.

Official Responses and Operational Impact

The incident triggered immediate responses from the airline, the airport, and federal regulators. Runway 26R was temporarily closed to facilitate the evacuation and the complex removal of the disabled wide-body aircraft.

Airline and Regulator Statements

In a statement regarding the event, the FAA confirmed that the jet “blew tires after safely landing” and noted that an investigation is underway to determine the root cause. LATAM Airlines acknowledged the “technical incident,” emphasizing that safety remains their priority and regretting the inconvenience caused to customers.

Delta Air Lines, which has a codeshare agreement with LATAM, clarified to reporters that the flight was operated entirely by LATAM crews and hardware, distinguishing their operations from the incident.

AirPro News Analysis

Context on the Boeing 767 Fleet

While the investigation into Flight LA2482 is in its early stages, AirPro News notes that this incident occurs within a broader context of scrutiny regarding the Boeing 767 platform. The aircraft involved is approximately 17 years old, a common age for this workhorse of the transatlantic and South American markets.

Significantly, this blowout follows a January 2025 FAA Airworthiness Directive requiring inspections of landing gear on specific Boeing 767 aircraft. That directive was prompted by previous reports of landing gear collapses and heat damage issues. While it is too early to link Tuesday’s event to these specific mechanical concerns, the failure of an entire main gear tire assembly (eight tires) is a rare severity that will likely draw intense focus from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FAA investigators.

We also observe that this incident compounds operational stress at Atlanta’s airport, which had already been recovering from runway equipment issues earlier in the week. The ability of the pilots to maintain directional control despite losing traction on the main gear suggests a high degree of airmanship, preventing a potential runway excursion.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was anyone injured on LATAM Flight LA2482?

No. Despite the severity of the tire blowouts and reported interior damage, no injuries were reported among passengers or crew.

What caused the tires to blow out?

The official cause has not yet been determined. The FAA has opened an investigation to analyze whether the failure was due to mechanical malfunction, pilot input, or runway conditions.

What type of aircraft was involved?

The flight was operated by a Boeing 767-300ER, a wide-body twin-engine jet.

Did this flight belong to Delta Air Lines?

No. While it may have carried a Delta codeshare flight number, the aircraft and crew were from LATAM Airlines Peru.

Sources

• WFSB