This article is based on an official press release from the Federal Aviation Administration.

FAA Formalizes Permanent Airspace Restrictions at Reagan National Airport

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has announced the formalization of permanent airspace restrictions for aircraft operating near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) confirmed that these new regulations, which take effect on January 23, 2026, are designed to mitigate the risk of midair collisions in the congested airspace above the nation’s capital.

The regulatory changes come one year after a catastrophic midair collision involving a commercial airliner and a military helicopter near the airport. According to the FAA, the new rules codify temporary measures that were implemented immediately following the tragedy, ensuring that safety protocols regarding visual separation and helicopter routing are permanently enshrined in federal aviation regulations.

In an official statement, the Department of Transportation (DOT) emphasized that these measures reflect a commitment to modernizing safety infrastructure under the current administration. The rules specifically target the interaction between fixed-wing commercial traffic and rotorcraft, including helicopters and emerging powered-lift aircraft.

New Operational Restrictions and Requirements

The Interim Final Rule, effective immediately, introduces several critical changes to how air traffic is managed in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The primary focus of the regulation is to reduce the reliance on pilot visibility in complex airspace and to segregate different types of air traffic.

Elimination of Visual Separation

One of the most significant changes is the prohibition of “visual separation” procedures within five nautical miles of DCA. Historically, air traffic controllers could allow pilots to maintain safe distances from other aircraft by visually sighting them. Under the new rule, controllers must rely strictly on instrument-based separation standards in this zone, removing the potential for human error in visual identification.

Helicopter and Military Aircraft Protocols

The FAA has also permanently modified helicopter routes and zones. These changes are designed to shift rotorcraft traffic away from the flight paths utilized by commercial aircraft arriving at and departing from DCA, as well as nearby Dulles International (IAD) and Baltimore/Washington International (BWI). Additionally, the rule mandates that all military aircraft operating in the vicinity must broadcast their location data, ensuring they are visible to civilian air traffic control systems.

“After that horrific night in January, this Administration made a promise to do whatever it takes to secure the skies over our nation’s capital and ensure such a tragedy would never happen again. Today’s announcement reaffirms that commitment. The safety of the American people will always be our top priority.”

, Sean P. Duffy, U.S. Secretary of Transportation

Advertisement

Context: The January 2025 Tragedy

These permanent restrictions are a direct response to the events of January 29, 2025, when American Airlines Flight 5342 collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River. The incident resulted in 67 fatalities and prompted an immediate review of airspace procedures in the region.

Following the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified insufficient separation and the risks associated with mixed-use airspace as contributing factors. The FAA initially responded with Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) and updated procedures for the Pentagon Heliport. The announcement on January 22, 2026, transitions these temporary fixes into permanent federal law.

“We took decisive action immediately following the January 2025 midair collision to reduce risk in the airspace. This is a key step toward ensuring the highest level of safety for the traveling public.”

, Bryan Bedford, FAA Administrator

Implementation and Public Comment

While the rules are effective immediately due to the urgent nature of the safety concerns, the FAA has categorized the regulation as an “Interim Final Rule.” This designation allows the agency to enforce the restrictions while simultaneously opening a public comment period, which will run until February 23, 2026.

The Department of Transportation framed the swift implementation of these rules as part of the “America First Agenda,” highlighting the administration’s focus on rapid infrastructure and safety modernization. The restrictions also impact general aviation, significantly curtailing non-essential helicopter and powered-lift operations, such as air tours and private transport, within designated sectors of the DC airspace.

Sources

• Federal Aviation Administration

This article summarizes reporting by Aviation24.be, Focus Taiwan, and other industry sources.

EVA Air Captain Suspended Following Alleged Cockpit Assault at LAX

EVA Air has suspended a senior captain and launched a formal investigation following reports of a physical altercation inside the cockpit of a Boeing 777-300ER at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The incident, which reportedly took place in late December 2025 or early January 2026, involved a dispute over taxiing speed that escalated into physical violence between the flight deck crew members.

According to reporting by Aviation24.be and Taiwanese media outlets, the conflict occurred while the aircraft was preparing for departure to Taipei (TPE). The altercation has drawn the attention of Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), which has initiated an independent probe into potential safety violations.

While the flight completed its transpacific journey safely, the incident has raised significant questions regarding Crew Resource Management (CRM) and the airline’s decision to allow the pilots to continue the flight immediately after the alleged assault.

Details of the Cockpit Dispute

The incident reportedly began during the taxi-out phase at LAX. Sources indicate that the First Officer, a Malaysian national serving as the Pilot Monitoring (PM), believed the aircraft was moving too fast. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) generally dictate a taxi speed limit of approximately 30 knots.

Escalation to Violence

Reports from Focus Taiwan suggest that the First Officer issued verbal warnings regarding the speed, which were allegedly ignored by the Captain, a Taiwanese national identified by the surname Wen. Following the ignored warnings, the First Officer intervened by manually applying the brakes.

This intervention reportedly enraged the Captain. According to details summarized by Simple Flying and Mothership.sg, the Captain physically assaulted his colleague in response to the braking maneuver.

“The captain… reportedly became enraged by the intervention and punched the first officer at least four times.”

, Summary of reports via Aviation24.be

Advertisement

The First Officer reportedly sustained visible physical injuries, including bruising and swelling on the back of his hand. Despite the violence in the flight deck, the aircraft proceeded to take off and complete the long-haul flight to Taiwan.

Operational Response and Investigations

Following the flight, EVA Air moved to address the situation, though whistleblowers have criticized the timeline of the airline’s response.

Airline Findings vs. Crew Allegations

EVA Air has stated that the Captain is currently suspended from flight duties pending the outcome of the investigation. However, the airline offered a defense regarding the technical cause of the dispute. According to the carrier, preliminary data retrieved from the aircraft’s Quick Access Recorder (QAR) suggests the plane was not speeding and remained within regulatory limits during the taxi sequence.

The case is set to be referred to the airline’s disciplinary review board once the investigation concludes. The Taiwan CAA has also stated it will impose legal penalties if the investigation confirms that flight safety was compromised by the crew’s conduct.

Whistleblower Concerns

The handling of the incident has sparked internal criticism. A whistleblower cited in Taiwanese media, including The Reporter, questioned why the airline’s emergency response plan was not activated immediately. The primary concern raised was the fitness of the Captain to command a flight immediately after exhibiting what was described as “emotionally unstable” behavior.

Critics argue that allowing a pilot who has just allegedly assaulted a crew member to operate a 12-hour flight across the Pacific poses a severe risk to passengers and crew, regardless of whether the taxi speed was technically within limits.

Broader Context: Safety and Labor Challenges

This cockpit altercation is the latest in a series of operational and personnel challenges facing EVA Air. Industry observers note that the airline has dealt with several high-profile incidents in recent years.

• October 2025: A flight attendant reportedly died after allegedly being denied medical leave and working while ill on a flight from Milan to Taipei, sparking labor disputes.
• August 2024: Six flight attendants were injured when flight BR238 encountered severe turbulence during meal service.
• May 2023: A pilot was fired after failing an alcohol test, though the airline faced scrutiny for allegedly allowing multiple re-tests rather than immediately grounding the individual.

AirPro News Analysis

The Breakdown of Crew Resource Management (CRM)

While the physical assault is the most sensational aspect of this story, the underlying safety failure is the total collapse of Crew Resource Management (CRM). Modern aviation safety relies on the “two-person rule,” where pilots cross-check each other to prevent errors. If a First Officer feels they cannot speak up, or worse, if they are physically attacked for intervening, the safety net is destroyed.

Furthermore, the decision to continue the flight is perplexing from a risk management perspective. A cockpit environment where one pilot has struck another is, by definition, a hostile work environment. Communication and trust, which are essential for handling in-flight emergencies, would be non-existent. If these allegations are substantiated, it suggests a significant lapse in the safety culture regarding pilot fitness and conflict resolution.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was the flight cancelled?
No. Despite the altercation occurring on the ground at LAX, the flight continued to Taipei and landed safely.

Was the plane actually speeding?
EVA Air claims that data from the Quick Access Recorder (QAR) indicates the aircraft was within standard taxi speed limits, contradicting the First Officer’s perception at the time.

What is the status of the pilots?
The Captain has been suspended pending investigation. The status of the First Officer has not been publicly specified beyond the reporting of his injuries.

Sources:

• Aviation24.be
• Focus Taiwan (CNA)
• Simple Flying
• View from the Wing
• Mothership.sg

FAA Administrator Denies Agency is “Roadblock” to Boeing MAX 7 and 10 Certification

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford has explicitly rejected the narrative that regulatory hurdles are the primary cause of delays for Boeing’s remaining 737 MAX variants. Speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2026, Bedford emphasized that the pace of certification for the MAX 7 and MAX 10 lies squarely with the manufacturer.

According to reporting by Reuters, the Administrator clarified that while the agency is heavily involved in the process, the timeline depends on Boeing completing the necessary engineering and safety documentation. The comments come as Boeing targets a 2026 certification window for both aircraft, following years of setbacks involving anti-icing systems and broader quality control reforms.

Clarifying the Regulatory Role

During the press briefing, Bedford addressed the ongoing delays that have kept the smallest and largest variants of the MAX family grounded. He pushed back against the idea that the FAA is holding up the process unnecessarily.

“I don’t think FAA is the roadblock on 7 and the -10 certification. We can only help get them there, but they have got to do the work, and they’re doing the work.”

, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford, via Reuters

Reuters reports that Bedford noted the agency has “devoted significant resources” to the certification campaigns. However, under the stricter regulatory regime adopted following the 2024 door-plug incident and earlier crashes, the FAA has moved away from delegating authority. Instead, the agency now requires direct inspection and verification of systems, placing the onus on Boeing to demonstrate full compliance before approvals are granted.

Certification and Production Status Updates

Despite the stern words regarding responsibility, progress is being made on the technical front. Industry information indicates that Boeing executives are still expecting to finalize certification for both jets within the current calendar year.

Flight Testing Milestones

According to recent data compiled in industry research reports, the MAX 10 has advanced into a critical stage known as Type Inspection Authorization (TIA). This phase marks the entry of FAA pilots and engineers into the flight test program to verify systems directly. Meanwhile, the MAX 7 remains uncertified, pending the resolution of documentation and design reviews that overlap with the MAX 10 requirements.

Production Rate Increases

Beyond certification, Boeing is slowly ramping up its industrial output. Following the strict production cap imposed after the January 2024 Alaska Airlines incident, the FAA allowed Boeing to increase its monthly output. As of October 2025, the cap was raised to 42 jets per month.

Additionally, reporting by aviation intelligence outlet Leeham News indicates that Boeing is preparing to activate a new assembly line, dubbed the “North Line”, at its facility in Everett, Washington. While this line is eventually intended to support the high-demand MAX 10, it is expected to go live in mid-2026 building certified MAX 8 and MAX 9 models. This strategy aims to stabilize operations and train workforce teams before the MAX 10 enters full-rate production.

AirPro News Analysis

The Stakes of the 2026 Timeline

Administrator Bedford’s comments highlight a critical shift in the FAA-Boeing dynamic. By publicly stating that the FAA is not the “roadblock,” the agency is effectively insulating itself from blame should further delays occur. This places immense pressure on Boeing’s engineering teams to deliver flawless documentation.

For Boeing, the stakes of a 2026 certification are incredibly high. The MAX 10 is the company’s only direct competitor to the Airbus A321neo, which currently dominates the large narrowbody market. With a backlog of over 1,200 orders for the MAX 10 alone, further slips in the timeline could force major customers like United Airlines and Delta to reconsider their fleet strategies. The activation of the Everett North Line suggests Boeing is confident enough to invest in capacity, but that investment will only pay off if the FAA is satisfied with the safety data.

Frequently Asked Questions

When will the Boeing 737 MAX 10 be certified?
Boeing executives and industry forecasts currently target certification within 2026. The aircraft recently entered the Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) phase, a critical step toward final approval.

What is the “North Line”?
The North Line is a new 737 assembly line located in Everett, Washington. It is expected to activate in mid-2026 to help Boeing meet its production targets, initially building MAX 8 and 9 aircraft before transitioning to the MAX 10.

Why was the MAX 7 and 10 certification delayed?
Delays were caused by a combination of factors, including a redesign of the engine anti-ice system to prevent potential overheating, and a stricter FAA certification process implemented after the 2024 door-plug blowout incident.

Sources

• Reuters
• Leeham News