Flight Safety Information - July 20-21, 2026 No. 141 In This Issue : Incident: OneClick B738 at Bucharest on Jul 19th 2026, speed indication problem : Incident: Sichuan A333 near Amsterdam on Jul 18th 2026, both GPS failed : Incident: Canada B763 near Manta on Jul 12th 2026, engine failure : Incident: Iberia A21N and Europa B789 over Atlantic on Jul 10th 2026, TCAS saves the day : Accident: Delta A321 at New York on Jul 14th 2026, tail strike on landing : Incident: Norse Atlantic B789 at London on Jul 13th 2026, could not retract nose gear : NASA studied pilots taking 26-minute naps during long flights and found their performance improved by 34 percent and alertness by 54 percent : Swiss airline removes drunk pilots after crew raise alarm in Geneva : New bill aims to improve air safety regulations following deadly helicopter crash in Superior, AZ : Hybrid-electric aircraft clears 30,000 feet for first time in test flights : IndiGo signs major jet engine and repair-shop deal with CFM : EU test pilots find ‘no major hardware risks’ with China’s C919 jet: sources : SMBC Aviation Capital Orders 100 Boeing 737 MAX Jets : Boom Prize Balloons To $800K For First Amateur Supersonic RC Airplane, And The Fine Print Raises The Bar : Cargo plane appears to scrape runway during aborted landing at CVG Airport : NTSB releases report on Charleston airport runway collision : Calendar of Events Incident: OneClick B738 at Bucharest on Jul 19th 2026, speed indication problem A OneClick Airways Boeing 737-800, registration 4L-TWO performing flight OOO-9142 from Bucharest Otopeni (Romania) to Tel Aviv (Israel), was climbing out of Bucharest's runway 08L when the crew stopped the climb at about 8000 feet reporting they had a speed indication issue at the captain's side. The aircraft returned to Bucharest for a safe landing on runway 08R about 35 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground in Bucharest about 19 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=53c05259&opt=0 Incident: Sichuan A333 near Amsterdam on Jul 18th 2026, both GPS failed A Sichuan Airlines Airbus A330-300 freighter, registration B-32GX performing flight 3U-9605 from Moscow Sheremetyevo (Russia) to Brussels (Belgium), was in the initial descent towards Brussels when the crew requested to divert to Amsterdam reporting they had lost both GPS, their company told them to divert to Amsterdam. The aircraft landed safely on Amsterdam's runway 36R about 20 minutes later. The aircraft was able to continue to Brussels after about 2:30 hours. https://avherald.com/h?article=53c04e5d&opt=0 Incident: Canada B763 near Manta on Jul 12th 2026, engine failure An Air Canada Cargo Boeing 767-300 freighter, registration C-GHLU performing flight AC-7326 from Miami,FL (USA) to Lima (Peru), was enroute at FL350 about 300nm north of Manta (Ecuador) when one of the engines failed. The aircraft drifted down to FL230 and diverted to Manta for a safe landing on runway 24 about 70 minutes later. The aircraft is still on the ground in Manta on Jul 18th 2026. https://avherald.com/h?article=53bf9d86&opt=0 Incident: Iberia A21N and Europa B789 over Atlantic on Jul 10th 2026, TCAS saves the day An Iberia Airbus A321-200N, registration EC-OLE performing flight IB-140 (dep Jul 9th) from Recife,PE (Brazil) to Madrid,SP (Spain), was enroute northbound at FL360 over the Atlantic near the West Saharan Coast on airway N857. An Air Europa Boeing 787-9, registration EC-ODH performing flight UX-57 (sched. dep Jul 9th, act. dep Jul 10th) from Madrid,SP (Spain) to Sao Paulo Guarulhos,SP (Brazil), was enroute southbound on the same airway at FL360 over the Atlantic near the West Saharan Coast. TCAS resolution advisories activated in both cockpits, the A21N descended and the B789 climbed. According to information The Aviation Herald received, both aircraft had been cleared to maintain FL360 when TCAS RA occurred at about 01:22 UTC: Both aircraft continued to their destinations for safe landings. Spain's CIAIAC opened an investigation and reported on Jul 17th 2026: "On July 10, 2026, the AIRBUS A-321 aircraft with registration EC-OLE and call sign IBE0140 was flying on airway N857 at flight level FL360 heading northeast, located between points ETIBA and BIPET in the oceanic sector of the FIR/UIR of the Canary Islands (Spain). At 01:23 UTC, a TCAS TA warning was activated, followed by another “TCAS RA DESCEND” warning, because another BOEING 787-9 aircraft with registration EC-NBM and flight call sign AEA05 was at the same flight level flying on the same airway in the opposite direction. On this other aircraft, a “TCAS RA CLIMB” alert was activated. The AIRBUS A-321 aircraft descended 500 ft following the system instructions, until it received the LEVEL OFF instruction, and the BOEING 787-9 aircraft ascended 400 ft, also following the system instructions, until it received the “CLEAR OF CONFLICT” warning. The two aircraft continued their respective flights without any injuries or personal damage." https://avherald.com/h?article=53be7151&opt=0 Accident: Delta A321 at New York on Jul 14th 2026, tail strike on landing A Delta Airlines Airbus A321-200, registration N382DN performing flight DL-1181 from Fort Lauderdale,FL to New York La Guardia,NY (USA), was on short final to La Guardia's runway 22 when the crew initiated a go around, however, the aircraft's tail contacted the runway surface. The aircraft climbed to 4000 feet, positioned for another approach and landed on runway 22 without further incident about 13 minutes after the go around. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained substantial damage. The NTSB opened an investigation into the occurrence rated an accident. https://avherald.com/h?article=53bf04a3&opt=0 Incident: Norse Atlantic B789 at London on Jul 13th 2026, could not retract nose gear A Norse Atlantic Airways Boeing 787-9, registration G-CKOF performing flight Z0-783 from London Gatwick,EN (UK) to Orlando,FL (USA), was climbing out of Gatwick's runway 08R when the crew stopped the climb at FL100 due to being unable to retract the nose gear. The aircraft entered a hold and returned to Gatwick for a safe landing on runway 08R about 80 minutes after departure. The rotation was cancelled. The occurrence aircraft returned to service about 25 hours after landing back. https://avherald.com/h?article=53bedefc&opt=0 NASA studied pilots taking 26-minute naps during long flights and found their performance improved by 34 percent and alertness by 54 percent NASA studied pilots taking 26-minute naps during long flights and found their performance improved by 34 percent and alertness by 54 percent, evidence that in aviation, rest could be a safety tool, not a weakness The aviation industry has long treated pilot fatigue as an inevitable cost of long flights—but a landmark NASA study suggests the solution might be simpler than better schedules or newer planes. NASA studied pilots taking 26-minute naps during long flights and found their performance improved by 34 percent and alertness by 54 percent, evidence that in aviation, rest could be a safety tool, not a weakness In the early 1990s, a group of NASA researchers arranged for twenty-one long-haul pilots on transpacific Boeing 747 routes to do something most airlines discouraged. They let some of them sleep. The full study was published by NASA Ames Research Center as a technical memorandum titled Crew Factors in Flight Operations 9: Effects of Planned Cockpit Rest on Crew Performance and Alertness in Long-Haul Operations, and it became one of the most cited studies in aviation fatigue research. The version that circulates online is compact: a 26-minute nap improved performance by 34 per cent and alertness by 54 per cent. Those figures are the ones usually cited from a 1995 summary paper by Rosekind and colleagues in the Journal of Sleep Research, “Alertness management: strategic naps in operational settings,” rather than from the detailed memorandum, whose own summary describes the effect in words rather than percentages. What gets lost in the compression is almost everything that makes the numbers meaningful. What follows is a reading of one study and the policy history around it, not advice on how anyone should manage their own sleep. And it is worth being clear at the outset: this is one study, small and specific, not a settled consensus about rest in general. What the study actually measured The work was led by Mark Rosekind, then at NASA Ames, with co-authors including R. Curtis Graeber, David F. Dinges of the University of Pennsylvania, and Linda J. Connell. The pilots flew regularly scheduled overnight trans-Pacific legs in three-person crews with no relief pilot available. Twelve of them formed the Rest Group. During the low-workload cruise phase, each was given a planned 40-minute window to rest in the seat while a colleague flew. The other nine formed the No-Rest Group, given the same 40-minute block but told to carry on with normal duties. Throughout, the researchers recorded brain-wave and eye-movement activity, tracked reaction time on a vigilance task, and logged subjective alertness. The rest-group pilots slept on 93 per cent of the opportunities offered. They fell asleep in an average of 5.6 minutes and slept for an average of 25.8 minutes, which is where the famous 26 comes from. The 34 and the 54 attach to different measures. The 34 per cent refers to reaction-time and vigilance performance, tested with a psychomotor task. The 54 per cent, often written as “up to 54 per cent,” refers to physiological alertness derived from the brain-wave recordings, essentially a reduction in the brief involuntary lapses, or microsleeps, that show up on an EEG when someone is fighting to stay awake. Rosekind and colleagues report these figures in the 1995 summary paper. The underlying memorandum is more restrained: it states that the nap was associated with improved physiological alertness and performance, and that the benefit carried through the descent and landing, when it mattered most. What the numbers do and do not say The comparison is the part most summaries drop. These are not gains over a rested, sharp baseline. They are improvements relative to the No-Rest Group, a set of tired pilots getting steadily more tired across a long overnight leg. The napping crews were not turned into superhumans. They were held closer to functional while the others slid. The authors are also candid about the limits of what a nap buys. In their reading, the cockpit rest did not reduce the pilots’ cumulative sleep debt and did not change how they slept during the layover afterwards. A 26-minute nap is a countermeasure for one demanding stretch of duty, not a repayment on chronic sleep loss. None of this makes the finding trivial. A short, planned rest measurably reduced dangerous lapses during the highest-stakes phase of a flight, and it did so with minimal disruption and no safety problems the researchers could identify. That is a useful result. It is a narrower one than “napping makes you a third more productive.” Why the cockpit does not translate cleanly to the cubicle Most people meet this study through a productivity article that quietly swaps the pilots for office workers. The leap is shorter in the headline than in reality. The population was unusually specific: professional aircrew, deep into an overnight long-haul rotation across multiple time zones, in a job where a lapse of attention has consequences a spreadsheet error does not. Their fatigue was severe and circadian in origin. A 26-minute nap has a large effect precisely because there was so much impairment to claw back. An adequately rested person at their desk in the early afternoon is not in that hole and will not see the same swing. The study says a well-timed nap rescues a fatigued professional during a critical task. It does not say a nap adds 34 per cent to anyone’s ordinary working day, and it was never designed to test that claim. A study of 2,500 people doing an identical, tedious data-labeling task found that simply telling one group their work would help identify cancer cells, rather than saying nothing or telling them the work would be discarded, meaningfully increased how much they did without hurting quality The Artful Parent When Apollo 11 came home, NASA sealed the astronauts, their spacecraft and their Moon rocks behind a biological barrier for 21 days in case lunar microbes existed — and Neil Armstrong celebrated his 39th birthday in quarantine behind glass Where the finding actually landed The more interesting afterlife of this research is regulatory, and it splits along a line that still holds three decades later. The evidence that short in-seat rest improves late-flight alertness helped shape controlled-rest procedures now permitted for some or all operators in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, Israel and elsewhere. EASA guidance allows a controlled rest period of roughly 45 minutes plus recovery time, with the other pilot monitoring and cabin crew checking in. The framing across these regimes is consistent: controlled rest is an in-flight response to unanticipated fatigue, used within a defined policy, not a scheduling tool and not a substitute for proper rostered sleep. The Flight Safety Foundation’s resource for operators lays out that logic in detail. The United States is the notable holdout. The Federal Aviation Administration considered controlled rest during its 2010 flight-and-duty rulemaking and left it out of the final rules. In its own guidance on aviation fatigue, the FAA acknowledges that even naps of 25 to 30 minutes restore alertness and performance, yet it permits in-flight napping only when an augmented crew allows a pilot to rest away from the controls, not in the seat on a standard two-pilot flight. Same research base, different regulatory conclusion. That divergence is the real story hiding inside the tidy statistic. A finding can be well established scientifically and still fail to become policy in a given jurisdiction, held up by liability concerns, union positions, and institutional caution rather than by any dispute over the data. Rest as a monitored procedure There is a cultural reading of this study that treats it as vindication against the idea that rest is for the soft. We would be careful with that. What the aviation world did was more specific than a mood shift about laziness. It took rest and turned it into a defined procedure, with a fixed window, a monitoring pilot, a length short enough to avoid the grogginess of deeper sleep, and a recovery buffer before landing. The transferable idea is not “naps are good.” It is that fatigue is a predictable operational hazard, and that a structured, bounded rest can be built into a demanding task as a countermeasure. Whether that generalises to a hospital, a long-haul truck cab, or a control room is a reasonable question. It is not one this study, on twenty-one pilots, answers on its own. For anyone tempted to treat the 26 minutes as a magic number, the guidance from fatigue researchers is duller and more honest: the right length, timing and depth of a nap vary by person and situation, and a nap that runs too long can leave someone worse off on waking than before they lay down. What we keep coming back to is how much a single clean number can carry, and how little of the original work travels with it. The pilots, the transpacific legs, the descent where the benefit showed up, the sleep debt that stayed unpaid: all of it thins out into “34 per cent.” The open question now is whether the American position moves. NASA’s fatigue group has continued studying controlled rest in real operations in recent years, and the gap between what the FAA concedes about napping and what it permits in the seat is the kind of thing that tends to get revisited after the next fatigue-related incident report, rather than before it. https://spacedaily.com/d-nasa-studied-pilots-taking-26-minute-naps-during-long-flights-and-found-their-performance-improved-by-34-percent-and-alertness-by-54-percent-evidence-that-in-aviation-rest-could-be-a-safety-tool-no/ Swiss airline removes drunk pilots after crew raise alarm in Geneva Two apparently drunk pilots were removed from duty before a flight departing from Geneva earlier this year, Swiss International Air Lines (SWISS) reported on Tuesday. The airline said that crew members had raised concerns several hours before the flight in May and informed their supervisors. SWISS said the pilots were taken off duty while still at their hotel, before departing for the airport, and were replaced by other pilots. The reports from the crew were sufficiently specific that the airline questioned the two pilots' fitness to fly. "The two pilots have not flown since, and the investigation is still ongoing," the airline said. "We take violations of our safety principles very seriously, and they may have consequences under employment law." For privacy reasons, SWISS declined to disclose the pilots' nationalities or the destination of the flight departing from Geneva. https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/swiss-airline-removes-drunk-pilots-101820303.html New bill aims to improve air safety regulations following deadly helicopter crash in Superior, AZ Four people were killed after a helicopter crash struck a slackline over Telegraph Canyon last January. SUPERIOR, Ariz. — A deadly helicopter crash near Superior last January inspired a new bipartisan bill making its way through Congress. The McCarty and Heideman Air Safety Enhancement Act is named in honor of the four people killed after a helicopter hit a slackline stretched across Telegraph Canyon at 600 feet. The pilot, 59-year-old David McCarty, and his three nieces, Katelyn, Rachel and Faith, were all aboard the helicopter when it crashed. “We just don’t want to see another family go through what we’re going through," Elizabeth McCarty Gallup said. McCarty Gallup, who's dedicated the past six months to bringing attention to air safety improvements, told 12News the introduction of the bill is an exciting step forward. “It’s not the end goal, but it’s definitely the beginning and the first steps to getting something done," McCarty Gallup said. The bill would set a six-month deadline for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review and update regulations, policies and guidance related to low-altitude airspace safety, including how slacklines, tightropes or similar wires are marked and identified. It would also require the FAA to look at improving the process of how Notices to Airmen are issued. “Wires are very, very hard to pick up. If you don’t know where they’re at, it’s almost impossible, and at night they’re impossible to pick up," Embry-Riddle Assistant Professor of Aeronautical Science Cary Grant said. Grant told 12News he thinks improvements to the markings and lighting of wires can always be made. “I see no cons to this," Grant said. "Anything that saves lives is a good thing.” Sen. Mark Kelly helped introduce the bill in Congress last week. “David, Katelyn, Rachel, and Faith lost their lives in an Arizona helicopter crash that never should have happened. I’ve met with their family. No one should have to go through what they’ve been through. This bill makes sure the FAA acts quickly to prevent tragedies like this from happening again,” Kelly said in a statement. McCarty Gallup is hoping lawmakers act with urgency. “I want them to realize that the faster we can move on some of this stuff, the faster it will be implemented into practice," McCarty Gallup said. McCarty Gallup said this bill is a step in the right direction, but she won't rest until the skies are safe for everyone. “Any user of the airspace is safe, and the hazards are communicated both to pilots and to slackliners or any other recreational user that is present through both physical markings and digital markings. That is the end goal," McCarty Gallup said. 12News reached out to the FAA for comment, but did not immediately get a response. The bill is still working its way through committee. It needs to pass in both the House and Senate before making its way to the president. https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/national-politics/new-bill-aims-to-improve-air-safety-regulations-following-deadly-helicopter-crash-in-superior-arizona/75-ea090fda-c05b-4a05-82be-34f0fa179161 Hybrid-electric aircraft clears 30,000 feet for first time in test flights A modified Saab 340B aircraft in flight powered in part by a hybrid electric system built by GE Aerospace, along with NASA, BETA Technologies, and Boeing. Credit: GE Aerospace An aircraft powered by a megawatt-class hybrid-electric engine developed in collaboration with NASA and built by GE Aerospace, demonstrated flight of an innovation that can inform new generations of fuel-saving aircraft power systems. Mounted to a Saab 340B aircraft, the engine flew at Farnborough International Air Show in the United Kingdom. It was the public debut of a system that has in recent months made historic test flights, becoming the first hybrid electric-powered aircraft to fly above 30,000 feet and making the longest hybrid electric flight of over two hours. "This achievement reflects what NASA does best in aeronautics: we explore bold possibilities, validate them through rigorous research and testing, and work with industry to turn breakthrough ideas into technologies that bring real value for the American people," said Laurie Grindle, director of the Aeronautics Division within the agency's Research and Technology Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The testing leveraged work done through NASA's former Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration project and the agency's ongoing Subsonic Vehicle Technologies and Tools project—years of collaborative research that included key testing at NASA test facilities. From concept to aircraft power The engine integrates electric motors, a gas turbine, and energy storage capabilities. It was designed to demonstrate the capacity to power an aircraft around the size of a regional-class jet, reducing fuel burn and costs without sacrificing performance. The unit's technology and designs are expected to be used to help develop future hybrid systems that could lower airline operating costs. The demonstration flight came after years of rapid development for the technology. For NASA, it also validates work that stretches back to a time when hybrid aviation propulsion seemed almost beyond the horizon of possibility. "This is the culmination of more than 15 years of work, and we did that because it's going to have an impact for aircraft that will help reduce energy use and help U.S. companies and the public," said Ralph Jansen, aerospace engineer at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. "It's about having a vision that no one believes can happen and then doing the work to define and execute the research and development needed to make it happen." This accomplishment was possible because of the collaborative effort of hundreds of people working on Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration and Subsonic Vehicle Technologies and Tools projects across NASA centers, in conjunction with GE Aerospace and its partner companies. Engineering around big-plane demands In recent years, aviation has seen a boom in small aircraft and drones powered by electrical systems drawing from batteries. But large passenger and cargo planes require complex engines capable of supplying massive amounts of power. So more than a decade ago when NASA began contemplating hybrid systems, just the possibility of using electric motors to supplement some energy was a daunting engineering challenge. NASA spent about seven years performing preliminary research, working with small businesses and other partners to consider technological obstacles and the potential commercial viability of hybrid systems. During that time, the agency addressed several barriers to implementation including the power, thermal, and battery technology, and the integration of the power system, engine, and aircraft. GE Aerospace and NASA worked with researchers to develop lighter and more efficient power systems and shrink key components—sometimes dramatically. NASA and GE Aerospace also leveraged agency facilities and resources to further their research. In 2022, GE Aerospace tested an integrated version of its propulsion system at NASA's Electric Aircraft Testbed at the agency's Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility in Sandusky, Ohio. Testing allowed the system to operate in conditions simulating 45,000 feet in altitude, the range in which commercial single-aisle aircraft fly. The moment years became visible The team added components, including electric motors, power converters, propellers, and a GE Aerospace commercial engine, followed by more ground tests and eventual flight tests. For the researchers who'd spent years on the concept, seeing the engine powering an aircraft in flight was a major step in a long journey. "I've got to say, I was pretty touched seeing it fly. It was just awesome," Jansen said. "It's just like a regular plane, which is probably the best thing of all." https://techxplore.com/news/2026-07-hybrid-electric-aircraft-feet-flights.html IndiGo signs major jet engine and repair-shop deal with CFM FARNBOROUGH, UK, July 20 (Reuters) - IndiGo, India's largest airline, signed a preliminary agreement with CFM International on Monday to buy over 1,000 LEAP-1A engines, marking a record order for the French-U.S. engine maker that ‌is emerging from industry-wide congestion over repairs. The memorandum of understanding at the Farnborough Airshow provides engines to go with the same airline's blockbuster order for 500 Airbus A320neo-family aircraft in 2023 at the Paris Airshow, which alternates with Farnborough as the industry's annual showcase. Get the latest news from India and how it matters to the world with the Reuters India File newsletter. Sign up here. The deal also includes plans for the airline to open its own maintenance, ⁠repair and overhaul centre as well as a parts supply deal, echoing a similar move by Ireland's Ryanair (RYA.I). CFM, which makes engines for the Boeing 737 MAX and competes with Pratt & Whitney (RTX.N), opens new tab on the Airbus A320neo, is the world's largest engine maker by number of units sold. It is co-owned by GE Aerospace (GE.N), opens new tab and France's Safran (SAF.PA), opens new tab. The engine industry has faced disruption for years over long maintenance waiting times and shortages of spare parts, which have forced many airlines to keep planes temporarily idle. CFM said at the weekend it had reduced the number of ‌planes ⁠grounded for reasons related to its LEAP engines to "near zero". Rival Pratt & Whitney, which has borne the brunt of the groundings due to shortages of maintenance capacity and metal contamination issues, has also reported improvements. The decision by two of the world's largest budget carriers to build repair shops is seen partly as a ⁠defensive move to ensure access to scarce repair capacity, industry sources said. Both airlines will handle only their own engines rather than farming out their in-house resources to other carriers. Even though engine makers are gradually ⁠easing delays, a sharp rise in the number of planes being built means access to repairs will be a strategic topic for airlines in the future. Boeing warned last week ⁠that repair times, dwindling numbers of experienced technicians and supply chain issues would keep engine services "under strain throughout much of the decade." The video player is currently playing an ad. The U.S. planemaker predicted an 88% increase in total annual MRO demand to $215 billion by 2045. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indigo-signs-mou-record-leap-1a-engine-deal-with-cmf-2026-07-20/ EU test pilots find ‘no major hardware risks’ with China’s C919 jet: sources European pilots are now wrapping up their long flight testing process for the C919, but it is still unclear when the jet might be certified, sources say European pilots have found “no major hardware risks” with the Chinese-made C919 passenger jet during a months-long flight testing process in China, which is now beginning to wrap up, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter. The news indicates that the C919 has taken a step closer to winning a crucial endorsement from European safety regulators, but the sources cautioned that the completion of in-flight testing did not mean that certification was imminent. The “test drive” by European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) pilots has been highly rigorous, with specialised crews pushing the single-aisle C919 “to extremes” to validate its safety, the sources said. These flights included manoeuvres like deliberate spins and stalls to test the jet’s structural integrity and gather data that can be checked against established certification specifications. The C919 – produced by the state-run Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac) – is a narrowbody passenger jet that Beijing aims to promote as an alternative to the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 on the global market. The aircraft has already been in service domestically in China for three years, with Comac delivering 37 of the jets to Chinese carriers to date. But certification from Western regulators is likely to be vital for the jet to compete internationally. The South China Morning Post reported in January that EASA test pilots had begun flying the C919 in Shanghai. Flight tests are part of the third step of the EASA’s four-step certification process. Those flights are now mostly complete, though some simulations of system malfunctions had yet to be finished, according to the sources. The tests are designed to examine the aircraft’s backup systems and flight computers. “Sometimes EASA test pilots had to wait for a particular type of bad weather or temperature and humid conditions to fly the Chinese plane and see how it could perform,” one source said. Both sources stressed that even once all the test flights are finished, the C919’s long-haul journey towards certification will not be over, as significant work still remains to be done. Evaluators will need to comb through the mountain of data collected during the tests, and this analysis and discussion will take some time – and may require software tweaks and other follow-up work, they said. The test flights in China have included a “special” additional segment to check that the Chinese-designed cockpit can be operated smoothly by foreign aviators, especially during an emergency, according to the sources. The process involved European captains based in China operating C919 simulators, with EASA assessors observing. Those tests were “successfully” completed in May, according to one source. To uphold its independence, the EASA told its test pilots and technicians dispatched to China to “minimise unnecessary chats and interactions” with their Chinese counterparts and to refrain from giving feedback on site after each test was completed, according to one source. Florian Guillermet, executive director of the EASA, told French media last year that the C919 certification process would take three to six years to complete. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3361170/eu-test-pilots-find-no-major-hardware-risks-chinas-c919-jet-sources SMBC Aviation Capital Orders 100 Boeing 737 MAX Jets Agreement includes SMBC Aviation Capital's first-ever 737-10 order 737-10 order is single largest by a lessor FARNBOROUGH, United Kingdom, July 20, 2026 /PRNewswire(opens in a new tab)/ -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] and SMBC Aviation Capital today announced that the global aviation finance platform and lessor has ordered 100 737 MAX airplanes, including 60 737-10 and 40 737-8 jets. The 737-10 order represents SMBC Aviation Capital's first purchase for the 737 MAX family's highest capacity variant. With this order, SMBC Aviation Capital increases its owned, managed and committed to portfolio for the 737 MAX family to 450 jets. Boeing and SMBC Aviation Capital today announced that the global aviation finance platform and lessor has ordered 100 737 MAX airplanes, including 60 737-10 and 40 737-8 jets. "This transaction represents a significant milestone for SMBC Aviation Capital and will ensure our airline customers have access to a long-term pipeline of new technology aircraft," said Peter Barrett, CEO of SMBC Aviation Capital. "Our partnership with Boeing spans over two decades and this order reflects market dynamics as our airline and investor customers look to upgauge to the 737-10. This order will support their growth ambitions well into the next decade and reflects our strong confidence in the Boeing 737 MAX and sustained demand for fuel-efficient, technologically advanced narrowbody aircraft." The 737-10 has the best per-seat economics of any single-aisle airplane, seating up to 230 passengers with a range of 3,100 nautical miles (5,740 km). By selecting the 737-10, SMBC Aviation Capital will be able to meet strong market demand for larger single-aisle jets, diversify its asset mix and capture a new customer base. "We are honored that the new and expanded team at SMBC continues to place its trust in Boeing and the 737 MAX family," said Stephanie Pope, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "This commitment, including SMBC's first 737-10 order, reflects the strong demand we are seeing for the 737 MAX family's efficiency, reliability and versatility." As global passenger traffic is forecast to grow 4% annually over the next two decades, lessors are increasingly looking to grow and diversify their single-aisle portfolios to provide airlines with more fuel-efficient jets capable of operating across a variety of route networks. Lessors have ordered more than 1,450 737 MAX jets, representing 20% of the 737 MAX backlog. About SMBC SMBC Aviation Capital is the leading global aviation finance platform, servicing a fleet of 1700 aircraft with more than 170 airlines globally. Benefiting from the strong support of its shareholders Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group and Sumitomo Corporation, SMBC Aviation Capital has a high-quality global airline customer base with an owned portfolio comprising 80% new technology aircraft (by net book value). SMBC Aviation Capital has a strong capital position and holds an A- and BBB+ rating with S&P and Fitch respectively, reflecting the long-term strength of its business. For more information, please visit: https://www.smbc.aero/ https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2026-07-20-SMBC-Aviation-Capital-Orders-100-Boeing-737-MAX-Jets Boom Prize Balloons To $800K For First Amateur Supersonic RC Airplane, And The Fine Print Raises The Bar Boom Supersonic CEO Blake Scholl formalized his Mach 1 challenge on July 10, and the pot grew eightfold in the process. The Boom Prize now offers $750,000 in cash plus $50,000 in Boom stock for the first American amateur-built radio controlled airplane to break the sound barrier. When I covered Scholl’s original offer on July 2, it stood at $100,000, posted hours after DroneXL reported on the dorm-built jet that started it all. Eight days turned a quote-tweet into a structured competition with six co-sponsors, four named judges, published rules, and a registration page. The announcement post collected 413,000 views in its first eight days. What most of the resulting coverage skipped is the fine print, which sets a harder target than the original tweet did, and quietly hands the toughest problem to the entrants. Six Co-Sponsors Turned A Tweet Into An $800,000 Purse The Boom Prize totals $800,000: $750,000 in cash and $50,000 in Boom stock, up from the $50,000-plus-$50,000 split Scholl first floated. Judging falls to NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, SpaceX founding propulsion engineer Tom Mueller, spaceflight YouTuber Scott Manley, and former Boeing chairman and CEO Phil Condit. The cash expansion came from outside money. Scholl named quantitative trading billionaire Alexander Gerko, Electric Capital, Caffeinated Capital, Balaji Srinivasan, Denver Ventures, and Josh Buckley as co-sponsors. In his announcement, Scholl placed the prize in the lineage of the Orteig Prize that put Lindbergh across the Atlantic and the Ansari X Prize that opened private spaceflight. Rules and registration live on the Boom Supersonic website. The Rules Demand Two Supersonic Runs In One Day Winning requires an amateur-built, remotely piloted, air-breathing airplane weighing under 55 pounds (25 kg) to exceed Mach 1 in level flight for at least five seconds, twice between sunrise and sunset on the same day, and land successfully. Entry is limited to U.S. persons, and the window runs through the end of 2030. Three details deserve attention. First, the propulsion clause: air-breathing engines only, which means turbojets and their kin. Battery-electric quadcopters and rocket boosters are out. Second, the funding clause: entrants must be hobbyists or students working with private or crowd-sourced money, and corporate or institutionally backed teams are excluded, according to FLYING Magazine’s review of the rules. Third, the nationality clause. Scholl’s July 2 tweet said “amateur-built RC airplane” with no flag attached. The formal rules say American. That last clause redraws the field. The verified jet-powered RC speed record belongs to German builder Niels Herbrich at 748 km/h (465 mph). The battery quadcopter record war that my colleague Zachary Peery has chronicled runs between South Africa’s Luke Maximo Bell, whose Peregreen V4 holds the Guinness mark at 657.59 km/h (408.60 mph), and Australia’s Ben Biggs, whose Blackbird hit an unofficial 690 km/h (429 mph) in February. Every one of them is locked out, the quad builders twice over: wrong passport, wrong propulsion. Verified Records Sit Far Below Mach 1 Mach 1 at sea level is roughly 1,225 km/h (761 mph), while the fastest verified jet-powered RC flight stands at 748 km/h (465 mph). The prize therefore asks amateurs to beat the existing record by more than 60 percent, then repeat the feat hours later on the same calendar day. Tomas Salvo, the Georgia Tech student whose 5 kg (11 lb) carbon-fiber Reaper and its claimed 805 km/h (500 mph) top speed set this whole sequence in motion, remains the closest publicly known data point, and his number is self-reported, not instrumented. The fastest RC aircraft of any type, Spencer Lisenby’s unpowered dynamic-soaring glider at 882 km/h (548 mph), fails the air-breathing test. Even Europe’s professional class illustrates the gap: Quantum Systems’ Apex Recordhunter reached 699 km/h (434 mph) in June with a funded engineering team behind it. Nobody, amateur or professional, has put a remotely piloted air-breathing airframe through the sound barrier and brought it home. The Rulebook Is The Second Sound Barrier Boom’s rules make entrants solely responsible for regulatory compliance, and that responsibility is heavier than the airframe. Part 107 caps small drone groundspeed at 161 km/h (100 mph), recreational flying under Section 44809 requires following community-based safety guidelines that never contemplated Mach 1, and no waiver for supersonic small UAS flight has ever been publicly granted. The timing carries some irony. On July 2, the same day Scholl posted his original offer, the FAA published its Enabling Supersonic Overland Flight proposal, which would repeal the 1973 ban on civil supersonic flight over U.S. land in 14 CFR 91.817 and replace it with a noise standard capping sonic boom overpressure at 0.11 pounds per square foot at ground level. Comments on docket FAA-2026-6935 close August 17, 2026. That rulemaking was written with airliners like Boom’s own Overture in mind, and how its authorization pathway would apply to a 25 kg hobbyist turbojet is an open question the docket does not yet answer. As I noted in the July 2 prize story, one of Salvo’s collaborators says a sanctioned, cleared-airspace speed event is already being planned in the Mojave Desert. A legitimate Mach 1 attempt will need exactly that kind of venue, plus instrumentation that satisfies four judges who have flown to orbit, built rocket engines, and run Boeing. DroneXL’s Take I wrote on July 2 that a six-figure carrot channels viral builder energy somewhere legitimate instead of meeting it with a cease-and-desist. Scholl just proved the point at 8x scale. Two weeks ago Tomas Salvo was a student with a gray-area turbojet and a mock Anduril logo on his winglets. Today there is an $800,000 structured competition, judged by the NASA Administrator, pulling every speed-obsessed builder in America toward sanctioned airspace and instrumented runs. That is the model. Prizes beat enforcement letters every single time. My complaint is with the compliance clause. Boom kept the glory and outsourced the hardest problem. A student can lay up a carbon delta in a dorm room. A student cannot conjure cleared supersonic airspace, and the current rulebook offers no obvious path for a 25 kg aircraft at 1,225 km/h. If Boom wants to hand out this check before 2030, the single most effective move available costs nothing: file a comment in docket FAA-2026-6935 before August 17 asking the FAA to address remotely piloted aircraft in the supersonic rulemaking, and put corporate weight behind the Mojave event so entrants have somewhere legal to fly. Watch that comment window. If Boom and the model aviation community show up in the docket, this prize gets won. If the docket closes without them, the Boom Prize risks becoming an $800,000 trophy for a flight no one can legally attempt. https://dronexl.co/2026/07/18/boom-prize-first-amateur-supersonic-rc-airplane/ Cargo plane appears to scrape runway during aborted landing at CVG Airport HEBRON, Ky. — A Kalitta Air cargo plane scraped its tail on the runway during a landing attempt at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) last night, leading pilots to declare an emergency. Video sent by viewers shows the Boeing 777 scraping its tail on the runway as it came in for a landing around 8 p.m. Witnesses said the plane had to abort the landing and circle back for another attempt. It then aborted a second landing attempt before successfully landing on the third try. https://www.wlwt.com/article/cvg-airport-runway-landing-ground-cincinnati/73194537 NTSB releases report on Charleston airport runway collision The National Transportation Safety Board has released its final investigation report into a collision between two commercial aircraft at Charleston Published: Jul. 20, 2026 at 9:30 PM CDT|Updated: 10 hours ago CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) — The National Transportation Safety Board has released its final investigation report into a collision between two commercial aircraft at Charleston International Airport last July. A Nippon Airways Boeing 787 clipped the tail of a Breeze Airways Airbus while both planes were waiting for takeoff. The Nippon Airways flight was bound for Tokyo; the Breeze Airways flight was headed to Virginia. The NTSB report found the Breeze Airways jet had been improperly parked, and the crew did not provide enough clearance in nighttime conditions at the time of the collision. Two passengers suffered minor injuries. https://www.live5news.com/2026/07/21/ntsb-releases-report-charleston-airport-runway-collision/ CALENDAR OF EVENTS . EAA AirVenture Oshkosh - July 20–26, 2026 . July 20-24, 2026 | Farnborough, UK - Farnborough Airshow 2026. . ICAO/EASA Third Global RSOO/RAIO Forum for Aviation Safety — September 29–30, 2026, in Georgetown, Guyana., https://www.icao.int/events : Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference - 22-23 September 2026 . IATA World Maintenance & Engineering Symposium (23-25 June, Madrid, Spain) . ISASI - BOSTON 2026 - September 28, 2026 – October 2, 2026 . Global Aviation Conference Frankfurt- 29-30SEP2026 - Frankfurt, Germany . 79TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY SUMMIT MONTREAL | NOVEMBER 10-12, 2026. . Airlines 2026 conference - November 11, 2026 (London) . 2026 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) Oct. 20-22, 2026 | Las Vegas, NV . 2027 ACSF Safety Symposium - April 6-8, 2027 - ERAU Daytona Beach, FL Curt Lewis