Conspicuously missing from the Senate’s fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (FY25 NDAA), though, is an amendment that would effectively ban new Chinese drone models from flying in U.S. skies.

The Countering CCP Drones Act made it into the House version of the FY25 NDAA, which passed in June with a vote of 217-199 and was largely backed by Republicans. But when contemplating its addition to the Senate legislation, lawmakers reportedly dropped the measure after hearing from over 6,000 public safety agencies that opposed the measure.

The bill is not dead yet, however. Last week, Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment to the FY25 NDAA, cosponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), that puts the Countering CCP Drones Act back on the table in committee discussions.

Even if the amendment is rejected in the Senate, it could resurface in reconciliations between the Senate and House due to its inclusion in the latter’s version of the NDAA.

The Countering CCP Drones Act is the culmination of U.S. government efforts to restrict Chinese-manufactured drones from dominating the country’s drone industry. Lawmakers have also accused the Chinese Communist Party of using the aircraft to spy on Americans, citing its ties to state-owned entities. At present, there is no conclusive evidence to verify the claims, and manufacturers such as DJI have pushed back on the allegations.

Chinese drones have been blacklisted by the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, Department of the Treasury, and other federal agencies. The states too have taken aim at the aircraft, with Arkansas and Scott’s home state of Florida implementing the most sweeping bans.

One significant drone-related provision, the bipartisan American Security Drone Act, made it into last year’s NDAA. That measure prohibits U.S. federal agencies and federally funded programs from procuring drones manufactured in China or Russia.

Adding to the fervor, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security released a report detailing the threat of Chinese drones shortly after the NDAA was signed into law.

The Countering CCP Drones Act that will be contemplated by the Senate targets two manufacturers in particular, DJI and Autel. Those firms, and any subsidiaries, partners, or affiliates, would be added to the Federal Communications Commission’s covered list—essentially a list of companies with which the U.S. government refuses to do business.

The companies’ addition to the covered list would not impact DJI and Autel drones already being flown by hobbyists or private companies, for example. However, it would prevent the FCC from authorizing new equipment and prohibit newly sold drones from using U.S. communications infrastructure, effectively banning all sales in the country.

The legislation was first introduced in 2022 by Scott and Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) in the Senate and by Representative Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) in the House.

After failing to move it forward, Stefanik in 2023 reintroduced the bill in the House, pushing successfully for its inclusion in the House NDAA released in June. That month, the measure was also reintroduced in the Senate but did not receive enough support to be added to that chamber’s version of the bill.

DJI drones in particular are widely deployed by U.S. law enforcement and public safety agencies, who opposed the restrictions because other models are typically more expensive and less effective. Police departments in states that have not banned Chinese drones are continuing to buy them in droves.

Their efforts may be for naught, though, if the Senate is receptive to Scott’s amendment. Even if senators reject it, the measure’s inclusion in the House version of the NDAA could give it new life in the reconciliation process.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Senators Urged to Adopt Anti-China Drone Measure appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The NDAA includes language that would prohibit federal agencies and federally funded programs from purchasing or using drones manufactured in countries that are viewed as threats to U.S. national security: namely, China and Russia. It’s now a signature from President Joe Biden away from becoming law.

While the legislation did not name specific companies, the restrictions would take aim at China’s DJI—the largest consumer drone company in the world by market share—and Autel, which isn’t far behind. According to Drone Industry Insights, DJI owns 73 percent of the U.S. market.

The drone-related provisions in the NDAA come from the American Security Drone Act (ASDA) of 2023: one of several protectionist bills introduced to shield American skies from the supposed threat of Chinese and Russian drone surveillance. Lawmakers have characterized the aircraft as “TikTok with wings,” alluding to allegations that the Chinese social media platform spies on its users.

The bipartisan legislation was first introduced in the Senate in February and was added to the NDAA in July. An identical House version of the bill was introduced in November.

The NDAA’s passage was cheered by Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.), one of architects behind the Senate ASDA bill, and Representative Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), an original cosponsor of the House bill.

“Getting this bill passed in this year’s NDAA is a massive win for our national security and the safety of Florida families,” said Scott. “Communist China has been known to spy on us, using companies like drone maker DJI, who are obligated by law to report back to the evil regime, to carry out its information collection missions…The U.S. will now no longer spend taxpayer dollars to let Communist China spy on us through their drones.”

At present, there is no conclusive evidence that the Chinese government or Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is using drones from DJI or other manufacturers to spy on American citizens or assets. However, lawmakers continue to decry the potential for sensitive information to be beamed back to China. They also worry the drones are being used for other nefarious purposes.

For example, allegations that DJI drones are being used by the Chinese government to surveil Uyghur muslims prompted the Department of Defense to dub it a “Chinese military company,” a characterization the firm swiftly denied. However, despite China’s restriction of drone exports, DJI technology has been discovered in drones on the battlefield in Russia and Ukraine and the Middle East.

Lawmakers’ concerns are shared by some within the drone industry. The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), for example, lauded the NDAA’s inclusion of ASDA language, urging the Biden administration to sign it into law quickly.

“Prohibiting federal agencies from purchasing or operating non-secure drones, especially those produced by Chinese firms, is a necessary step in protecting our nation from cyber risks, espionage, and sabotage,” said Michael Robbins, chief advocacy officer of AUVSI. “Rational, tailored country-of-origin drone restrictions like those within ASDA are critical to protecting U.S. national security…American reliance on foreign adversaries for drone technology must end.”

While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle appear to support the ASDA language, detractors argue that country-of-origin bans are simply unnecessary. Some contend that the legislation props up technologically inferior, domestic drones at the expense of models from foreign manufacturers such as DJI, which are considered by many to be the best available.

“There is legislation pending in Congress today that addresses a national security situation that has been created out of thin air,” Steve Sherman, a former Iowa House candidate, wrote for RealClearPolicy. “Furthermore, the legislation is protectionist and an attempt to shield inferior products from competition abroad. Congress does not have the time to tackle mythical national security threats when there are real ones that go unaddressed every day.”

Like it or not, however, the ASDA is poised to become law in the not-so-distant future. And it could have a significant impact on the U.S. drone market.

What’s in the Bill?

Scott and Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced the original ASDA legislation in February, garnering cosponsors from both parties.

At a high level, the proposed bill called for a ban on federal procurement and operation of foreign, commercial off-the-shelf drones or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) manufactured or assembled in “covered” countries, or those the U.S. views as hostile. China—and entities thought to be under its control—are on the list. The bill also proposed prohibiting state and local governments from procuring covered tech using federal funding.

In July, Scott and Warner celebrated the bill’s addition to the NDAA, which put it on the radar of others on Capitol Hill. The language can be found under Title XVIII Subtitle B of the published text of the final NDAA, titled “Drone Security.”

Digging deeper, the legislation directs the Federal Acquisition Security Council and the Department of Transportation to develop and update a list of banned aircraft and components. Two years after passage, federal departments would be prohibited from using them.

In addition, all federal agencies would be required to collect data on their existing inventories of banned technology, which the government could track “at a classified level.” And within nine months, the U.S. Comptroller General would need to submit a report on the number of restricted drones procured by the government. Another required report would examine covered drone supply chains.

But there are several proposed exemptions to the restrictions.

The Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, and Transportation, FAA, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and a few other agencies could still procure covered drones if they’re absolutely necessary for their missions. The first three, for example, could acquire banned technology if it’s in the U.S. “national interest” and would be used for research or counterterrorism purposes. Agencies would also be able to apply for waivers.

Notably, the ASDA language would not apply to any U.S. “intelligence activities.” State, local, or territorial law enforcement and emergency service agencies using non-federal dollars to procure banned tech would also be exempt. However, a few of them have taken matters into their own hands by introducing state-level bans on DJI and other drones, which are very popular among public safety agencies.

What It Means

The ASDA language only targets foreign drone use and procurement at the federal level, which means—for now—that DJI hobbyists will be unaffected. But that could change.

The U.S. has a long-standing aversion to Chinese drones. Its first success in weeding out the technology came in 2019 with the passage of the 2020 NDAA. That legislation prohibited the Department of Defense from acquiring and using drones manufactured in covered countries for military use, and the Department of Energy from doing so for defense activities.

Since then, DJI and other Chinese firms have been placed on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, blacklisted by the Treasury Department, and even targeted via executive order. But many of these are considered “de facto” bans, holding little sway over actual government activities.

The ASDA language in the NDAA would change that. And if lawmakers are feeling emboldened, they could push for another piece of legislation that proposes more sweeping restrictions. The Countering CCP Drones Act, introduced in April by Gallagher and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), could extend bans on Chinese drones to hobbyists, which in DJI’s case is its most popular segment.

The bill calls for DJI and others to be added to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) covered list, preventing their tech from using FCC infrastructure. And with the FAA’s Remote ID rule taking effect March 16, almost all drones will be required to communicate using that infrastructure—which means even recreational drones could be grounded. Those rules would also apply to DJI’s recently unveiled delivery drone.

There has been little movement on the legislation since it was introduced. But with continued lobbying from American drone firms—and the impending expiration of federal counter-drone authority on February 3—lawmakers may be motivated to snuff out the perceived threat quickly.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Defense Policy Bill Would Ban Chinese, Russian Drone Tech in U.S. appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

With more than 2,000 “unique requests” logged from members of Congress and around the industry, according to a statement posted on its website, the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Aviation invited key stakeholders from the aviation to gather in Washington, D.C., on Thursday for a hearing to outline exactly why passage of the long-term authorization bill is critical.

The subcommittee called upon witnesses to provide testimony at the hearing, including:

• Pete Bunce, president and CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
• Rich Santa, president, National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)
• Paul Bradbury, director, Portland International Jetport, on behalf of American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)
• Gary Peterson, executive director, Transport Workers Union (TWU)

Key Elements for GA

Given its general aviation focus, GAMA’s points should find specific interest to the pilot community. GAMA provided an outline of Bunce’s top points, which included the following and can be found within the testimony linked here.

• The need for a new Assistant Administrator for Rulemaking and reviews of the current process to reduce inefficiencies and further safety, security, and innovation priorities

• Agency certification expertise through investments in FAA’s digital capabilities and technical expertise, including training to enhance safety and reduce unnecessary delays

• Agency progress in areas like safety management systems, advanced air mobility, unmanned aviation systems, and cybersecurity

• Industry safety and competitiveness

• The role of technology to improve safety and advance the industry

• The important relationships between industry, the FAA and Congress

• A pilot program to examine the use of technology to deliver more efficient digital clearances to general aviation aircraft

• The Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative to ensure a safe and sound transition to unleaded fuels for piston-engine aircraft

• Aviation’s environmental sustainability goals

• Advanced air mobility opportunities and the infrastructure needed for it to thrive

• Industry’s maintenance and manufacturing workforce

In a release, Bunce “commended the committee leadership and entire House for passing its FAA Reauthorization bill (H.R. 3935) earlier this year and expressed optimism about U.S. Senate action on an FAA bill in the near-term.”

Those who wish to watch the hearing in its entirety can do so here.

The post Stakeholders Push for FAA Reauthorization Through the Senate appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Allvin’s confirmation joined that of Navy Admiral Lisa Franchetti as chief of naval operations and Lieutenant General Christopher Mahoney as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. These top military leadership roles had remained unfilled for months after Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) attempted to block military nominations and promotions in an attempt to protest the Department of Defense’s abortion travel policy.

Allvin, who has been an Air Force officer for 37 years, previously served as vice chief of staff. He is a command pilot with more than 4,600 flight hours in more than 30 aircraft, including 800 test flights and 100 hours in combat, according to the service.

“On behalf of the Department of the Air Force, we welcome General Allvin as the 23rd chief of staff of the Air Force,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in a statement. “He has guided many of our most important initiatives to improve the Air Force, including recruiting and operations.” 

While the confirmations are a step forward, hundreds more remain logjammed, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Thursday.

“But we still have more than 370 superbly qualified leaders who have seen their nominations unnecessarily stalled,” Austin said. “As we face a variety of urgent challenges, the most powerful fighting force in history must be at full strength. This unprecedented delay in confirming our military’s top leaders has hurt our military’s readiness and unnecessarily weighed down our military families who already give up so much to support those who serve.”

The post Senate Confirms Air Force’s Highest-Ranking Officer appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On October 28, 2018, a Boeing 737 Max operating as Lion Air Flight 610 went down 11 minutes after takeoff from Jakarta, Indonesia, killing all 189 on board. Months later, on March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Air Flight 302 crashed six minutes after takeoff from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing 157. 

As described by a 2020 Congressional report, the Max accidents “were the horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing’s engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing’s management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA.”

• READ MORE: Comair Claims Fraud In Boeing 737 Max Lawsuit

In response, Congress drafted the 2020 Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act intended to overhaul the FAA’s oversight following the deadly accidents.

Wednesday’s hearing addressed several key issues on FAA staffing, whistleblower protections, and additional reforms that could be included in the upcoming reauthorization bill.

In his opening remarks, FAA acting administrator Billy Nolen recognized the families of the victims of the Lion Air and Ethiopian accidents. 

“The FAA understands and embraces the importance of continuously raising the bar on aviation safety,” Nolen said. “During the last two years, we’ve made significant progress meeting the requirements of the law to improve and refine our certification and safety oversight processes.”

Nolen fielded several questions regarding FAA staffing issues and stated that the agency plans to hire nearly 300 employees to its safety office by the end of September. He also stressed that the agency currently has 107 full-time staff members providing regulatory oversight on Boeing—up from 82 just a couple of years ago. 

Nolen also addressed staffing issues when it came to FAA medical and aircraft registration backlogs, admitting that’s an area that the FAA needs to improve. He stressed the agency is streamlining the aircraft registration process from 180 days to 75 days by the end of April. Nolen also noted that the FAA is taking steps to modernize its MedXPress medical program by allowing pilots to track their MedXPress forms online—a welcome measure of transparency.

Whistleblower complaints were also highlighted in Wednesday’s hearing. During his questioning, Sen. Wicker (R-Mississippi) said, “There is no place in the FAA or the Federal government for retaliation from people who come forward with legitimate information.” Nolen was asked what the FAA is doing to protect whistleblowers following allegations that the agency would punish those who came forward with safety concerns. In response, Nolen said the agency takes the role of whistleblowers very seriously and is personally involved in any complaints.

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio.) brought up two recent reports of issues pilots experienced during 737 Max flights and questioned whether the aircraft was safe, to which Nolen replied, “I can say categorically that the 737 Max airplane is safe.”

Nolen told lawmakers that the agency is continuing to review new versions of the Max, including the Max 7 and 737 10. He stressed that the FAA is using active line pilots and test pilots for feedback for certifying new aircraft.

• READ MORE: Congress Gives Boeing Clearance for 737 Max Certification

Throughout the hearing, several members of Congress took the opportunity to highlight the differences in the administration’s current pick to head the FAA—Phil Washington, and current acting administrator Nolen. They agreed Nolen was a much more qualified and appropriate pick for the job given his expertise as a pilot and background working for three different airlines.

Ranking member Ted Cruz (R-Texas) brought up criticism from both Republicans and Democrats during Washington’s recent confirmation hearing.

• READ MORE: Senate Grills FAA Nominee in Confirmation Hearing

“His hearing last week confirmed what is abundantly clear in his resume—that he lacks aviation experience needed to lead the FAA. He was unable to answer basic safety questions about the 737 Max crashes, aircraft certification, or how a pilot might react when a system malfunctions. Unlike other FAA administrators, including administrator Nolen, who has decades of aviation experience, Mr. Washington has never flown a plane, has never worked for an airline, has never earned certificates in aviation safety,” said Cruz.  

Nolen disagreed with the committee, expressing his view that Washington was fully capable of heading the FAA.

Next week, the agency plans to hold a safety summit in response to recent aviation incidents and close calls.

The post FAA Safety, Aircraft Certification Focus of Senate Hearing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Washington’s March 1 hearing comes nearly eight months after his nomination by the Biden administration, and the FAA has been without a permanent leader for more than a year.  

Wednesday’s hearing highlighted several challenges the agency has faced over the last few months—including thousands of flight disruptions, the first ground stop since 9/11, staffing shortages, and several potentially catastrophic incursions at U.S. airports.

• READ MORE: FAA Launches Probe Following Boston Runway Incursion

In his opening statement, Washington said, “The FAA is at a crossroads—an agency that must protect the safest era in aviation, modernize its technology, lift employee morale while staffing up, and maintain its global leadership in aviation.”

He touted his leadership skills as the current CEO of Denver International Airport—the third-busiest in the world—and his military experience, having served 24 years and earning the highest enlisted rank of Command Sergeant Major, E-9.

He remarked, “We need permanent leadership at the top of the FAA to address the challenges that we have seen in the last several years. If confirmed, I will draw on a career spanning almost 45 years to be that leader. The safety of the traveling public will remain my top priority—as it has been for me leading the third largest airport in the world, two large transit agencies, and men and women in uniform.”

However, several members of Congress brought up Washington’s lack of aviation experience and his background, which has been tainted with several recent controversies and lawsuits. 

Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who was unsuccessful in delaying Washington’s hearing, was critical of his legal entanglements and ability to lead the FAA. “He does not have any experience in aviation safety. This quite simply is a position he is not qualified for. I’m disappointed that the administration has chosen to treat a critical safety position as a patronage job.”

Cruz went on to grill Washington on his aviation knowledge and whether or not he has ever flown an airplane, worked for an airline, as an air traffic controller, or for a company that manufactures aircraft, or if he knows what led to the Boeing 737 Max crashes. “For this administration to nominate someone as FAA administrator who can’t answer the question, ‘Why were 346 people killed in horrific crashes’ that resulted in the 737 Max being grounded for a long time is striking!”

Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) was surprised that the administration renominated Washington. “I think it’s fair to say that you would already be confirmed if there had not been serious, bipartisan questions about your qualifications and fitness for office,” he said.  

When Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) questioned the nominee on what airspace requires an ADS-B transponder, what causes an aircraft to stall, or what the separation minimums are between aircraft, Washington again came up short, reiterating that he is not a pilot.

“The FAA can’t afford to be led by someone who needs on-the-job training,” said Budd. “And for that reason, I’m going to be opposing your nomination.”

Several other Republicans were concerned with Washington’s track record of prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies ahead of what they deemed more pressing matters in his previous leadership roles.

Meanwhile, several Democrats backed Washington’s nomination saying Republican resistance is part of a smear campaign, while Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) called their opposition a “hatchet job.”

In a letter to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democrats voiced their support of Washington, saying the FAA needs a leader as soon as possible. They also noted previous FAA nominees who lacked aviation experience but were confirmed, such as Michael Huerta.

Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said, “He’s not an airline industry insider using his role as a position for the industry to police itself. The challenges facing the FAA are those of managing a large, complex bureaucracy badly in need of modernization, and certainly in that respect he’s no novice.” 

The FAA has been without a permanent leader since April 2022 when Stephen Dickson stepped down midway through his term. Billy Nolen has since been acting as temporary administrator. 

The post Senate Grills FAA Nominee in Confirmation Hearing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The 2023 reauthorization provides funding and authority for a range of years after last being signed in 2018. At the time, the bill provided the FAA with $97 million in funding until September 30, 2023. It included significant legal amendments and considerations for safely integrating unmanned aerial systems into the airspace, speeding up funding for airport projects, supersonic travel policies, aircraft noise, and the transport of lithium batteries. 

Business Leaders Weigh In

In the subcommittee session on Wednesday, lawmakers wanted to focus on the fast-growing advanced air mobility (AAM) sector that features a range of new eVTOLS and UAS operators with various business models. Moreover, the senate group honed on the certification process, workforce pipeline, and infrastructure needed to support adding those new aerial vehicles to the national airspace. There were testimonies from the Commercial Drone Alliance, the FAA Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ASSURE), Honeywell Aerospace, and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). 

Eviation’s Electric Milestone

It was a particularly timely moment for Eviation president Gregory Davis, whose company just the day before demonstrated Alice, its fully electric aircraft, for the first time. In a prepared statement shared with the senate subcommittee, Davis said his company’s goal is to show people what affordable, clean, and sustainable aviation looks and sounds like for the first time in a fixed-wing, all-electric aircraft. Moreover, he urged lawmakers to work with other foreign regulators, such as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), to fast-track the electric aircraft subsector.

• READ MORE: Eviation’s ‘Alice’ Electric Demonstrator Flies for the First Time

NBAA’s Bolen: ‘A Crucial Time’

Also present was NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen, who outlined the business aviation case for advanced air mobility, including policies that his organization thought supported integrating those new technologies. In February, Bolen told FLYING, “Business aviation has always been about on-demand air mobility,” and that supporting these new technologies would be one of NBAA’s priorities for the year.

• READ MORE: NBAA’s Bolen: Change Brings Opportunity

Before the senator on Wednesday, Bolen explained how the new AAM sector, with the proper monetary and regulatory support, would result in job creation and growing the economy, including other benefits like security, accessibility, and sustainability.

“With the current authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expiring a little more than a year from today, this hearing comes at a crucial time,” Bolen said. With many eVTOL startups promising to have their new vehicles available for commercial flight by 2024, Bolen told lawmakers that the FAA needed to “keep pace with its promised regulatory schedule so that the first AAM commercial operations can occur as soon as 2024.” Citing a Deloitte study, he said the AAM market in the U.S. will generate $115 billion annually by 2035 and create more than 280,000 high-paying jobs.

The post Business Aviation Leaders Meet With Senators To Discuss Future Technologies appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The act, also known as U.S. Senate Bill 516, was introduced by Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., giving the Secretary of Transportation the authority to create an interagency working group to coordinate efforts to bolster the AAM industry. It passed a Senate vote Monday.

Pete Bunce, president and CEO of General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) applauded the move. 

We applaud the Senate for passing the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act (S.516). Read more: https://t.co/5azjN49JQc

NASA@JerryMoran @SenatorSinema pic.twitter.com/qVGlClsZpS

— GAMA (@GAManufacturers) March 24, 2022

“As Advanced Air Mobility continues to develop,” he said in a statement, “it will be essential for federal government agencies and departments to be coordinated and prepared to usher in this rapidly developing sector of aviation which will facilitate additional transportation options, create jobs, spur economic activity and competitiveness, advance environmental sustainability, foster further advancement in aerospace technology and support emergency preparedness.” 

He added, “We applaud the Senate for passing the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act, which has broad bipartisan and bicameral support. We are very appreciative of all the work of those that championed the bill in the Senate, especially its sponsors, Senators Moran and Sinema.”

The group will work to advise the federal government on its role in the AAM sector, focusing on economic opportunities, physical and digital security risks, and infrastructure. The recommendations given will be influenced in part by a plethora of stakeholders, such as airports, labor groups, local and tribal officials, and first responders.

Before the bill can be sent to the White House, differences must be settled between this bill and the U.S. House of Representatives’ companion bill—H.R. 1339. The bipartisan House bill was introduced by Reps. Sharice Davids, D-Kansas, and Rep. Garret Graves, R-La.

• READ MORE: Congress Votes to Support Advanced Air Mobility

“Both the Senate and House have worked diligently, in a bipartisan manner, to pass their versions of the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act. We are on the cusp of the future of aviation, and it is our hope that Congress can work expeditiously to get the bill finalized so that we can further develop and grow the Advanced Air Mobility sector,” Bunce said. 

The post Senate Passes Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Senate Commerce Committee made the announcement after the release of a 97-page report summing up a multi-year investigation into accidents involving two Boeing 737 Max airplanes from two air carriers that happened within five months of each other. In all, 346 people were killed. 

Both losses were attributed in part to the malfunction of the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS), a flight stabilizing program added to the 737 Max to counteract a nose pitch-up tendency. The pilots allegedly were not sufficiently trained on the use of the MCAS. In both crashes, the aircraft entered an uncommanded nose dive from which the pilots could not recover.

The accidents resulted in a 20-month grounding of the entire 737 Max fleet and prompted Congress to pass sweeping reforms on how the FAA certifies airplanes.

During the investigation, the Senate Committee received pages of documentation and testimony from whistleblowers, who raised concerns about the safety culture at Boeing where, the report concluded,  “the current aircraft certification process places too much pressure on line engineers and production staff.”

• Get FLYING Magazine delivered to your home with a subscription. Click to subscribe.

The report states the “FAA’s oversight of the certification process has eroded,” noting that the FAA had delegated much of its authority to Boeing to essentially self-certify the aircraft. This resulted in “undue pressure” at Boeing. In addition, there were allegations that whistleblowing—the practice of calling attention to safety issues—was met with retaliation.

According to a statement from Boeing, the company has received the committee’s report and has begun to review it.

“Safety and quality are Boeing’s highest priorities, and Boeing teammates are encouraged to speak up whenever they have safety or quality concerns,” a Boeing spokesperson noted, adding, “There are multiple channels available to report any such concerns, including confidentiality or anonymously, and employees are protected against any form of retaliation.”

The Senate Committee is chaired by Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington. The 737 Max is built in Washington at Renton Municipal Airport (KRNT) outside of Seattle.

In a letter to FAA Administrator Steve Dickson, Cantwell asked him to “review the concerns raised by these whistleblowers, and implement necessary changes to improve safety in the aviation industry.”

The FAA has said that it “takes all whistleblower allegations seriously and does not tolerate retaliation against those who raise safety concerns.”

In addition, the FAA has a published document depicting the timelines of events in regard to the 737 investigation.

Boeing officials note that many of the issues covered by the committee’s report have been previously publicized and the aerospace company has worked to address them.

“Boeing has made significant changes to improve its safety culture, including the creation of a new organization dedicated to product and services safety across the Boeing enterprise and the implementation of a safety management system,” the document says. “And Congress has made numerous changes to aviation oversight in the Aircraft Certification, Safety, Accountability Act. We remain focused on those improvements, and we will review the report’s findings and recommendations as we continue that process.”

The post Senate Committee’s 737 Max Report Critical of FAA, Boeing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.