Regulations & Safety
FAA Plans to Modernize Commercial Aircraft Certification by 2025
FAA proposes reforms to streamline commercial aircraft certification, reducing costs and delays while maintaining safety standards.
FAA’s Ambitious Plan to Accelerate Commercial Aircraft Certification: Balancing Innovation with Safety in a Billion-Dollar Process
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has announced plans to propose significant changes to the certification process for new Commercial-Aircraft, marking a pivotal shift in aviation regulation. This initiative, expected to materialize by December 2025, seeks to modernize standards for transport category airplanes and propulsion systems, aiming to reduce the reliance on exemptions, special conditions, and equivalent level of safety findings. The proposed reforms are seen as a deregulatory move, designed to streamline a historically complex and expensive process, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take several years to complete.
The significance of this move cannot be understated. The certification process is not only a cornerstone of aviation safety but also a major determinant of the financial viability and pace of innovation in the industry. As the aviation sector faces mounting pressures from delayed certifications, escalating costs, and the integration of emerging technologies, the FAA’s proposal comes at a critical juncture. The reforms aim to maintain the United States’ leadership in aviation safety and innovation, while addressing industry frustrations and global competitiveness.
This article examines the current certification framework, the challenges it presents, recent regulatory developments, and the broader implications of the FAA’s proposed changes, drawing on available data, expert opinions, and recent case studies.
Historical Context and the Current Certification Framework
The FAA’s aircraft certification system has evolved over decades into one of the most rigorous safety frameworks in any industry. The process involves three main stages: design certification, production certification, and airworthiness certification. Design certification ensures that new aircraft designs meet stringent safety, operability, and durability requirements, while production and airworthiness certifications verify that aircraft are built and maintained to these standards.
The economic scale of certification is substantial. For small, primary category aircraft, certification costs can reach around one million dollars. For general aviation aircraft, the figure climbs to approximately $25 million. Certification costs for large commercial aircraft can approach one billion dollars, representing a significant fraction of the total development cost for new airplane programs. These financial realities make certification a major factor in the feasibility of new aircraft designs and the competitiveness of Manufacturers.
The process is heavily reliant on extensive flight and ground testing to demonstrate compliance with a wide array of regulations. Certification for a new airplane can easily span more than a year, with weather dependencies and the need for specific environmental conditions, such as natural icing or crosswind scenarios, further complicating schedules and inflating costs.
“Certification for a new airplane program can easily require over one year of total flow time, with costs approaching one billion dollars for large commercial aircraft.”
Certification Challenges and Industry Pain Points
The existing certification framework has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following the high-profile Boeing 737 MAX incidents. The 737 MAX was initially certified in 2017 but was grounded in 2019 after two fatal crashes linked to software issues. The process exposed weaknesses in the FAA’s oversight, particularly the Organization Designation Authorization program, which allows manufacturers to act on the agency’s behalf. This raised concerns about the balance between efficiency and effective regulatory oversight.
More recently, the certification of Boeing’s MAX 7 and MAX 10 models has faced significant delays, now expected to extend into 2026. These delays are largely due to unresolved issues with critical safety systems, such as engine anti-ice mechanisms. Attempts by Boeing to secure exemptions for these issues were ultimately withdrawn after regulatory scrutiny, underscoring the tension between industry timelines and safety imperatives.
The impact of these delays has been felt across the industry. Airlines like Southwest and United have adjusted their fleet plans, with United turning to Airbus as an alternative supplier. The broader consequence is a bottleneck in the introduction of new aircraft, affecting airline operations, competition, and ultimately, consumer choice. Industry experts suggest that certification flight testing could be reduced by up to 50% through greater reliance on analytical methods, provided technical and logistical challenges are addressed.
Regulatory Developments and Reform Initiatives
In response to these challenges, the FAA has initiated several reforms aimed at streamlining the certification process. One of the most notable is the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) rule, released in July 2025. This rule introduces performance-based standards for light-sport aircraft, eliminating previous weight restrictions, allowing up to four seats, and permitting advanced features such as retractable landing gear.
The MOSAIC rule marks a shift from prescriptive regulations to a performance-based approach, focusing on the outcomes that aircraft must achieve rather than dictating how they are to be achieved. This provides manufacturers with greater flexibility while maintaining rigorous safety standards. The rule also introduces a Statement of Compliance process, replacing traditional type and production certificate procedures for light-sport aircraft.
Additionally, the FAA has modernized its administrative processes through the Civil Aviation Registry Electronic Services (CARES) system. This digital platform allows for electronic document submission and record-keeping, reducing administrative delays and streamlining regulatory interactions. The Trump administration has also issued executive Orders aimed at broader regulatory reform, including directives to repeal certain prohibitions and establish new standards for supersonic flight.
“The FAA expects the proposed changes will reduce certification costs and time to certify new and changed products for both industry and FAA while maintaining or increasing the level of safety.”
Economic Impact and Industry Context
The economic implications of certification reform are far-reaching. High certification costs and lengthy timelines can stifle innovation, particularly for smaller manufacturers and emerging technology companies. Delays in certification not only increase costs but can also determine the commercial viability of new aircraft programs. In some cases, the expense of certifying derivative models with modest improvements has rendered such projects financially unfeasible.
The need for efficient certification is heightened by the rapid emergence of advanced air mobility platforms, electric propulsion systems, and autonomous technologies. The FAA has responded by establishing new divisions focused on integrating these technologies into the national airspace system and by working to harmonize U.S. regulations with international standards to support American competitiveness in global markets.
At the same time, the deregulatory approach has prompted debate among industry experts. While proponents argue that reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies will lower costs and accelerate innovation, others caution that weakening safety-critical regulations could introduce new risks. Maintaining the right balance between innovation and safety is a recurring theme in discussions about the future of certification.
Expert Perspectives and Technological Advancements
Industry leaders and regulatory officials have expressed a mix of optimism and caution regarding the FAA’s proposed reforms. Former FAA head Mike Whitaker has highlighted the agency’s commitment to leveraging technology to streamline certification, while legal experts point to the benefits of performance-based standards for accommodating emerging technologies.
The increasing use of computational analysis and simulation in certification processes offers the potential for significant reductions in flight testing and associated costs. Experts like Robert Lind, a director of engineering and FAA flight analyst, have described the shift toward analytical certification as a major development, enabled by advances in computational fluid dynamics and related technologies.
However, some remain wary of rapid deregulation. The aviation industry’s exemplary safety record is built on rigorous oversight and comprehensive testing, and any changes to the certification process must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences. As the FAA moves forward with its proposed changes, ongoing stakeholder engagement and robust oversight will be essential.
“What has changed is the balance between how much analysis you can do and how much you can use in the certification process, a really exciting development.”
Implementation and Global Implications
Implementing comprehensive certification reform presents several challenges. The FAA must balance industry demands for efficiency with the need to maintain safety and regulatory certainty. Managing the transition from established processes to new frameworks will require clear guidance for manufacturers and effective training for FAA personnel.
Stakeholder engagement is critical, given the diverse needs of major manufacturers, smaller companies, and new technology developers. The FAA’s experience with industry-led rulemaking committees demonstrates the value of collaborative development in achieving workable solutions.
Globally, the FAA’s certification standards have long served as a benchmark for other regulatory bodies. As international competition intensifies, particularly from European agencies, the ability of the FAA to efficiently certify advanced technologies while maintaining safety standards will influence the global competitiveness of American manufacturers. Efforts to harmonize regulations and establish bilateral agreements are key to maintaining the FAA’s leadership role.
Conclusion
The FAA’s proposed changes to commercial aircraft certification represent a watershed moment for the industry. By seeking to modernize and streamline the certification process, the agency aims to address longstanding challenges related to cost, time, and technological integration. The reforms hold the promise of making the United States more competitive in the global aviation market and fostering innovation in emerging technologies.
However, the ultimate success of these changes will depend on the FAA’s ability to maintain the high safety standards that have made commercial aviation the safest mode of transportation. Careful implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to rigorous oversight will be essential as the agency works toward its December 2025 proposal deadline. The aviation world will be watching closely to see how these reforms shape the future of aircraft development and certification.
FAQ
What is the FAA proposing to change in aircraft certification?
The FAA plans to modernize certification standards for new commercial airplanes and propulsion systems, aiming to reduce exemptions, special conditions, and equivalent level of safety findings required during the process.
Why is aircraft certification so expensive?
Certification involves extensive design, production, and airworthiness evaluations, including rigorous testing and compliance checks, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars for large commercial aircraft.
How will the proposed changes impact safety?
The FAA asserts that reforms will maintain or even increase current safety levels by adopting performance-based standards and leveraging advanced analytical methods, while also reducing costs and time.
What is the MOSAIC rule?
The MOSAIC rule is a recent FAA initiative that introduces performance-based certification standards for light-sport aircraft, offering greater design flexibility and streamlined compliance procedures.
When will the new certification changes take effect?
The FAA intends to propose the new changes by December 2025, with implementation timelines dependent on regulatory review and stakeholder input.
Sources: Reuters
Photo Credit: AOPA
Regulations & Safety
Thales to Upgrade Slovenian Airspace with New Radar System by 2027
Thales partners with Slovenia Control to install advanced co-mounted radar system enhancing air traffic surveillance and cybersecurity by mid-2027.
This article is based on an official press release from Thales Group.
On May 27, 2026, French aerospace and defense technology company Thales announced a major contracts with Slovenia Control, the national Air Navigation Services Provider (ANSP) for Slovenia. According to the official press release, the agreement covers the delivery and installation of a co-mounted primary and secondary surveillance radar system designed to modernize the country’s air traffic management capabilities.
The new infrastructure, slated for deployment by mid-2027, aims to provide continuous, redundant 24/7 surveillance of Slovenian airspace. As European flight volumes continue to climb past pre-pandemic levels, ANSPs are increasingly tasked with upgrading legacy systems to handle denser, more complex traffic flows safely.
We note that this upgrade aligns with the latest EUROCONTROL and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommendations, ensuring Slovenia remains fully compliant with European Mode S Station (EMS) standards while bolstering its defenses against modern cyber threats.
Upgrading Slovenia’s Airspace Infrastructure
Building on a 30-Year Partnership
Thales and Slovenia Control have collaborated for nearly three decades. The press release highlights that Thales has previously supplied the ANSP with various Air Traffic Management (ATM) solutions, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) systems, Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), and an upgraded Air Traffic Services Message Handling System (AMHS). Additionally, Thales previously won a tender to deliver and install a wide area multilateration (WAM) system at Ljubljana Joze Pucnik Airport.
For this latest project, the new radar system will be mounted on a newly constructed 30-meter tower. To ensure uninterrupted and reliable operation during severe weather conditions, the equipment will be enclosed within a protective radome.
Next-Generation Radar-Systems
STAR NG and RSM NG Capabilities
The contract specifies a “co-mounted” configuration, integrating two distinct but complementary radar technologies on the same physical structure to track both cooperative (transponder-equipped) and non-cooperative aircraft.
The primary surveillance radar, the STAR NG, is an S-Band system tailored for Approach Control. It offers a surveillance range of up to 80 nautical miles and detects physical objects without relying on aircraft transponders. Notably, the STAR NG features advanced clutter reduction technology to filter out interference from wind farms and 4G mobile communication networks. It is also capable of detecting small, slow-moving targets such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones.
Operating alongside it is the RSM NG, a digital secondary surveillance radar described by Thales as a “Meta Sensor.” This system communicates with aircraft transponders to gather identity, altitude, and speed data. It combines Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar (MSSR) architecture with fully integrated, redundant ADS-B. According to the provided technical specifications, the RSM NG can track up to 2,000 aircraft per scan and conduct simultaneous Mode S interrogations.
Cybersecurity at the Forefront
With critical aviation infrastructure increasingly targeted by digital threats, both radar systems are engineered to be “cybersecure by design.” The RSM NG utilizes a cybersecurity framework based on National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. It incorporates a virtual machine designed to preserve the radar’s operational behavior while actively protecting the system against jamming, spoofing, and unauthorized cyber intrusions.
“We are honoured that Slovenia Control has once again placed its trust in Thales with the order of this new co-mounted air traffic control radar. This contract reflects not only our commitment to delivering advanced radar surveillance solutions, but also the strength of our long-standing Partnerships in ensuring safe and efficient air operations across Europe.”
, Lionel de Castellane, Vice President of Thales’ Air Traffic Control radars segment, via company press release.
“We are pleased to take this important step forward together with our partner Thales, with whom we share a common goal: safe, efficient and modern air traffic management. This cooperation further strengthens our commitment to continuously enhancing the safety and performance of air navigation services in Slovenia and beyond.”
, Rok Marolt, CEO of Slovenia Control, Ltd., via company press release.
Industry Context: The Pressure on European Skies
The necessity of this infrastructure upgrade is underscored by current European air traffic trends. According to EUROCONTROL’s Spring 2026 forecast cited in the provided research data, European air traffic fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels in 2025, recording 11.05 million flights.
Despite geopolitical disruptions, traffic within the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) area is projected to grow by an additional 2.7% in 2026, reaching approximately 11.3 million flights. This rising volume places immense strain on the European airspace network. In May 2026, EUROCONTROL reported that Air Traffic Control (ATC) capacity and staffing issues accounted for 44% of all en-route delays across Europe.
AirPro News analysis
As the skies become more crowded, structural capacity limits are being severely tested. ANSPs like Slovenia Control are effectively forced to invest in high-precision, automated, and redundant surveillance technologies. Systems like the STAR NG and RSM NG combination are critical for safely reducing aircraft separation distances and managing complex traffic flows efficiently. Furthermore, the specific capability to filter out modern airspace “noise”, such as drone proliferation, wind farms, and 4G interference, demonstrates how technological leaps are required just to maintain baseline safety in an increasingly congested and digitized airspace.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a co-mounted radar system?
A co-mounted radar system integrates two different types of radar, typically a primary radar (which bounces radio waves off physical objects) and a secondary radar (which communicates with aircraft transponders), onto the same physical tower or structure. This provides comprehensive tracking of both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft.
When will the new radar system in Slovenia be operational?
According to the Thales press release, the new radar system is scheduled to be delivered and installed by mid-2027.
Why is cybersecurity important for air traffic control radars?
Modern air traffic control relies heavily on digital data and automated systems. Protecting these systems from jamming, spoofing (broadcasting fake aircraft signals), and cyber intrusions is critical to preventing airspace disruptions and ensuring passenger safety.
Sources: Thales Group Press Release
Photo Credit: Thales Group
Regulations & Safety
FAA Proposes $336,000 Fine Against Planet Nine Private Air
The FAA alleges Planet Nine Private Air misclassified 21 international commercial charter flights, proposing a $336,000 civil penalty.
This article is based on an official press release from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a $336,000 civil penalty against Planet Nine Private Air, a luxury private jets operator based in Van Nuys, California. The agency alleges that the company intentionally misclassified a series of international commercial charter flights to bypass strict regulatory requirements.
According to the FAA’s May 28, 2026, press release, the enforcement action targets operations conducted between November 2023 and August 2024. The agency claims that Planet Nine filed inaccurate flight plans for 21 passenger flights, labeling them as general aviation rather than commercial charter operations.
This alleged misclassification allowed the operator to circumvent the need for specific overflight and landing permits from foreign aviation authorities. The FAA’s enforcement letter emphasizes the severity of these actions, noting that the company failed to follow its own internal procedures during these international routes.
Details of the FAA Allegations
The core of the FAA’s allegations revolves around the strict regulatory boundaries that separate private flying from paid passenger transport. By filing the 21 flights in question as general aviation, Planet Nine allegedly avoided the rigorous oversight and international permitting processes required for commercial operators.
The FAA alleges that the luxury private jet operator violated international aviation regulations by intentionally misclassifying commercial charter flights… and operating in a “careless and reckless manner.”
In addition to the misclassification, the FAA states that Planet Nine failed to adhere to its own Oceanic and International Procedures Manual. The agency views the circumvention of these established safety and operational protocols as a serious breach of aviation regulations.
International Scope and Procedural Failures
The 21 flights cited in the FAA’s enforcement letter highlight a broad international scope. According to the provided research report, the operations took place between the United States and eight foreign nations: Canada, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Operating commercial charters in these jurisdictions typically requires extensive documentation, costly fees, and significant lead times for approval. The FAA alleges that by misidentifying the flights, Planet Nine bypassed these international bureaucratic requirements entirely.
Industry Context and Company Background
Planet Nine Private Air, often branded as Planet 9, is a boutique charter and aircraft management company. Co-founded in 2018 by CEO Matt Walter and Director of Operations James Seagrim, the company operates a “floating fleet” of ultra-long-range business jets, including Dassault Falcon 7Xs, Bombardier Global series, and Gulfstream G550/G650s.
Historically, the operator has touted high safety standards, holding an FAA Part 135 operating certificate alongside Wyvern Wingman and ARGUS Platinum safety ratings. The company maintains a presence in London and New York, in addition to its California headquarters.
The Regulatory Divide: Part 91 vs. Part 135
Understanding the FAA’s proposed penalty requires distinguishing between Part 91 and Part 135 regulations. General aviation (Part 91) governs private, non-commercial flights, which generally face fewer regulatory hurdles and faster approval times for international routing.
Conversely, commercial charter operations (Part 135) involve paying passengers and are subject to much stricter safety, maintenance, and crew rest regulations. Foreign governments mandate that Part 135 operators secure specific permits, which demand rigorous oversight. The FAA’s categorization of Planet Nine’s actions as “careless and reckless” stems from the alleged intentional evasion of these commercial safety standards.
Next Steps for Planet Nine
Following the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter, Planet Nine Private Air has a 30-day window to formally respond to the agency. The company has several legal avenues available to address the proposed civil penalty.
The operator can choose to pay the $336,000 fine, attempt to negotiate a settlement with the FAA, or formally contest the allegations and the penalty amount through an administrative legal process.
AirPro News analysis
We note that this proposed $336,000 fine underscores the FAA’s ongoing commitment to strictly enforcing the boundaries between Part 91 and Part 135 operations, particularly in complex international airspace. While Planet Nine Private Air is a well-established operator with premium safety ratings, these allegations highlight the immense logistical pressures and costs associated with global commercial charters.
If the FAA successfully levies this penalty, it will likely serve as a strong deterrent to other boutique charter operators. The enforcement action sends a clear message that the agency is actively monitoring international flight plan accuracy and will penalize attempts to bypass the bureaucratic and financial requirements of commercial aviation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the proposed fine against Planet Nine Private Air?
The FAA has proposed a civil penalty of $336,000.
How many flights are involved in the allegations?
The FAA alleges that 21 international flights were misclassified between November 2023 and August 2024.
What is the difference between Part 91 and Part 135?
Part 91 regulations govern private, general aviation flights with fewer regulatory hurdles. Part 135 regulations govern commercial charter flights, requiring stricter safety oversight, maintenance standards, and specific international permits.
Sources
Photo Credit: Planet Nine Private Air
Regulations & Safety
TSB Reports Fatal 2023 Helicopter Accident During Maintenance Run
TSB Canada details a fatal 2023 helicopter accident at Smithers Airport caused by skipped checklists and pilot distraction. Mustang Helicopters updates safety policies.
This article is based on an official press release from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
On May 27, 2026, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its final investigation report (A23P0040) detailing the circumstances surrounding a fatal incident that occurred three years prior. The incident, which took place on May 6, 2023, at Smithers Airport (CYYD) in British Columbia, involved an Airbus Helicopters AS 350 B3 operated by Mustang Helicopters Inc.
According to the official TSB press release and accompanying report, the accident occurred during a maintenance ground run, resulting in the death of one ground worker and serious injuries to another. The investigation highlights critical safety issues, specifically the severe dangers of procedural complacency and digital distraction in the cockpit during ground operations.
The Incident at Smithers Airport
Maintenance Ground Run Turns Fatal
The TSB report outlines that on the day of the accident, the Airbus AS 350 B3 helicopter (registration C-GUXR) was undergoing maintenance ground run operations. The specific procedure was designed to balance the tail rotor drive shaft, a highly technical task that requires the helicopter’s rotor system to be operated at nearly full RPM.
During the third maintenance ground run of the day, the aircraft suddenly entered an uncommanded and rapid rotation. At the time, two maintenance staff members were positioned on the ground near the helicopter’s left cargo door to monitor the balancing equipment. As the helicopter spun out of control, both workers attempted to evade the aircraft but were struck multiple times by the tail rotor. Tragically, one worker was fatally injured at the scene, while the other sustained serious injuries and was airlifted to a local hospital.
The TSB investigation notes that the pilot eventually managed to move the engine control to IDLE, shut off the fuel supply, and apply the rotor brake. The helicopter came to a rest after rotating approximately 540 degrees. The aircraft remained upright throughout the event, and no post-impact fire occurred.
Investigation Findings and Human Factors
Skipped Checklists and Unseen Hazards
In its analysis of the events leading up to the uncommanded rotation, the TSB identified several critical human factors and procedural deviations. Following the first maintenance run of the day, the pilot abbreviated the operator’s official checklist to expedite the process.
The pilot abbreviated the operator’s official checklist to expedite the process, viewing the task as “routine and repetitive.”
According to the TSB, this deviation meant that crucial safety steps were missed. Specifically, pressure was left in the hydraulic system, and the right anti-torque pedal remained engaged in a fully forward position. Because the checklist was skipped, this critical hazard went completely undetected prior to the third engine start.
The Role of Digital Distraction
A central finding of the TSB report is the role of digital distraction in the cockpit. Investigators found that the pilot’s attention was split between the highly sensitive maintenance operation and a cellphone, which was connected to a Bluetooth earpiece.
Because the pilot was looking down when the rapid rotation began, he was not expecting the sudden movement. The TSB concluded that his delayed response to the rotational yaw force was insufficient to stop the helicopter from spinning quickly. Investigators emphasized that the minimal time saved by skipping the official checklist was negligible and ultimately contributed to the fatal outcome.
Industry Implications and Safety Actions
Regulatory Blind Spots
The TSB report highlights a significant regulatory gap within the Canadian aviation framework. Currently, there are no Transport Canada regulations that explicitly prohibit the use of cellphones or personal electronic devices in the cockpit during operations.
The safety board has previously identified the severe risks associated with cellphone use in aviation accidents, noting that electronic devices can fatally divert a pilot’s attention from activities necessary for safe operations. The TSB presents this incident as a grim case study on the dangers of complacency during ground operations, which are often falsely perceived by crews as lower-risk than active flight.
Operator Corrective Measures
Following the tragic occurrence, Mustang Helicopters Inc. implemented several corrective safety measures aimed at preventing future incidents. According to the TSB report, the company introduced a strict new distraction policy that explicitly requires the stowing of all electronic devices during operations.
Additionally, Mustang Helicopters added a new standard operating procedure (SOP) specifically tailored for maintenance ground runs to its operations manual. The company also thoroughly revised and strengthened its hazard assessments and safety briefings for both maintenance personnel and pilots.
AirPro News analysis
We note that this tragic event underscores a critical vulnerability in modern aviation operations: the intrusion of personal electronics into safety-critical environments. While active flight operations often command a pilot’s full attention, ground operations, such as maintenance runs, can falsely appear lower-risk, inviting a dangerous level of complacency. The TSB’s findings suggest that regulatory bodies like Transport Canada may need to urgently modernize their frameworks to explicitly address digital distractions. Ensuring that the cockpit remains a sterile, focused environment, even when the aircraft is firmly on the ground, is paramount to preventing similar tragedies in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What caused the helicopter to spin during the maintenance run?
According to the TSB, the pilot skipped portions of the checklist, leaving hydraulic pressure in the system and the right anti-torque pedal in a fully forward position. When the engine was started for the third run, this caused an uncommanded and rapid rotation of the aircraft.
Why didn’t the pilot stop the rotation immediately?
The TSB investigation found that the pilot was distracted by a cellphone connected to a Bluetooth earpiece and was looking down when the rotation began. This distraction led to a delayed and insufficient reaction to the sudden yaw force.
Are pilots allowed to use cellphones in the cockpit in Canada?
The TSB report highlights that there are currently no Transport Canada regulations explicitly prohibiting the use of cellphones or personal electronic devices in the cockpit during operations, identifying this as a significant regulatory blind spot.
Sources
Photo Credit: TSB
-
Regulations & Safety6 days agoNTSB Urges FAA to Update Runway Condition Assessment Matrix for Heavy Rain
-
Space & Satellites4 days agoFAA Orders SpaceX Investigation After Starship Flight 12 Booster Mishap
-
Space & Satellites4 days agoUS Space Force Awards SpaceX $2.29B Contract for Military Satellite Network
-
Space & Satellites2 days agoBlue Origin’s New Glenn Rocket Explodes During Test at Cape Canaveral
-
Route Development5 days agoHong Kong International Airport Opens Expanded Terminal 2 for Departures