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.
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.
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.” 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.
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.” 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.
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.” 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.
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.
What is the FAA proposing to change in aircraft certification? Why is aircraft certification so expensive? How will the proposed changes impact safety? What is the MOSAIC rule? When will the new certification changes take effect? Sources: Reuters
FAA’s Ambitious Plan to Accelerate Commercial Aircraft Certification: Balancing Innovation with Safety in a Billion-Dollar Process
Historical Context and the Current Certification Framework
Certification Challenges and Industry Pain Points
Regulatory Developments and Reform Initiatives
Economic Impact and Industry Context
Expert Perspectives and Technological Advancements
Implementation and Global Implications
Conclusion
FAQ
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.
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.
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.
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.
The FAA intends to propose the new changes by December 2025, with implementation timelines dependent on regulatory review and stakeholder input.
Photo Credit: AOPA
Regulations & Safety
NTSB Preliminary Report on Fatal Cessna 172N Crash in Provincetown
NTSB releases preliminary findings on a fatal Cessna 172N crash at Provincetown Airport involving pilot Christopher Burroughs with ongoing investigation.
This article is based on an official preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and summarizes reporting by local authorities.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its preliminary report regarding the fatal incident that occurred on January 4, 2026, at Provincetown Municipal Airport (PVC). The crash claimed the life of 60-year-old pilot Christopher John Burroughs, the sole occupant of the Commercial-Aircraft.
According to the NTSB’s findings, the Cessna 172N, registered as N9360E, was attempting to land in challenging wind conditions when it struck the ground and was consumed by a post-impact fire. The report establishes the factual trajectory of the flight and the meteorological conditions present at the time, though a determination of probable cause remains pending the completion of the full Investigation.
The NTSB investigation outlines a multi-leg journey for the aircraft on the day of the Accident. Investigators determined that the flight originated from Taunton Municipal Airport (TAN), departing at approximately 2:06 PM EST. The aircraft then flew to Marshfield Municipal Airport (GHG), landing at 2:47 PM EST.
Data indicates the stop in Marshfield was brief. The aircraft remained on the ground for only about three minutes before departing at 2:50 PM EST for the final leg to Provincetown. Flight track data cited in the report shows the aircraft traversed Cape Cod Bay at a relatively low altitude, remaining below 1,800 feet, a decision likely influenced by cloud cover reported in the area.
The accident occurred at approximately 3:15 PM EST as the pilot attempted to land on Runway 7 at Provincetown Municipal Airport. Witnesses and first responders stated that the aircraft impacted the ground during the landing sequence. Following the impact, the airframe was destroyed by a fire.
“The pilot, the only passenger on board, was pronounced deceased at the scene. The cause of the crash is unknown at this time and will be investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board.”
, Official Statement, Town of Provincetown
A significant portion of the preliminary report focuses on the weather conditions at the time of the accident. The NTSB noted that the wind was from the northwest at 15 knots, with gusts reaching up to 18 knots. For a landing on Runway 7, these conditions would have presented a strong crosswind component. Christopher John Burroughs, a resident of Attleboro, Massachusetts, was an experienced aviator. He had held a private pilot certificate since 1988, accumulating 38 years of flying experience. Burroughs served as the Treasurer of the Brockton Flying Club, the non-profit organization that owned the aircraft.
The aircraft, a 1979 Cessna 172N Skyhawk, was equipped for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and featured upgraded Avionics, including a Garmin 430W and GTX-345. Members of the flying club described the plane as well-maintained.
“He treasured his aviation adventures and often took to the skies with his family, friends, and dogs… creating memories with his family were his happiest times.”
, Obituary for Christopher Burroughs
While the NTSB has not yet assigned a probable cause, the weather data included in the preliminary report highlights a critical factor in general aviation Safety. The Cessna 172N has a maximum demonstrated crosswind component of approximately 15 knots. The reported wind conditions, 15 knots gusting to 18 knots from the northwest, would have placed the crosswind component at or potentially above the aircraft’s demonstrated capabilities during a landing on Runway 7.
Managing a light aircraft in gusting crosswinds requires precise control inputs during the flare and touchdown phase. The final NTSB report will likely analyze the pilot’s response to these specific aerodynamic challenges.
The current report is preliminary, meaning it contains only factual information gathered during the initial phase of the inquiry. It does not analyze the data to determine liability or cause. NTSB investigators will continue to examine the airframe, engine, and flight control systems to rule out mechanical anomalies.
A final report, which will include the probable cause of the accident, is typically released 12 to 24 months after the incident.
NTSB Issues Preliminary Report on Fatal Cessna 172N Crash in Provincetown
Flight History and Crash Sequence
The Landing Attempt
Meteorological Conditions and Pilot Background
Pilot Experience and Aircraft
AirPro News Analysis
Investigation Status
Sources
Photo Credit: NTSB
Regulations & Safety
FAA Invalidates Registrations of 800 Aircraft Managed by Southern Aircraft Consultancy
The FAA grounds 800 aircraft managed by UK-based Southern Aircraft Consultancy for failing U.S. trustee citizenship requirements, requiring re-registration or export.
This article is based on an official press release from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and background data regarding civil aviation regulations.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken decisive enforcement action against UK-based Southern Aircraft Consultancy Inc. (SACI), effectively grounding approximately 800 aircraft immediately. In a notice issued on January 13, 2026, the agency declared that SACI does not meet the strict U.S. citizenship requirements necessary to act as a trustee for N-registered aircraft.
This ruling invalidates the registration certificates of hundreds of private jets, turboprops, and helicopters currently held in trust by the company. According to the FAA’s official statement, the agency has ordered SACI to surrender all physical aircraft registration certificates within 21 days. The move represents a significant escalation in the regulator’s ongoing efforts to tighten oversight of Non-Citizen Trusts (NCTs) and ensure transparency in the U.S. civil aviation registry.
The core of the FAA’s decision rests on the statutory requirement that a trustee of a U.S.-registered aircraft must be a U.S. citizen or a resident alien. While foreign nationals are permitted to own N-registered aircraft beneficially, they must do so through a valid NCT where the legal title is held by a compliant U.S. trustee.
In its notification to SACI, the FAA determined that the company, a UK-registered entity based in Norwich, Norfolk, failed to meet these citizenship criteria. Consequently, the agency stated that SACI is “not eligible” to serve as a trustee.
“The FAA has notified Southern Aircraft Consultancy Inc. (SACI) that it is not eligible to act as a trustee because it is not a U.S. citizen or resident alien. As a result, the registration of all aircraft held in trust by SACI is invalid.”
, Federal Aviation Administration
The invalidation is effective immediately. This means that any aircraft currently operating under a registration certificate issued to SACI is legally grounded. These aircraft cannot conduct flight operations until they are properly reregistered under a compliant structure.
The regulator has issued a strict timeline for compliance. SACI must return all invalid registration certificates to the FAA Registry within three weeks. Failure to comply with such orders typically carries significant legal and civil penalties, though the primary immediate consequence is the operational paralysis of the affected fleet. For the beneficial owners of the estimated 800 affected aircraft, the ruling creates an urgent administrative crisis. Because their aircraft currently lack valid registration, they cannot legally fly within the United States or internationally.
According to the FAA, owners have two primary remedies:
The FAA has indicated it may grant “temporary authority” for owners to operate their aircraft within the United States while their new registration applications are processed. However, this temporary authority does not extend to international flights, potentially stranding assets that are currently abroad or disrupting cross-border travel plans.
In communications to its clients, SACI acknowledged the FAA’s letter. The company noted that it had operated for over two decades using trust agreements it claimed were previously accepted by FAA legal teams. However, the regulator’s current stance indicates a zero-tolerance approach to trustees that do not strictly adhere to the citizenship definition found in 14 CFR Part 47.
While the FAA’s press release focuses on the technical violation of citizenship rules, this action must be viewed against the backdrop of increasing scrutiny on “grey charter” operations and opaque ownership structures.
SACI has previously faced intense public scrutiny. The company acted as the trustee for the Piper Malibu (N264DB) involved in the tragic 2019 crash that killed footballer Emiliano Sala and pilot David Ibbotson. That accident highlighted the complexities of the NCT system, where a UK-based trustee held the legal title for an aircraft that was beneficially owned by others and operated largely in Europe.
The Sala investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) raised serious questions about regulatory oversight of N-registered aircraft based permanently overseas. It underscored the difficulty regulators face in enforcing maintenance and licensing standards when the legal owner (the trustee) is detached from the day-to-day operation of the aircraft.
The move against SACI follows a similar, high-profile enforcement action against Aircraft Guaranty Corp (AGC) in 2021. In that case, federal prosecutors indicted the trustee company and its owner for enabling transnational drug trafficking by registering aircraft for foreign cartels under opaque trusts.
The AGC scandal was a watershed moment for the FAA. It exposed how the NCT loophole could be exploited to bypass national security checks and Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols. Since then, the agency has been under pressure to “clean the registry” and ensure that trustees are not merely signing paperwork but are actual U.S. citizens exercising genuine oversight. By invalidating SACI’s fleet, the FAA is signaling that the era of loose interpretation regarding trustee citizenship is over. We assess that this action is likely part of a broader strategy to eliminate “flag of convenience” risks within the U.S. registry, particularly regarding sanctions evasion and safety oversight.
An NCT is a legal mechanism that allows non-U.S. citizens to register aircraft in the United States. The aircraft’s legal title is transferred to a U.S. trustee (a citizen or corporation), while the foreign owner retains beneficial use. This allows foreign owners to enjoy the benefits of N-registration, such as higher resale value and flexible maintenance standards.
No. The registrations are invalid effective immediately. Flying an aircraft without valid registration is a violation of federal aviation regulations and international law. Owners must secure temporary authority or complete reregistration before resuming operations.
No. Southern Aircraft Consultancy Inc. (SACI) is a UK-based trustee firm. It is distinct from Southern Air Transport (a defunct airline) and Southern Cross Aviation. The current enforcement action applies strictly to SACI and the aircraft held in its specific trusts.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Affected aircraft owners should consult with aviation counsel immediately.
Sources: FAA Press Release
FAA Invalidates Registration of 800 Aircraft Managed by Southern Aircraft Consultancy
The Enforcement Action Explained
Immediate Requirements for SACI
Impact on Aircraft Owners
SACI’s Response
AirPro News Analysis: The Context of the Crackdown
The Emiliano Sala Connection
Precedent: The AGC Indictment
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Non-Citizen Trust (NCT)?
Can the affected aircraft fly right now?
Is SACI the same as Southern Air Transport?
Photo Credit: AOPA
Regulations & Safety
NTSB Preliminary Report on Hammonton Enstrom Helicopter Collision
NTSB releases preliminary findings on the fatal midair collision of two Enstrom helicopters near Hammonton, NJ, highlighting flight conditions and investigation focus.
This article is based on an official preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and verified data regarding the investigation.
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.
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.
The preliminary examination of the crash site revealed distinct outcomes for the two airframes:
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). The NTSB has stated that the ongoing investigation will focus on several key areas to determine why the aircraft collided:
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: NTSB Preliminary Report, FAA, Local Authorities (Hammonton Police Department)
NTSB Releases Preliminary Findings on Hammonton Midair Collision
Flight Details and Sequence of Events
Wreckage and Post-Crash Fire
Pilot Background and Operational Environment
Investigation Focus Areas
AirPro News Analysis
Sources
Photo Credit: X
-
MRO & Manufacturing4 days agoAAR Corp to Close Indianapolis Maintenance Facility Impacting 329 Jobs
-
Commercial Aviation4 days agoAir Transat Pilots Approve 5-Year Contract with Major Pay Increase
-
Training & Certification6 days agoFAA Proposes Post-Activity Survey to Monitor Pilot Examiners
-
Regulations & Safety3 days agoBoeing 737 MAX 10 Advances to Phase 2 FAA Certification Testing
-
Business Aviation2 days agoPilatus Launches PC-12 Pro with Advanced Avionics and Safety Features