Flight Safety Information June 28, 2017 - No. 129 Incident: Corendon Dutch B738 near Amsterdam on Jun 27th 2017, wheel well fire indication Incident: Malindo B738 near Dhaka on Jun 27th 2017, cracked windshield Incident: Jet2.com A332 at Tenerife on Jun 27th 2017, burst two tyres on landing Incident: Egypt B738 at Cairo on Jun 26th 2017, blew nose tyre on departure Cessna 207 Landinbg Accident (Maine) Woman delays flight with 'lucky' coin-throw into engine How the FAA Killed Uber for Planes Airlines push to weaken aviation safety law changed by Flight 3407 House panel asks FAA to set minimum legroom on airlines House panel votes to clip wings of future airline deals like Norwegian India's aircraft orders to exceed 1,000 with Jet Airways' imminent order Why India Is Buying Just One Of This Military Aircraft From The U.S. The Army successfully tested a laser gun on an Apache helicopter NASA gives OK for design of super-quiet supersonic experimental airplane The international space law you need to know if you want to leave the planet Participate in Upcoming Flight Safety Foundation Webinars Incident: Corendon Dutch B738 near Amsterdam on Jun 27th 2017, wheel well fire indication A Corendon Dutch Airlines Boeing 737-800, registration PH-CDE performing flight CD-295 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kos (Greece), was climbing out of Amsterdam when the crew declared Mayday reporting a wheel well fire, stopped the climb at FL130 and returned to Amsterdam for a safe landing on Amsterdam's runway 36R about 26 minutes after departure. Emergency services found no trace of fire, heat or smoke. The airline confirmed the aircraft returned due to a wheel well fire indication, the indication was identified false. A replacement Corendon Air Boeing 737-800 registration TC-TJS reached Kos with a delay of 6 hours. The occurrence aircraft resumed service about 7.5 hours after landing back. http://avherald.com/h?article=4aae467a&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Malindo B738 near Dhaka on Jun 27th 2017, cracked windshield A Malindo Air Boeing 737-800, registration 9M-LNT performing flight OD-163 from Dhaka (Bangladesh) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), was enroute at FL310 about 40 minutes into the flight when the crew decided to return to Dhaka reporting a cracked windshield. The aircraft landed safely back in Dhaka about 90 minutes after departure. The flight was cancelled. The airline reported the aircraft returned due to a cracked windshield. The passengers were rebooked onto other flights. http://avherald.com/h?article=4aae44fc&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Jet2.com A332 at Tenerife on Jun 27th 2017, burst two tyres on landing A Jet2.com Airbus A330-200, registration G-VYGL performing flight LS-917 from Manchester,EN (UK) to Tenerife Sur Reina Sofia,CI (Spain) with 320 passengers and 11 crew, landed on Tenerife's runway 08 but burst the two aft left main tyres, deflated both aft right hand main tyres and became disabled on the runway. A number of other aircraft on approach to Tenerife South Airport needed to go around and divert as result. http://avherald.com/h?article=4aae4354&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Egypt B738 at Cairo on Jun 26th 2017, blew nose tyre on departure An Egypt Air Boeing 737-800, registration SU-GEF performing flight MS-757 from Cairo (Egypt) to Amsterdam (Netherlands) with 95 passengers, was accelerating for takeoff from Cairo's runway 05C when the right hand nose tyre blew. The aircraft climbed to FL240 and entered a hold, then the crew decided to return to Cairo. The aircraft entered another hold at 5000 feet to burn off fuel. The aircraft landed safely on runway 05R about 70 minutes after departure. The Aviation Herald received information that the first officer of the flight had discovered a cut in the right hand nose tyre during the walk around, maintenance determined the cut was within acceptable limits and released the aircraft to flight. During departure the tyre blew causing damage to the nose gear doors and nose wheel well. During landing the right nose wheel was worn down to the rim. http://avherald.com/h?article=4aae4f3e&opt=0 Back to Top Cessna 207 Landinbg Accident (Maine) Date: 26-JUN-2017 Time: 08:00 a.m. Type: Cessna 207 Owner/operator: Penobscot Island Air Registration: N207GM C/n / msn: 20700217 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 1 Other fatalities: 0 Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Vinalhaven (ME55) - United States of America Phase: Landing Nature: Cargo Departure airport: Destination airport: Rockland-Knox County Regional Airport, ME (RKD) Narrative: The cargo plane carrying mail crashed while trying to land. The pilot was injured. Sources: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=196352 Back to Top Woman delays flight with 'lucky' coin-throw into engine An image released by police shows the coins retrieved from the scene, including one from the plane engine. * Woman, 80, throws at least nine coins at plane for good luck * One fell into engine of A320 aircraft, delaying flight Beijing (CNN)Bad weather, crowded skies and military drills...and now add coin-tossing to the growing list of reasons for China's notorious flight delays. Police took away an 80-year-old woman Tuesday after fellow passengers reported that she was throwing coins at the plane during boarding of China Southern Airlines flight CZ380 on the tarmac of Shanghai's Pudong International Airport. "The passenger, surnamed Qiu, who has no prior criminal record or mental health issues, claimed she tossed coins as a prayer for a safe flight," Shanghai Police said in a statement. It added that officers found nine coins at the scene, including one that fell into the engine of the Airbus A320 aircraft, with others scattered on the ground nearby. Plane delayed more than five hours The airline had to clear nearly 150 passengers from the full flight bound for Guangzhou, originally scheduled to depart at 12:40 p.m. "To ensure flight safety, China Southern's aircraft maintenance staff conducted a thorough inspection of the engine, which concluded at 4:53 p.m., and cleared the aircraft for takeoff," the carrier said in a statement. The flight eventually took off at 6:16 p.m. and arrived at its destination more than five hours late. A police photo shows the total value of the coins adds up to 1.7 yuan (about 25 US cents), but local media estimated the cost of engine inspection and flight delay could easily run in the thousands of dollars. Police said the case will be investigated further. The story quickly went viral across China, the world's second-largest aviation market and home to some of its most delayed airports. Shanghai Pudong, which served more than 66 million passengers last year, is often at the bottom of airport on-time performance rankings. Given frequent complaints about the lack of information on the delays, at least for once everyone knows who to blame. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/asia/china-coin-planes/index.html Back to Top How the FAA Killed Uber for Planes Flight-sharing helped fill seats on small, private trips and cut costs. But regulators stopped it. Private flight has long been a luxury limited largely to the über-rich or super dedicated. Unless you have the deep pockets or connections to buy or rent your own small plane, plus a pay for a pilot, fuel costs, insurance, and hangar fees, you will be stuck in the chicken coop of crammed commercial flights with the rest of us peasants for all your flying needs. But what if it didn't have to be that way? What if you could purchase an empty seat on a private flight that was going where you needed to go anyway for a majorly discounted price? This was, for a glorious and brief period of time, made possible by a promising new crop of startups dedicated to bringing flight-sharing to the masses. Dubbed "the Uber of the skies," startups like Flytenow and AirPooler aimed to connect pilots whose private flights were not yet filled to passengers eager to reach their destinations without suffering the horrors of commercial air travel. Founded in 2013, the services were a great win-win for both parties: Pilots no longer had to simply eat the cost of empty seats on each trip, and passengers got to enjoy the thrill of small-scale flight for a very affordable price. For the first time, it seemed like consumers would have a real inexpensive alternative to the hell of economy class travel. That is, until the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) caught wind of all this innovation and decided to quash it once and for all. In a sneaky bid to shut down this kind of arrangement, the FAA decided to expansively interpret its own definition of a "common carriage" operator so that non-commercial small-scale pilots using these services would be legally put on the same level as the big boy commercial flights-with the same expensive regulatory and licensing requirements. The FAA knew that small services like Flytenow and AirPooler simply could not keep up with these requirements, and thus effectively shut them down. Flytenow valiantly challenged the FAA's capricious actions in court all the way up to the Supremes; but unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case in January of this year, effectively upholding the lower courts' siding with the FAA. My Mercatus Center colleague Christopher Koopman recently released a study analyzing the sad saga of flight- sharing's destruction at the hands of the FAA. It is an amazing tale of regulatory overreach and targeted statutory interpretation that seems to have been undertaken for little reason beyond FAA antipathy to non-commercial cost- sharing arrangements. And unfortunately for all of us non-millionaires out there, this agency bias ultimately leaves the public bereft of an encouraging new development in transportation. To understand the current brouhaha surrounding the legal status of flight-sharing services, you have to know a little bit about the FAA's historical approach to non-commercial flights. Services like Flytenow and AirPooler are really only a new evolution of long-standing practices among amateur pilots. For around as long as small scale flight has existed, pilots would leave messages on airport bulletin boards advertising their upcoming flight plans. Other pilots who needed to get to the same destination could hitch a ride and help defray the cost of the unused seats. This kind of cost-sharing arrangement made the relatively expensive hobby of amateur flight a lot more reasonable for all parties involved, and was explicitly authorized in the federal code, albeit with a considerable set of limitations. Chief among these caveats was that flight-sharing pilots could not seek to profit from flights, but rather merely offset the costs. This was good enough for the pilots' needs, and the convention became a critical and fiercely defended element of private flight. Flytenow and AirPooler are merely digitized versions of this practice, which allow pilots and passengers to connect and contract for mutually-beneficial air travel. America's aviation regulators have long loathed the benign practice of cost-sharing in private flight. They attempted to outright ban the practice two times in the past, once in 1950 and again in 1963. Yet both times, the Civil Aeronautics Board and Federal Aviation Agency (precursors to the modern FAA) were forced to back away from their attempted regulatory expansion after immediate and severe opposition from the private flight community. With its expansion of the "common carriage" designation to cost-sharing arrangements like Flytenow and AirPooler, the FAA may have won its first major success in its longstanding efforts to clamp down on the practice. But there is clearly little difference between such services and the analog bulletin board system that predated it-it is just a digitized version of the practice. Unlike airline carriers, cost-sharing pilots do not earn a profit, nor are they obligated to shuttle any passenger that wants to purchase a ticket-they can turn down anyone they want. But that didn't stop the FAA. The regulator's prevailing "common carriage" rules were not established by Congress, but were promulgated by the FAA in 1986. There is a four-part test: If an airline operator undertakes 1) a "holding out of willingness" to 2) "transport persons or property" 3) "from place to place" 4) for "compensation or hire," it will be considered a common carrier subject to regulations on commercial airlines. When Flytenow and AirPooler were first getting off the ground, their attorneys reached out to the FAA to verify that their activities were all above-board. Unfortunately, it may have been better for them to have asked for forgiveness than permission: The FAA responded that such services indeed fit the definition of a common carrier, despite the fact that pilots would not be soliciting passengers from the general public (condition #1) or making a profit (condition #4). For some reason, a pilot can suddenly become a common carrier if he advertises an open flight online, but not if he posts it to a bulletin board in the real world. It is a tortured logic, but it is unfortunately the one that the FAA and the courts are sticking with. Underlying this regulatory antagonism is the legal distinction between a commercial and a non-commercial pilot. All airplane pilots are required to hold current certifications in order to legally fly. But the requirements differ depending on the pilot class. Hobbyists are only required to log three takeoffs and landings every three months, plus a minimum number of flight hours. Commercial pilots on the other hand, who routinely shepherd hundreds of lives through the skies, must meet more stringent requirements. Regulators, therefore, want to jealously block non-commercial pilots from engaging in any kind of activities that might even superficially resemble commercial activities out of an abundance of caution for passenger safety. The flight community would not stand for a ban on bulletin board messaging, but the FAA got away with it when it came to digital platforms. Yet paradoxically, limiting cost-sharing abilities for non-commercial pilots may actually make those activities less safe. As Koopman points out, non-commercial pilots will be less able to log air hours if they cannot afford to practice. Cost-sharing therefore allows pilots to become more proficient and therefore safer in the skies. And on the consumer side, cost-sharing allows for efficiency in air travel (and much more comfort and enjoyment). There is an easy solution to the FAA's regulatory overreach. "This problem can be solved by relatively simple congressional action," Koopman concludes. Congress could create a straightforward definition of a common carrier in aviation that would allow for promising innovations such as flight-sharing, while ensuring the safety and affordability that consumers and pilots alike desire. And such a reform would have the rare attribute of cutting across typical party lines. As far as innovation in aviation goes, there is definitely a way. Now the challenge is to get our Congress to muster up the will. http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/27/how-the-faa-killed-uber-for-planes Back to Top Airlines push to weaken aviation safety law changed by Flight 3407 CLARENCE, N.Y. (WIVB) - Airlines are pushing a proposal on Capitol Hill hoping to weaken the aviation safety law passed after Flight 3407. The proposal would make it easier for pilots to get academic credit which would count toward their required fifteen hundred hours of flight experience. Pilots need this before they can fly a passenger airliner. But some airlines say the aviation safety law is too strict, and has led to a pilot shortage. The families of Flight 3407 pushed aviation safety legislation into law in 2010. That included big changes in required pilot training as well as rest and experience requirements too. Now, the airlines are proposing a variety of new legislative changes hoping to make it easier to become a pilot. That includes different kinds of aviation training. For example, unaccredited flight schools would count towards the law's flight experience requirement. Also in the proposal, they want to increase incentives for military pilots to work with commercial airlines, and expand student grants and loan programs. New York Senator Chuck Schumer responded to this, saying: "Regional airlines should drop any and all attempts to roll back these important and hard-won aviation safety standards," said Senator Schumer. "Each and every time this issue has come up we've successfully beaten back special interests' attempts to water down safety standards, and I will work tirelessly alongside the families of Flight 3407 to ensure we're successful again. I was proud to work with the families of Flight 3407 and the rest of the Western New York Congressional Delegation to pass into law these standards that improved airline safety, and I'll continue to work with my colleagues to fight any and all efforts to weaken them or roll them back. Protecting the flying public and ensuring pilots and first officers are adequately trained is of the utmost importance and will always be a top priority of mine." http://wivb.com/2017/06/19/airlines-push-to-weaken-aviation-safety-law-changed-by-flight-3407/ Back to Top House panel asks FAA to set minimum legroom on airlines Economy class seating is shown on a new United Airlines Boeing 787-9 undergoing final configuration and maintenance work at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Seattle on Jan. 26, 2016. (Photo: Ted S. Warren, AP) WASHINGTON - The Federal Aviation Administration should determine the minimum legroom and seat width aboard airliners, to assure the health and safety of passengers, a House panel agreed Tuesday. After airline seats have crept closer together and narrower in recent decades, Reps. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., proposed legislation for the FAA to determine the minimum size that airlines must provide. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agreed by voice vote to add the provision to broader FAA legislation. Airlines have long argued that seating is one the areas where they should compete for customers without government regulation. But Cohen thanked the airlines, particularly American, Delta and Southwest, for their cooperation in developing regulations for the width, length and distance between seats. "I am pleased the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recognized the serious safety and health concerns of shrinking airplane seats and passed this amendment to determine how small is too small," Cohen said. The proposal, which had been rejected in past years, came the same month that American Airlines proposed to have tighter space in coach-class seats of their soon-to-arrive Boeing 737 MAX planes. The distance between rows of seats, which is called pitch by the industry, would have been reduced in three rows from 31 to 29 inches. But American dropped the plan after receiving "a lot of feedback from both customers and team members." Cohen argued that average pitch has declined from 35 inches before airline deregulation in the 1970s to about 31 inches today. During the same period, the average width of seats declined from 18 to 16.5 inches, he said. "Emergency evacuation is a serious issue, as is the potential for air rage as tensions mount inside more tightly packed cabins," Cohen said. Another concern is deep-vein thrombosis afflicting passengers who don't move their legs during long flights, he said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/06/27/house-panel-asks-faa-set-minimum- legroom-airlines/429358001/ Back to Top House panel votes to clip wings of future airline deals like Norwegian A Boeing 737-800 of low-cost airline Norwegian flies near Oslo airport in Gardermoen on July 17, 2009. (Photo: KYRRE LIEN, AFP/Getty Images) WASHINGTON - The low-cost carrier Norwegian Air International might not have won approval to serve the U.S. under legislation a House panel approved Tuesday. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agreed by voice vote to add a provision dealing with foreign airlines to a bill governing the Federal Aviation Administration. The provision allows the secretary of transportation to block foreign airlines from serving the U.S. after finding a carrier would erode labor standards because it was established in a country other than its majority owners to avoid regulations of the home country. Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., sponsored the provision with the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon. LoBiondo said the provision "would fix a terrible decision made by the Obama administration" by approving Norwegian flights to the U.S. The Transportation Department approved Norwegian's application in December after an unusual three-year review. The department called the case "among the most novel and complex ever undertaken," but found that there was nothing to prevent approval of Norwegian under transport agreements with Norway and Europe. But pilots and flight attendants - joined by lawmakers in both parties - complained that Norwegian ignited a "race to the bottom" for regulations and wages by incorporating in Ireland with the prospect of hiring less-expensive crews in Singapore.\ "Now any airline can set up under a flag of convenience to exploit weak labor laws in other countries, save money and undercut competition," DeFazio said in introducing the legislation to block similar deals in the future. Capt. Tim Canoll, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said the provision would clarify longstanding policy that could potentially disqualify airlines from serving the U.S. "The measure defends U.S. aviation workers against foreign carriers' shopping the globe for cheap labor while upholding the letter and spirit of our Open Skies agreement with the European Union," Canoll said. Norwegian has strongly objected to being characterized as cutting corners on safety or labor regulations. The airline contends it will benefit economies on both sides of the Atlantic by ordering $18.5 billion of Boeing aircraft and hiring hundreds of U.S. workers. Norwegian fully complies with all transportation pacts between the U.S. and Europe that are called Open Skies agreements, and with all U.S. laws and regulations, spokesman Anders Lindstrom said after committee vote. The legislative language approved Tuesday wouldn't affect Norwegian's existing flights or plans for expanded flights to bring travelers world-class service and lower fares, Lindstrom said. "At a time when U.S. airline job growth continues to rise and U.S. carriers are generating record profits, the language appears to be yet another attempt by special interests to evade healthy competition and raise costly procedural hurdles to new entrants in international markets - all to the detriment of consumers, communities, aerospace manufacturers, and the travel and tourism sector," Lindstrom said. An official with the U.S. Travel Association, a group that advocates for hotels and destination resorts in addition to airlines, voiced disappointment with the provision for hindering affordable travel. "Currently, very few of these carriers serve the U.S., and this amendment limits the ability of any new competitors to establish direct international flights here," said Jonathan Grella, the association's executive vice president for public affairs. "This amendment directly undermines our country's Open Skies agreements, and risks millions of American jobs by hampering efforts to make our aviation market more competitive and give flyers more choices." Some airports have welcomed Norwegian's shiny new planes and some airlines have welcomed the chance to connect with more passengers to and from Europe. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said in February that Norwegian hiring hundreds of U.S. crew members and buying Boeing planes is "a huge economic interest" for the country. But Norwegian's approval remains hotly disputed. Besides the legislative effort, unions are appealing the department's approval of Norwegian. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/06/27/house-panel-votes-clip-wings-future- airline-deals-like-norwegian/430457001/ Back to Top India's aircraft orders to exceed 1,000 with Jet Airways' imminent order; infrastructure a problem Low cost carriers account for more than 85% of India's current order book of 923 aircraft, but in the coming weeks two of its full service airlines will add to the tally. Jet Airways is expected to place an order for a further 100 narrowbody aircraft (this figure may include options) - taking its total of the type to 175 - while Vistara is likely to order 50 narrowbodies and 50 widebodies, according to CAPA's earlier research. With these planned acquisitions, India's order book will reach 1123 aircraft - the third largest in the world after the USA and China. And its ratio of 2.2 aircraft on order for every aircraft in service would be the highest of any major aviation market. The projected order book will be dominated by narrowbodies, accounting for 86% of the total. Widebodies and regional aircraft account for just 6% and 8% of the total, and this is after orders in recent weeks for 50 ATR-72s by IndiGo and 25 Q400s by SpiceJet. https://centreforaviation.com/insights/analysis/indias-aircraft-orders-to-exceed-1000-with-jet-airways-imminent- order-infrastructure-a-problem-352895 Back to Top Why India Is Buying Just One Of This Military Aircraft From The U.S. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi left Washington, D.C., after his first meeting with President Trump a step closer to buying one Boeing (BA) C-17 transport aircraft. Late Monday, the State Department OK'd the deal, which has an estimated price tag of $366.2 million and still needs congressional approval. India bought C-17s in the past and wanted to order three more, but Boeing was shutting down the production line so New Delhi could only get one. Boeing shares edged down 0.55% to 198.89 on the stock market today. The approval came as Trump said India and the U.S. should have "a trading relationship that is fair and reciprocal" and thanked Modi for India's interest in U.S. weapons. "Thank you very much," Trump said at a joint press conference Monday evening. It "always makes us feel very good, and there's nobody that makes military equipment like we make military equipment, nobody even close." Defense was expected to be a big topic when the two leaders met Monday, as India plans to spend $150 billion on its military. The Trump administration has reportedly authorized the sale of 22 General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper drones, valued at $22 billion, to India. That deal also needs approval from Congress. Other possible defense deals between the U.S. and India in the future could include Lockheed Martin's (LMT) C-130J transport aircraft and Boeing's P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft. Last week, Lockheed agreed to send its Texas-based F-16 production to India, if it secures a major fighter deal from New Delhi. Lockheed shares dipped 0.6% to 278.02. Lockheed is in buy range from a 270 buy point. http://www.investors.com/news/why-india-is-buy-just-one-of-this-military-aircraft-from-the-u-s/ Back to Top The Army successfully tested a laser gun on an Apache helicopter Apache helicopter laser (An Apache helicopter firing a laser weapon.Raytheon) An Apache helicopter just successfully honed in on and hit an unmanned target with a laser gun, according to a press release from Raytheon, the weapon's manufacturer. It was the "first time that a fully integrated laser system successfully engaged and fired on a target from a rotary- wing aircraft over a wide variety of flight regimes, altitudes and air speeds," Raytheon said. The Apache hit the target from about 0.9 miles away. Raytheon combined a version of the Multi-Spectral Targeting System, which is an electro-optical infrared sensor, with the laser during the test, the company said. Laser weapons are unique in that humans can't hear or see them, which does not bode well for the enemy, according to the Pentagon. They're also extremely accurate since they fire along a straight line, instead of an arc, which bullets and artillery shells fire along. They may also prove one day to be a cheaper alternative to the Apache's 30mm machine gun and hellfire missiles, which cost about $115,000 each, according to War is Boring. As Matthew Ketner, branch chief of the High Energy Laser Controls and Integration Directorate in Virginia, told the Army News Service: "Lasers don't run out of bullets." But there are still obstacles to overcome, according to Ketner. Laser weapons use a lot of energy and, at least for now, have a hard time breaking through dust, smoke, and haze. Still, the military has increasingly looked to laser weapons. There has been an operational 30-kilowatt laser mounted on the USS Ponce since 2014. More recently, the Air Force announced it had plans to test a laser weapon on an AC-130J gunship, and that they were working on arming B-52 bombers with defensive lasers. Last month, the Army also announced that it successfully shot down a drone with a laser. NOW WATCH: Watch a US Navy assault ship fire at an inflatable 'killer tomato' https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/army-successfully-tested-laser-gun-184400289.html Back to Top NASA gives OK for design of super-quiet supersonic experimental airplane Low Boom Flight Demonstration aircraft The preliminary design for NASA's Low Boom Flight Demonstration aircraft has been cleared for takeoff. (NASA / Lockheed Martin Illustration) NASA says it's cleared a significant milestone on the path to reviving supersonic passenger jet travel in the U.S. with the completion of the preliminary design review for its low-boom experimental airplane. The Low-Boom Flight Demonstration X-plane, or LBFD, is designed to create a soft "thump" rather than the loud sonic boom typically associated with supersonic airplanes. The boom is what led federal authorities to ban supersonic passenger flight over land in 1973. The initial design stage for the LBFD is known as Quiet Supersonic Technology, or QueSST. NASA's plan, drawn up with Lockheed Martin as the lead contractor, calls for transforming QueSST into the LBFD and flying the plane over communities to collect the data that regulators would need to ease the ban. Last Friday's preliminary design review was a key step in the process: Experts and engineers from NASA and Lockheed Martin checked the plans drawn up earlier in the year and determined that the QueSST design would be capable of fulfilling the plane's mission objectives. "Managing a project like this is all about moving from one milestone to the next," David Richwine, manager for the design effort under NASA's Commercial Supersonic Technology Project, said in a news release. " "Our strong partnership with Lockheed Martin helped get us to this point. We're now one step closer to building an actual X- plane." Other steps have been taken as well: Last month, a scale model of the design wrapped up testing in an 8-by-6-foot supersonic wind tunnel at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. And at last week's Paris Air Show, NASA and Honeywell announced the completion of a two-year study to test an avionics system that could help the LBFD's pilots minimize the impact of sonic thumps. Now that the preliminary design has been approved, NASA and Lockheed Martin will fine-tune the design, based on the results of further performance tests and wind tunnel tests. Then NASA will solicit proposals for building the piloted, single-engine plane. Although Lockheed Martin has been the lead contractor for the early design phase, the follow-on contract will be awarded in an open competition. The schedule calls for the contractor to be selected early next year, with flight tests beginning as early as 2021. Meanwhile, commercial ventures such as Boom Aerospace, Spike Aerospace and Aerion are moving ahead with their own plans to test supersonic planes. At the Paris Air Show, Boom announced that it had 76 orders for supersonic planes from five airlines, and that it planned to fly a demonstrator aircraft late next year. https://www.geekwire.com/2017/nasa-gives-go-ahead-design-super-quiet-supersonic-experimental-airplane/ Back to Top The international space law you need to know if you want to leave the planet The dos and don'ts of the Outer Space Treaty Outer Space Treaty explained Leaving Earth? Here's the rulebook: Want to explore the Solar System? Well you're going to need to brush up on international space law before you leave the planet, and that means studying the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies." Or, as most people refer to it, the Outer Space Treaty. Signed in 1967, the Outer Space Treaty establishes a number of guidelines that nations should follow in order to explore space. The document touches on topics like appropriating space objects and how to prevent the contamination of other planets. It's not a very comprehensive treaty, meant to be flexible in its interpretation. But more than 50 years later, with more than 100 nations party to the treaty, the agreement has ensured the peaceful exploration of outer space - and could continue to do so for many years to come. https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/27/15879344/outer-space-treaty-international-space-law-moon-celestial-bodies Curt Lewis