This article is based on an official press release from Spirit Airlines.

Spirit Airlines Secures FAA Diamond Award for Eighth Consecutive Year

Spirit Airlines has once again been recognized for its commitment to aviation safety and technical training. According to a company press release issued on February 26, 2026, the carrier has earned the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Diamond Award of Excellence for Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT) safety. This achievement marks the eighth consecutive year the airline has received this specific honor, spanning from 2019 through 2026.

The Diamond Award of Excellence represents the highest distinction within the FAA’s Aviation Maintenance Technician Awards program. To qualify for this tier, an airline must demonstrate that 100 percent of its eligible maintenance technicians have completed specialized, continuous safety training within the calendar year. Spirit Airlines confirmed that every eligible member of its maintenance staff successfully passed the required curriculum, which covers FAA regulations, technical skills, and safety protocols.

A Standard of 100% Compliance

The FAA established the AMT Awards program to encourage employers and technicians to pursue aggressive training regimens that go beyond minimum regulatory requirements. While individual technicians can earn various levels of awards, Bronze, Silver, or Gold, based on their specific training hours, the “Employer Diamond Award” is reserved exclusively for organizations that achieve full participation across their workforce.

In the official announcement, Spirit Airlines emphasized that this award signals a company-wide culture where safety training is a mandatory standard rather than an optional enhancement. The training curriculum includes FAA-developed courses designed to ensure technicians remain current on the latest maintenance rules and aviation technologies.

Leadership Commentary

John Bendoraitis, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at Spirit Airlines, highlighted the dedication of the maintenance team in securing this accolade for nearly a decade. In a statement provided by the airline, Bendoraitis noted the direct link between this training and the carrier’s daily operations.

“Our team’s commitment to continuous learning highlights the priority we place on running a safe and reliable operation for our Guests every day. A big thank you to the Spirit Team for the hard work and expertise that has made this recognition possible for the last eight years.”

, John Bendoraitis, Executive Vice President and COO, Spirit Airlines

Operational Context and Performance

This safety recognition arrives alongside other operational milestones for the carrier. Data cited in the research report accompanying the announcement indicates that Spirit Airlines has maintained strong performance metrics through 2025 and early 2026. Specifically, the airline was ranked third among the ten largest North American carriers for on-time performance in 2025 by aviation analytics firm Cirium. Additionally, WalletHub named Spirit the “Best Airline Overall” for 2025, citing its safety record and affordability.

The airline operates an all-Airbus fleet, which it markets as the “Fit Fleet®.” This fleet is characterized by its fuel efficiency and is recognized as one of the youngest in the United States, a factor that often correlates with maintenance efficiency.

AirPro News Analysis

The aviation industry is currently navigating a complex landscape regarding technical labor. Industry observers note a global shortage of skilled maintenance technicians, making retention and internal development critical for major carriers. For Spirit Airlines to maintain 100 percent training compliance for eight consecutive years suggests a robust internal structure for tracking and enforcing educational standards, despite the broader labor challenges facing the sector.

Furthermore, for a Low-Cost Carrier (LCC), consistent recognition from the FAA serves a vital strategic purpose. It helps counter historical consumer misconceptions that lower fares might equate to lower operational standards. By meeting the same rigorous “Diamond” criteria as legacy carriers, Spirit validates that its maintenance protocols adhere to the strictest federal guidelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the FAA Diamond Award of Excellence?
It is the highest award provided by the FAA for aviation maintenance technician safety. It is granted to employers who achieve 100% participation from eligible maintenance staff in specialized annual training.

How many years in a row has Spirit won this award?
Spirit Airlines has won the award for eight consecutive years, covering the period from 2019 to 2026.

Does this award cover pilots?
No, this specific award is focused on Aviation Maintenance Technicians (AMTs) and the engineering/maintenance departments.

Sources

• Spirit Airlines via PR Newswire

This article is based on an official press release from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and summarizes related legislative reports.

NTSB Rejects House “ALERT Act” as Insufficient Response to Deadly DCA Midair Collision

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has formally opposed the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act of 2026 (H.R. 7613), a legislative proposal introduced by House leadership in response to the catastrophic January 2025 midair collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). In a public letter issued on February 26, 2026, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy criticized the bill as a “watered-down” measure that fails to adequately address the safety gaps responsible for the tragedy.

The dispute highlights a deepening rift between federal safety investigators and legislative bodies regarding how quickly aviation technology must be modernized. While the NTSB is calling for immediate mandates to prevent future collisions, the proposed legislation outlines a multi-year rulemaking process that would extend into the next decade.

The Core Dispute: ADS-B Technology

At the center of the conflict is the implementation of “ADS-B In” technology. While most aircraft are already required to have “ADS-B Out” (which broadcasts their position to ground stations), “ADS-B In” allows pilots to receive that data and view the location of other aircraft directly on a cockpit display.

According to the NTSB, the ALERT Act falls short because it does not mandate the immediate adoption of this technology. Instead, the bill directs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate a rulemaking process with a deadline of December 31, 2031. The NTSB argues that this six-year timeline leaves a dangerous window open for further accidents.

In the official press release, Chair Homendy expressed strong disapproval of the delay:

“We cannot support the ALERT Act in its current form as it is not fully responsive to the NTSB’s recommendations… [It] falls short of fully implementing all of the NTSB’s recommendations.”

, Jennifer Homendy, NTSB Chair

Context: The January 2025 DCA Collision

The urgency of the NTSB’s demands stems from the investigation into the collision on January 29, 2025. The accident involved American Airlines Flight 5342, a Bombardier CRJ700 regional jet, and a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter. The crash occurred approximately 0.5 miles southeast of DCA over the Potomac River, resulting in 67 fatalities.

Investigative reports indicate that the regional jet pilots had only 19 seconds of warning from their existing Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) before impact. The NTSB concluded that if the jet had been equipped with ADS-B In, the pilots would have received a visual and aural alert 59 seconds prior to the collision, providing roughly three times the reaction window.

Pilot unions have echoed the NTSB’s assessment. Jason Ambrosi, President of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), emphasized the critical nature of the missing technology in public statements following the accident investigation:

“One minute versus 19 seconds. That difference could have saved 67 lives.”

, Jason Ambrosi, ALPA President

Legislative Gridlock: ROTOR Act vs. ALERT Act

The introduction of the ALERT Act follows the failure of a competing bill, the ROTOR Act (S. 2503). That legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously in December 2025, would have mandated ADS-B In for all aircraft in busy airspace and required military aircraft to broadcast their position during non-sensitive missions.

However, the ROTOR Act failed in the House of Representatives on February 24, 2026, following opposition from the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD cited “unresolved budgetary burdens and operational security risks” as primary reasons for withdrawing support. In contrast, House Transportation & Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves (R-MO) has defended the new ALERT Act as a “comprehensive” solution that avoids being “overly prescriptive.”

AirPro News Analysis

The public lobbying by the NTSB against a specific piece of legislation is a rare move for the independent investigative body. Typically, the NTSB issues recommendations and allows Congress and the FAA to determine implementation. This aggressive stance suggests that the Board views the 2031 timeline not merely as a delay, but as a fundamental failure to learn from the DCA tragedy.

The conflict places the aviation industry in a difficult position. While the technology to prevent such collisions exists, the logistical and financial hurdles of equipping military and older civilian aircraft are significant. The failure of the ROTOR Act demonstrates the political weight of the defense establishment, while the NTSB’s rejection of the ALERT Act signals that safety advocates are unwilling to compromise on the timeline for implementation.

Summary of Key Differences

• NTSB Position: Demands immediate mandate for ADS-B In cockpit displays to improve pilot situational awareness.
• ALERT Act (H.R. 7613): Proposes a rulemaking process with a compliance deadline of December 2031.
• ROTOR Act (Failed): Would have mandated immediate equipage but faced opposition over military security and budget concerns.

As the debate continues, the NTSB maintains that “efforts to now water-down our evidence-based recommendations are counter to safety and dishonor the lives of 67 people.”

Sources

• NTSB Press Release NR20260226

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its preliminary report detailing a significant bird strike event involving an Alaska Airlines cargo flight operated on behalf of Amazon Air. The incident, which occurred on January 28, 2026, resulted in substantial damage to an Airbus A330-300 freighter and the presence of smoke in the cockpit, prompting an emergency return to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG).

According to the NTSB’s findings, the flight crew successfully managed a high-workload emergency immediately after takeoff. Despite the severity of the engine damage and the hazardous environment within the flight deck, both crew members survived without injury. The investigation has formally classified the event as an “accident,” a designation reserved for occurrences involving serious injury or substantial structural damage to the aircraft.

The release of this preliminary report sheds light on the specific sequence of events that turned a routine cargo run into a major safety investigation. It also clarifies the complex operational structure behind the flight, which carried an Alaska Airlines flight number but utilized an aircraft and livery associated with Amazon Air and the recently acquired Hawaiian Airlines fleet.

Sequence of Events: From Takeoff to Emergency Landing

On the afternoon of January 28, 2026, Alaska Airlines flight 2616 (AS2616) departed CVG at approximately 3:05 PM EST, bound for Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). The aircraft, an Airbus A330-300 freighter registered as N5827K, was occupied by two crew members: a Captain and a First Officer.

The NTSB report indicates that the flight proceeded normally through its initial takeoff roll from Runway 27. However, the situation deteriorated rapidly during the initial climb. At an altitude of approximately 3,000 feet, the aircraft encountered a flock of birds. The preliminary data confirms that multiple birds were ingested into the No. 1 (left) engine.

Immediate Impact and Cockpit Environment

The ingestion caused an immediate loss of thrust and severe vibrations in the left engine. The crew received fire indications for the engine, complicating the emergency. More critically, the report notes that smoke began to fill the flight deck shortly after the strike. This development forced the pilots to don supplemental oxygen masks while managing the aircraft’s energy and trajectory.

Declaring a “Mayday,” the crew coordinated with Air Traffic Control (ATC) for an immediate return. ATC vectored the heavy freighter for a visual approach to Runway 36R. The NTSB highlighted the effective coordination between the pilots and controllers, which facilitated a swift return. The aircraft touched down safely at approximately 3:13 PM EST, just 8 to 10 minutes after departure.

Damage Assessment and Evacuation Decisions

Upon landing, the crew made a critical safety decision regarding evacuation. Rather than deploying emergency slides, which could have placed them in proximity to the engine fire or hot brakes, the pilots brought the aircraft to a stop on the runway. They requested a ladder from the airport’s Crash Fire Rescue (CFR) services and evacuated via the right-side door, deliberately avoiding the hazards on the left side of the aircraft.

The NTSB’s post-accident inspection revealed why the event was classified as an accident rather than a standard incident. The No. 1 engine and its surrounding structure sustained “substantial damage.” While modern turbofan engines are designed to contain broken fan blades, the severity of this strike caused damage significant enough to warrant the higher classification.

“The NTSB rated the occurrence as an ‘accident’ rather than an ‘incident,’ a classification reserved for events involving substantial aircraft damage or serious injury.”

The aircraft, N5827K, remains grounded at CVG as technical teams assess the full extent of the structural compromise and the NTSB continues its investigation. Future phases of the inquiry will likely utilize DNA analysis of the organic remains (“snarge”) to identify the bird species and further evaluate the performance of the engine’s containment systems.

Operational Context: The Alaska-Hawaiian-Amazon Connection

To the casual observer, the flight details might appear contradictory: an Alaska Airlines flight number, an Amazon Air paint scheme, and an Airbus A330 aircraft, a type not historically flown by Alaska Airlines. This complexity is a result of the recent merger between Alaska Air Group and Hawaiian Airlines.

Hawaiian Airlines has operated a fleet of Airbus A330-300 freighters for Amazon since 2019. Following Alaska Airlines’ acquisition of Hawaiian, these operations have been brought under the single Alaska Air Group umbrella. Consequently, while the metal and the mission belong to the legacy Hawaiian/Amazon contract, the flight operated under an “AS” code. This incident highlights the operational integration currently underway between the two carriers.

AirPro News Analysis

Crew Resource Management (CRM) Under Pressure

The successful outcome of flight AS2616 serves as a textbook example of effective Crew Resource Management (CRM). Bird strikes are common, but strikes resulting in engine fires and cockpit smoke are rare and highly dangerous. The presence of smoke introduces a physiological threat and obscures vision, significantly increasing the stress load.

We believe the crew’s decision to forego a slide evacuation in favor of a ladder egress is particularly noteworthy. In the heat of the moment, the “standard” reaction might be to blow the slides and get out immediately. However, the pilots assessed the specific threat, fire on the left side, and chose a controlled exit on the right side with ground support. This disciplined decision-making likely prevented secondary injuries during the evacuation phase.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was this classified as an accident?
The NTSB defines an “accident” as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft where a person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. In this case, the damage to the engine and airframe met the threshold for “substantial damage.”

Was anyone injured?
No. Both crew members evacuated safely without injury.

What happens next in the investigation?
The NTSB will continue to analyze flight data recorders, cockpit voice recorders, and the physical debris. A final report, which includes the probable cause and any safety recommendations, typically takes 12 to 18 months to complete.

Sources

• NTSB Preliminary Report (DCA26WA/202360)
• FAA