Regulations & Safety
Air India Flight 171 Crash: Engine Failure Analysis & Safety Implications
Preliminary findings reveal accidental engine shutdowns caused 2025 Ahmedabad Boeing 787 crash, prompting cockpit design and training reviews.
Introduction
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad Airport, resulting in 260 fatalities, including 19 on the ground. The tragic event marked the first fatal accident involving the Boeing 787 since its commercial debut in 2011 and became one of the deadliest aviation disasters in Indian history. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India released its preliminary report on July 11, 2025, shedding light on the sequence of events that led to the crash.
The preliminary findings suggest that both engines lost thrust due to the unintended activation of fuel cutoff switches, leading to a dual-engine failure at a critically low altitude. Despite the pilots’ attempts to recover the engines, only one showed signs of partial recovery before the aircraft impacted the ground. This article analyzes the AAIB’s preliminary report, the technical aspects of the aircraft systems involved, and the broader implications for aviation safety and regulatory oversight.
The AAIB and the Context of the Crash
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) operates under India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation and is responsible for investigating civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents. Established in 2012 to comply with ICAO standards, the AAIB functions independently of regulatory bodies like the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). Its mandate includes identifying safety deficiencies and recommending preventive measures without assigning blame.
Flight AI171 was a scheduled international service from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick. The aircraft involved was a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, powered by two General Electric GEnx-1B engines. At the time of the crash, the aircraft had 230 passengers and 12 crew on board. The flight departed at 13:38 IST and crashed less than two minutes later, at 13:39 IST, approximately 1.5 kilometers from the runway.
The crash site was a densely populated area, resulting in significant ground casualties. The impact and subsequent fire destroyed much of the aircraft, complicating the recovery and analysis of flight data. However, both Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs) were recovered and provided critical information for the preliminary investigation.
AAIB Preliminary Findings
The AAIB’s preliminary report outlines a sequence of events beginning with the aircraft reaching 180 knots indicated airspeed shortly after takeoff. At this moment, both engine fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF within a second of each other. This action led to an immediate loss of engine thrust, with both engines’ N1 and N2 speeds dropping below idle thresholds.
According to the cockpit voice recorder, one pilot questioned the other about the cutoff, to which the response was a denial of initiating the action. Within seconds, the crew attempted to restart the engines. Engine 1 showed signs of recovery, while Engine 2 failed to stabilize despite multiple relight attempts. A mayday call was made at 08:09:05 UTC, and the crash occurred at 08:09:11 UTC, just 32 seconds after the engine shutdown.
The report also confirms that the flap settings were appropriate for takeoff and that the landing gear was still down, ruling out configuration errors. The thrust levers were found in the idle position post-crash, but data indicated they remained in the forward position until impact, suggesting thermal damage altered their final positions.
“Why did you cutoff?”, a pilot’s question captured on the CVR, highlighting cockpit confusion during the critical seconds before the crash.
Technical Analysis: Engine Systems and Human Factors
The Boeing 787-8 is equipped with FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) systems, which manage engine performance and relight sequences automatically. FADEC systems monitor and adjust engine parameters in real-time, reducing pilot workload and improving efficiency. However, they also introduce complexity and potential vulnerabilities.
In the case of AI171, the FADEC systems initiated relight sequences after the fuel control switches were returned to RUN. Engine 1 responded positively, but Engine 2 could not recover its core speed. The relight attempt occurred at an altitude of less than 400 feet, a scenario outside the typical operational envelope for successful engine restart.
Human factors also play a critical role in this incident. The placement of fuel cutoff switches on the overhead panel and their lack of protective guards may contribute to inadvertent activation. Additionally, Air India’s training protocols reportedly do not include simulator scenarios for dual-engine failure at low altitude, as such events are considered statistically improbable and unrecoverable.
Design and Training Considerations
The design of cockpit controls, including the accessibility and safeguarding of critical switches, is under renewed scrutiny. Unlike some Airbus aircraft, the Boeing 787 does not feature guarded fuel cutoff switches, increasing the risk of accidental activation. This design choice may prompt future modifications depending on the investigation’s final findings.
Training standards are also being evaluated. Dual-engine failure at low altitude is not typically included in simulator training due to its extreme rarity. However, this incident suggests that even low-probability events can have catastrophic consequences, and training protocols may need to evolve accordingly.
Experts have emphasized the importance of scenario-based training that prepares pilots for high-stress, low-altitude emergencies. The inability to recover Engine 2 and the evident confusion in the cockpit underscore the challenges of managing such a situation without prior rehearsal or procedural guidance.
Broader Implications for Aviation Safety
The crash of AI171 has far-reaching implications for aircraft design, pilot training, and regulatory oversight. Although the AAIB has not issued immediate safety recommendations, the findings have already prompted internal reviews by Boeing, General Electric, and the DGCA.
One area of concern is the standardization of cockpit interfaces and the need for physical safeguards on critical switches. If the final report confirms that the switches were accidentally activated, design changes may be mandated across the global 787 fleet. Over 1,000 Boeing 787s are currently in service worldwide, making any potential retrofit a significant undertaking.
Regulatory bodies may also revise training requirements to include rare but high-risk scenarios. The ICAO and national aviation authorities could consider mandating simulator sessions for dual-engine failure at low altitudes, especially for new aircraft types with advanced automation systems.
“This tragedy underscores the need for enhanced safeguards against inadvertent cockpit actions and revised training for low-altitude emergencies.”
Conclusion
The preliminary report into the crash of Air India Flight 171 identifies a probable sequence of events involving the inadvertent shutdown of both engines shortly after takeoff. Despite prompt recovery efforts by the flight crew, the aircraft could not regain thrust in time to avoid impact. The incident raises critical questions about cockpit ergonomics, FADEC system behavior, and pilot preparedness for rare emergencies.
As the AAIB continues its investigation, the aviation community is watching closely for recommendations that could influence future aircraft design and operational protocols. The final report is expected to provide a comprehensive analysis, including potential design changes, training reforms, and safety directives aimed at preventing similar tragedies in the future.
FAQ
What caused the engines to shut down on AI171?
The preliminary report indicates that both engine fuel cutoff switches were inadvertently moved from RUN to CUTOFF, resulting in a loss of thrust.
Did the pilots try to restart the engines?
Yes, the pilots attempted to restart both engines. Engine 1 showed signs of recovery, but Engine 2 failed to stabilize before the crash.
Were there any technical faults with the aircraft?
The AAIB found no evidence of pre-existing technical faults or structural failures. Both engines had recently undergone maintenance.
What is FADEC and how did it affect the outcome?
FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) is an automated system that manages engine performance. It initiated relight sequences, but the low altitude limited their effectiveness.
Will this lead to changes in aircraft design or training?
While no official recommendations have been made yet, the incident may prompt design reviews of cockpit controls and updates to pilot training protocols.
Sources
Photo Credit: AAIB
Regulations & Safety
Airborne and Partners Develop ADS-B In Retrofit for Boeing 757 and 767
Airborne, Innovative Aerosystems, and ACSS collaborate on ADS-B In retrofit for Boeing 757 and 767 to meet ALERT Act mandates by 2031.
This article is based on an official press release from Airborne Maintenance & Engineering Services.
Airborne Maintenance & Engineering Services, a subsidiary of Air Transport Services Group (ATSG), announced a strategic Partnerships on April 20, 2026, with Innovative Aerosystems (IA) and Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems (ACSS). The coalition aims to develop and certify an ADS-B In retrofit solution specifically designed for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, with an expected entry into service in early 2027.
According to the official press release, this initiative arrives at a critical juncture for aviation safety and regulatory compliance. Just days prior to the announcement, on April 14, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act. This sweeping aviation safety bill mandates the implementation of ADS-B In technology across the industry by December 31, 2031.
We note that this retrofit program represents a proactive industry response to impending federal mandates. It offers operators of legacy Boeing 757 and 767 fleets a cost-effective pathway to modernize their flight decks, ensuring compliance with future airspace requirements while enhancing operational efficiency.
The Regulatory Catalyst and the ALERT Act
Tragic Origins and Legislative Action
The legislative push for ADS-B In technology gained intense momentum following a tragic midair collision on January 29, 2025. The incident, involving a PSA Airlines CRJ700 and a U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopters near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airports (KDCA), resulted in 67 fatalities. Subsequent investigations by the NTSB revealed that the helicopter was not broadcasting an ADS-B signal, exposing a critical gap in cockpit situational awareness.
In direct response to the NTSB’s 50 safety recommendations, lawmakers introduced the ALERT Act. The legislation requires all aircraft currently mandated to have ADS-B Out to be equipped with ADS-B In and corresponding collision prevention technology by the end of 2031. A competing Senate bill, the ROTOR Act, pushes for a similar mandate.
“Any safety requirement that routes implementation through negotiated processes… creates opportunities for delay that cost lives. This is how modern aviation operates. ADS-B In is proven technology that can be deployed now to save lives,” stated U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan, Jr., co-sponsor of the ADS-B In amendment to the ALERT Act.
Technological Integration and Key Partnerships
Upgrading the Legacy Fleet
While ADS-B Out, mandated in the U.S. since 2020, broadcasts an aircraft’s position, speed, and altitude, ADS-B In allows the flight deck to receive this data from other aircraft and ground stations. This provides pilots with a real-time, 180-nautical-mile display of surrounding traffic. The retrofit program leverages the ACSS SafeRouteâ„¢ system, which includes features like Airborne Traffic Situational Awareness (AIRB), CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS/CAS), Interval Management (IM), In-Trail Procedures (ITP), and runway surface alerting (SURF-A).
Each partner brings specific expertise to the integration. Airborne will lead the aircraft integration, Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) certification, and installation. Innovative Aerosystems (IA), which rebranded from Innovative Solutions & Support in October 2025, will provide the retrofit Flat Panel Display System. ACSS, a joint venture between Acron Aviation and Thales, supplies the core SafeRouteâ„¢ software and TCAS 3000SP platform.
“This program focuses on integrating ADS-B In capabilities into existing flight deck environments with minimal disruption,” noted Mike Glover, VP of Business Development at Innovative Aerosystems, in the press release.
Operational Efficiency and Fleet Modernization
Minimizing Downtime for Cargo Operators
ATSG is the world’s largest lessor of converted Boeing 767 freighter aircraft, operating a fleet of over 114 converted Cargo-Aircraft jets. These aircraft serve as the backbone for major e-commerce logistics providers. By synchronizing the ADS-B In installation with scheduled heavy maintenance, ATSG aims to minimize aircraft downtime, a crucial factor for cargo operators relying on tight schedules.
“They need integrated capabilities that can be executed efficiently and at scale… Airborne’s technical expertise, combined with ATSG’s broader platform, allows us to deliver programs like this in a way that reduces complexity, minimizes downtime, and creates immediate and long-term value,” said Todd France, Chief Commercial Strategy Officer at ATSG.
AirPro News analysis
At AirPro News, we view this partnership as a highly strategic alignment of capabilities that addresses a “perfect storm” of safety mandates and operational efficiency. The Boeing 757 and 767 remain vital to the global e-commerce cargo network. This retrofit allows these legacy workhorses to operate in modernized, NextGen airspace without requiring operators to invest in entirely new airframes. Furthermore, while safety mandates typically introduce new costs, the fuel efficiency and optimized routing enabled by ADS-B In’s Interval Management and In-Trail Procedures offer a tangible return on investment for cargo airlines.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between ADS-B Out and ADS-B In?
ADS-B Out broadcasts an aircraft’s GPS location, speed, and altitude to air traffic control and other aircraft. ADS-B In allows an aircraft to receive this broadcasted data, providing pilots with a real-time display of surrounding air traffic and enhancing situational awareness.
When does the ADS-B In mandate take effect?
Under the ALERT Act passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 14, 2026, aircraft currently required to have ADS-B Out must be equipped with ADS-B In technology by December 31, 2031.
Which aircraft are covered in this specific retrofit program?
The partnership between Airborne, Innovative Aerosystems, and ACSS is specifically developing and certifying an ADS-B In retrofit solution for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft.
Sources
Photo Credit: Aventure Aviation
Regulations & Safety
NTSB Preliminary Report on Fatal LaGuardia Runway Collision
NTSB’s preliminary report details the 2026 LaGuardia runway collision involving Air Canada Express and a firefighting vehicle, citing communication and system failures.
This article is based on an official press release and preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
NTSB Releases Preliminary Findings on Fatal LaGuardia Runway Collision
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued its preliminary report regarding the tragic runway collision that occurred at New York’s LaGuardia Airport (LGA) on Sunday, March 22, 2026. We have reviewed the agency’s initial findings, which detail the sequence of events leading to the crash between a passenger jet and an airport firefighting vehicle. The collision resulted in the deaths of two pilots and injuries to 41 other individuals, marking the first fatal aviation accident at LaGuardia in 34 years.
According to the NTSB preliminary report (Investigation ID: DCA26MA161), the incident took place at approximately 11:37 p.m. local time. A 20-year-old Bombardier CRJ-900LR, registered as C-GNJZ and operated by Jazz Aviation on behalf of Air Canada Express, was completing Flight 8646 from Montreal–Trudeau International Airport (YUL). The Commercial-Aircraft, carrying 72 passengers and four crew members, collided with an Oshkosh Striker 1500 airport firefighting truck operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
The preliminary findings point to a complex chain of systemic issues, including overlapping air traffic control (ATC) communications, the absence of a transponder on the emergency vehicle, and critical failures in the airport’s surface detection systems. While the NTSB does not assign probable cause in preliminary reports, the documented facts provide a clear timeline of the technological and human factors involved.
The Collision Sequence and Communication Breakdown
Divergent Clearances and Radio Frequencies
The NTSB report outlines that the firefighting vehicle, identified as Truck 1 or Truck 35, was leading a convoy of six emergency vehicles. They were responding to an unrelated incident involving a United Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8, which had reported a cabin odor following two aborted takeoffs. As the convoy mobilized, the Air Canada Express CRJ-900 was cleared to land on Runway 4.
Simultaneously, an air traffic controller cleared the fire truck to cross the same runway at the Taxiway Delta intersection. According to the NTSB timeline, this crossing clearance was issued just 12 to 20 seconds before the aircraft touched down. A critical factor identified in the report is that the aircraft and the emergency convoy were operating on different radio frequencies. Consequently, neither the flight crew nor the fire truck operators heard the conflicting clearances.
The Final Seconds
Upon realizing the impending conflict, the air traffic controller attempted to halt the fire truck. The NTSB report notes that the controller issued rapid, frantic commands over the radio.
“stop, stop, stop, Truck 1 stop”
According to the Investigation, the fire truck’s turret operator heard the initial commands but did not immediately recognize that they were directed at his specific vehicle. By the time the operator realized the command was meant for them and spotted the approaching aircraft’s lights, the truck had already entered the runway. The CRJ-900, traveling at an estimated approach speed of 114 knots (131 mph), struck the side of the firefighting vehicle.
Casualties and Emergency Response
Impact and Fatalities
The high-speed impact destroyed the forward galley and cockpit of the CRJ-900. The NTSB confirmed that both pilots were killed instantly in the collision: Captain Antoine Forest, 24, and First Officer Mackenzie Gunther, 30.
Injuries and Rescue Operations
In addition to the fatalities, 41 people sustained injuries and were transported to local hospitals. This included 39 passengers and crew members from the aircraft, as well as the two occupants of the fire truck. The NTSB report highlights the severe injuries of a flight attendant who was seated in a forward jump seat; she was ejected from the aircraft onto the tarmac, surviving with shattered legs and a fractured spine.
Because the fire truck was already part of an active emergency convoy, rescue crews were immediately present at the scene. Officials cited in the report credit this immediate proximity with preventing further loss of life among the aircraft’s passengers.
Key Findings from the NTSB Preliminary Report
ASDE-X and Transponder Failures
A significant portion of the NTSB’s preliminary report focuses on the failure of LaGuardia’s Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X). This system is specifically designed to track ground movements and alert tower controllers to potential collisions. However, the system failed to generate any audio or visual alerts prior to the crash.
The investigation revealed that the ASDE-X system failed to alert because the fire truck was not equipped with a transponder. Without an active transponder, the large emergency vehicle was virtually invisible to the airport’s automated proximity warning system. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy emphasized in public remarks that controllers must be equipped with the proper tools and accurate information to maintain Safety.
Runway Entrance Lights and Environmental Factors
The NTSB also examined the runway entrance lights, which function as stoplights for crossing ground traffic. The report indicates these lights remained illuminated until approximately three seconds before the collision. The system is designed to extinguish these lights two to three seconds before an aircraft reaches an intersection, a margin that proved entirely insufficient to prevent the accident.
Environmental and staffing factors further compounded the situation. Weather conditions at the time included moderate winds (050 degrees at 7 knots), broken ceilings at 9,000 feet, and roughly 4 miles of visibility in mist and rain. These nighttime, low-visibility conditions likely hindered the pilots’ ability to spot the dark-colored fire truck. Furthermore, the NTSB noted that LaGuardia’s ATC was operating with 33 controllers that night, falling short of the airport’s staffing target of 37.
AirPro News analysis
The preliminary findings from the NTSB illustrate a classic “Swiss cheese model” of accident causation, where multiple layers of defense fail simultaneously. The most glaring systemic vulnerability highlighted in this report is the operation of an active emergency vehicle within the Airport Operations Area (AOA) without a transponder. While ASDE-X is a robust system, its reliance on transponder data means it is only as effective as the equipment installed on ground vehicles. We anticipate that the FAA and airport authorities nationwide will not wait for the NTSB’s final report to mandate transponder usage for all critical ARFF vehicles. Additionally, the documented ATC staffing shortage, operating with 33 controllers instead of the targeted 37, underscores a persistent, nationwide vulnerability in air traffic infrastructure that continues to erode safety margins during high-stress, low-visibility operations.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is an NTSB preliminary report?
An NTSB preliminary report outlines the verified, factual information gathered in the early stages of an aviation investigation. It does not assign blame or determine the probable cause of an accident. Those conclusions are reserved for the final report.
When will the final investigation report be released?
According to the NTSB, a final report determining the probable cause and contributing factors of the March 22 collision is expected to take 12 to 24 months to complete.
What is ASDE-X?
Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X) is a surveillance system used at major Airports to track the surface movement of aircraft and vehicles. It uses radar, satellite data, and transponder signals to warn air traffic controllers of potential ground collisions.
Photo Credit: Reuters
Regulations & Safety
Cessna 172S Crashes in Pacoima Near Whiteman Airport
A Cessna 172S crashed upside-down in Pacoima, CA, causing power outages and evacuations. Pilot hospitalized; FAA and NTSB investigating.
This article summarizes reporting by NBC Los Angeles and Jonathan Lloyd, supplemented by comprehensive incident research data.
A small single-engine airplane crashed upside-down into a commercial auto parts store parking lot in Pacoima, California, on Monday morning. The incident downed high-voltage power lines and prompted immediate emergency responses, though it miraculously spared bystanders and parked vehicles.
The crash occurred just blocks from Whiteman Airport, a general aviation facility that has been the subject of intense community scrutiny following a series of aviation accidents in recent years. The sole occupant of the aircraft, a 70-year-old male pilot, survived the impact and was hospitalized.
According to initial reporting by NBC Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) responded to the downed plane near the intersection of Ralston Avenue and Van Nuys Boulevard, where they encountered significant electrical hazards caused by the damaged infrastructure.
Details of the Pacoima Crash and Emergency Response
The Aircraft and the Pilot
Incident research reports identify the aircraft as a 2007 Cessna 172S Skyhawk, which is reportedly registered to a local flight school. The crash was reported to authorities at approximately 11:08 a.m. local time on Monday, April 20, 2026. The plane came to rest inverted in the parking lot of an O’Reilly Auto Parts store located on the 10800 block of N. San Fernando Road, sustaining heavy damage to its nose.
First responders from the LAFD and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) arrived swiftly to find the 70-year-old pilot trapped inside the wreckage. Crews successfully extricated the man, who was able to speak with responders at the scene. He was transported to a local hospital and is reported to be in critical but stable condition.
Public Safety Measures
NBC Los Angeles reported that high-voltage power lines were damaged during the incident. Research data confirms that the aircraft snapped a power pole upon descent. Due to the severe electrical hazard, police and fire crews shut down Van Nuys Boulevard from Ralston Avenue to San Fernando Road.
Authorities also initiated temporary evacuations of nearby businesses and residences as a safety precaution while utility crews worked to neutralize the downed lines. Fortunately, the aircraft did not strike any bystanders or parked cars during its descent.
The Shadow of Whiteman Airport
A History of Aviation Incidents
This latest crash contextualizes ongoing safety concerns regarding Whiteman Airport (WHP), located just a short distance from the crash site. The airport caters to general aviation, hobbyists, and flight schools, but its placement within a densely populated San Fernando Valley neighborhood has made it a flashpoint for controversy.
Over the past decade, the area has seen over a dozen crashes associated with the airport. Historical incident data highlights several severe accidents, including a fatal November 2020 crash of a Cessna 182 into a residential street, a dramatic January 2022 incident where a Cessna 172 lost power and was struck by a Metrolink train, and a fatal April 2022 crash of a Cessna Skymaster near the 210 Freeway.
Political and Community Pushback
Following previous crashes, local residents and community advocacy groups, such as Pacoima Beautiful, have mounted heavy pressure to close the 1940s-era airport. Elected officials, including U.S. Representative Tony Cárdenas and L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, have been vocal critics of the facility’s safety record.
“The surrounding community is literally afraid for their lives. There are way too many crashes coming in and out of Whiteman Airport.”
, U.S. Representative Tony Cárdenas, in previous public statements regarding the airport.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors previously approved a $1.9 million study to explore alternative land uses for the 184-acre airport property. However, aviation advocates maintain that the airport provides local jobs, serves as a crucial emergency hub, and is protected by federal grant obligations.
Looking Ahead: Investigations and Airport Future
AirPro News analysis
We anticipate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will lead the official investigation into Monday’s crash to determine the exact cause. Given that the Cessna is reportedly registered to a local flight school, investigators will likely scrutinize the school’s maintenance protocols, aircraft logs, and the pilot’s training records.
Furthermore, this highly visible incident, where an airplane fell into a commercial parking lot on a Monday morning, will almost certainly accelerate political momentum against Whiteman Airport. Because the crash resulted in downed high-voltage lines and evacuations, it serves as a stark reminder of the inherent risks of operating a general aviation hub in a densely populated urban zone. We expect renewed legislative efforts and heightened community mobilization regarding the future of the 184-acre site in the coming weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Were there any casualties on the ground? No. Miraculously, no bystanders were injured, and no vehicles were struck when the plane crashed into the parking lot.
- What is the condition of the pilot? The sole occupant, a 70-year-old man, was extricated by first responders and is currently in critical but stable condition.
- What caused the plane to crash? The official cause of the crash is currently unknown. The FAA and NTSB typically lead investigations into such aviation incidents.
- Did the crash cause power outages? The aircraft snapped a power pole and downed high-voltage power lines, prompting street closures and temporary evacuations while utility crews neutralized the hazard.
Sources: NBC Los Angeles
Photo Credit: KTLA
-
Airlines Strategy4 days agoJetBlue Secures $500M Aircraft-Backed Financing to Support Turnaround
-
Technology & Innovation5 days agoDubai Completes World’s First Commercial Vertiport at DXB Airport
-
Regulations & Safety6 days agoCirrus SR22 Safely Lands with Parachute After Power Loss in New Mexico
-
UAV & Drones6 days agoAIR’s Cargo-Heavy Lift UAS Achieves First Flight and Production Status
-
Regulations & Safety6 days agoUnauthorized Animal Noises Disrupt Emergency Aviation Frequency at Reagan Airport