In recent years, movies like “Armageddon” and “Deep Impact” about have shown asteroids threatening the Earth and showing devastating effects from impacts. Planetary defense efforts and the possibility of such events are not just science fiction.
NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have been working together to learn about potential dangers from asteroids and other near-Earth objects. They have also taken concrete steps to be able to protect us if a dangerous asteroid did come our way.
DART Planetary Defense Mission Deflects Asteroid
On 24 November 2021, NASA launched the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) on a Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The goal of this planetary defense initiative was to strike an asteroid with a spacecraft moving at high speed to try to change its orbit and deflect it away from Earth.
DART also carried a small satellite from the Italian Space Agency (ASI). This was the Light Italian CubeSat for Imaging of Asteroids (LICIACube). It was about the size of a shoebox. It split apart from DART several days before the impact.
DART launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base on planetary defense mission to attempt to deflect an asteroid. | Image: NASA
The target for the DART mission was the Dimorphos moonlet, which orbits the larger asteroid Didymos. Dimorphos is about 6.8 million miles from Earth Neither object was a threat to Earth, but they were relatively close considering the vast distances between objects in space. Didymos is about a half mile in diameter, and Dimorphos is about 525 feet in diameter.
Image showing size of Dimorphos moonlet compared to Roman Colosseum. Image: ESA
DART reached the Didymos system on 26 September 2022 and recorded its own images up to a few seconds before the impact. These images were able to pinpoint the exact impact site within one meter. DART struck Dimorphos 7:14 p.m. and it took 38 seconds for signals confirming the successful impact to reach Earth. DART was moving at about 14,000 miles per hour at impact.
Detailed Images from Satellites and Telescopes Provide Proof of Successful DART Mission
The LICIACube was able to take detailed images of Dimorphos from before and just three minutes after the impact. These showed debris around Dimorphos following the collision, important confirmation of the success of this planetary defense initiative.
Image from the Hubble Space Telescope of Debris from Dimorphos following impact with DART Spacecraft. | Image: NASA
The mission then shifted to analyzing the effect of the collision. Since DART’s impact with Dimorphos, astronomers have been using ground-based telescopes, the LICIACube, and the Hubble Space telescope to observe it. Their investigation has confirmed that DART did change Dimorphos’s orbit around Didymos.
“This result is one important step toward understanding the full effect of DART’s impact with its target asteroid” said Lori Glaze, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
Image of Dimorphos eleven seconds before DART Spacecraft Strikes it on Planetary Defense Mission. | Image: NASA
European Space Agency Launches HERA Mission to Study DART Impact
To perform a follow-up observation of DART, the ESA launched its Hera mission on 7 October 2024 to revisit Didymos and Dimorphos. Hera, which ESA calls “Europe’s Flagship Planetary Defender,” launched on a Falcon 9 Rocket from Cape Canaveral.
Hera should reach the Didymos system in January or February of 2027. Scientists hope it will provide important information useful for future planetary defense efforts.
Hera Spacecraft during Mission to Didymos Asteroid System. | Image: ESA
A Boost from Mars on Hera Mission
The trip will require several complex maneuvers including passing within about 3100 miles of Mars. This will use the planet’s gravity to accelerate the spacecraft.
“We are very fortunate that Mars is in the right place at the right time to lend a hand to Hera,” says Pablo Muñoz from ESOC’s Mission Analysis team, who planned Hera’s journey. “This enabled us to design a trajectory that uses the gravity of Mars to accelerate Hera towards Didymos, offering substantial fuel savings to the mission and allowing Hera to arrive at the asteroids months earlier than would otherwise be possible.”
Hera to Examine Impact of DART Mission
Once Hera arrives at the Didymos system, it will begin series of close observations. It will perform five observation passes, each getting closer to the surface of Didymos. On its fourth pass, Hera will fly at about 3100 feet above the surface and eventually land on Dimorphos.
During the mission, Hera will examine the density and shapes of Didymos and Dimorphos. It will also observe changes in the movement and orbit of Dimorphos and closely examine the impact crater from DART.
European Center Maintains Data on near-Earth Objects
All of this work to study ways to protect Earth from asteroids and other objects is based on real data. In recent years, the ESA has been keeping track of objects from its Near-Earth Object Coordination Centre (NEOCC), the operational center of its Planetary Defense Office. It gathers information from telescopes and other sensors.
The NEOC is at ESA’s ESRIN site in Frascati, Italy. It is the the central access point for an entire network of European near-Earth object data sources. The NEOC uses the data to study orbits, monitor impacts, and analyze potential risks. This includes giving nations timely data regarding objects moving close to Earth.
Small portion of risk list from ESA near-Earth Objects Coordination Centre Database. | Image: ESA
A near-Earth object is an asteroid or comet which passes close to the Earth’s orbit. This means it is within about 28 million miles of Earth’s orbit. The NEOCC also has a website with current information and statistics on asteroid numbers, upcoming close asteroid flybys, and ESA’s asteroid risk list.
Kiwi Airlines typified the saga of starting an airline in the 1990s.
With low fares and high quality, Kiwi International Airlines should have been a stand out success story. But like most airlines of the post-deregulation era, internal conflicts, FAA issues, competition and a few too many customer perks, the airline failed. The story behind Kiwi is fascinating even though its an all too common story of failure in the industry.
Kiwi was founded in 1992 with Robert Iverson, a former Eastern Airlines pilot, along with several other pilots from various failed, sold, and merged airlines. In the beginning stages of their plan, they referred to themselves as the “Kiwi Acquisition Group,” referencing the Kiwi bird that couldn’t fly.
The name stuck and after several investments from the founding pilots and their new employees, they officially became Kiwi Airlines. Kiwi International Airlines was a Part 121 employee owned and operated airline. The airline was focused on a very low cost experience for the consumer without sacrificing quality. Great meals, decorated aircraft, and low cost airfare were hallmarks of Kiwi service.
Kiwi Airlines launched on a high note.
Employee motivation was initially very high due to higher than average pay averaging up to double the pay at other airlines. The pay, combined with very positive labor relations meant that the airline started off on a very positive note. After acquiring two Boeing 727-200 aircraft, the airline proceeded to make their first flight in September of 1992 from Newark International Airport to Chicago’s Midway airport.
The airline was committed to customer ease and satisfaction flying various non-stop routes, many of which were departing from smaller, more accessible airports. Throughout the year, they maintained an impressive safety record and made many customers happy.
Quickly began to struggle
Not everything was great at Kiwi though. Despite making money off of half-full passenger loads due to a favorable cost-structure and creating extremely satisfied customers, the airline had a $6 million loss in its first year.
Just 18 months later, the airline had its first major issue on its hands. Thirteen of their acquired aircraft were grounded by the FAA because they had concerns about their pilot documentation procedures. They lost $2 million because of this misstep but quickly fixed the issue.
Even with their challenges, Kiwi Airlines continued to grow and customers enjoyed the service. Thanks to their great customer service and strong safety record, the Conde Nast Traveler named Kiwi the best domestic airline in the United States.
The airline had acquired 16 leased aircraft and employed over 1,000 individuals by 1995. They added additional routes and grew rapidly. That same year, Iverson was removed from his leadership post. He eventually spoke out against Kiwi Airlines just as the airline began experiencing the first real business and operational challenges and suffering major monetary losses. The hits kept coming.
Kiwi Airlines owed several million dollars to the IRS. They also owed money to various airports around the country. The FAA grounded many of their aircraft and determined that a large amount of their pilots were undertrained.
Kiwi Airlines maintained that these actions were an over-reaction and continued to push their safety record as evidence. The attention didn’t help their bottom line. Many employees were laid off and those that remained had to accept a 17% pay cut.
Bankruptcy follows
Additional layoffs continued in 1996. Kiwi’s paper value was only worth an estimated $35 million. In September of that year, Kiwi Airlines officially began chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. They suspended most of their operation in October of 1996, except for charter flights.
In January of 1997 attempted to startup again by running a limited schedule flying its trunk routes. Unfortunately it didn’t last long. By the end of 1998, they were deep in the red again. They owed several airports over $750,000 total and the United States Department of Transportation began several investigations into the airline for failure to meet federal fitness standards for air carriers and various other issues.
In March of 1999 Kiwi Airlines was still hanging on, although barely, despite several changes of those in charge of the company and various attempted bailouts and loans. They were only operating charter flights with four aircraft left in their fleet, flying to six cities with less than 500 individuals employed. In December of 1999, the aircraft finally called it quits and was liquidated.
Kiwi had many things passengers wanted in an airline, but unfortunately the late 1990’s were tough for the entire industry and even a tougher time to start a successful airline. Like many other upstarts, Kiwi failed. Despite the sad finish, Kiwi flew over 8,000,000 passengers with no incidents and left the industry with a surprisingly strong safety record.
Millions of people are traveling this holiday season to see family and friends. For one grinch near Miami airport, interfering with flights using a green laser put him on the naughty list.
A man was arrested near Miami International Airport for pointing a laser at moving aircrafts on Christmas Day. It’s a problem that the FAA says is more common than you think.
It’s Not Easy Seeing Green
Miami-Dade police reportedly arrested a Brazilian national for directing a green laser pointer at aircraft landing at Miami International Airport on Wednesday.
Officers arrested Francisco Teixeira, 45, near the airport after an American Airlines flight landed. The pilot filed a complaint with police, pinpointing the location where the laser likely originated.
Police claim that Teixeira was inside a room at a nearby La Quinta Inn when he pointed the laser. Officers found a laser pointer inside his room during a search. The pointer emitted a green laser just as the pilot described.
Photo: American Airlines
Officers were able to confirm the device was used to disrupt flights as they were on approach to Miami International Airport.
Teixeira is facing charges of abuse of a laser lighting device, which is a felony offense under both federal and Florida laws. He is currently being detained at the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center.
If convicted, he may face large fines and possible time in prison.
The FAA Cracking Down on Laser Pointers
This is an ongoing challenge for pilots and crew flying aircraft around the globe. Following headlines of drone discoveries in the Northeast, the FAA issued a warning to not point laser pointers at the sky.
“Aiming a laser at an aircraft is a serious safety hazard and a violation of federal law,” the FAA’s statement reads.
The FAA explains that laser pointers can distract or temporarily blind aircraft pilots. When a laser is directed at a cockpit, the laser light can refract off of items in the cockpit like a window or a HUD causing the green light to scatter throughout the cockpit.
The sudden burst of light can significantly impede cockpit duties or even cause lasting eye damage. With each commercial flight carrying tens or hundreds of passengers at a time, there’s much more at risk than what most troublemakers with laser pointers realize.
Image: By Tomás Del Coro from Wikimedia Commons
“Intentionally aiming a laser at an aircraft isn’t a prank, it is a federal crime with lasting consequences,” says President of the Air Line Pilots Association Capt. Jason Ambrosi.
The FAA reports at least 15 laser pointer-related injuries occurred in 2024. The organization also notes that pointing a laser at an aircraft can result in monetary charges and up to five years in prison.
Bottom line? Don’t even think about pointing a laser in the sky and definitely not at any aircraft.
In the early days of aviation, it was a preferred practice to ‘foam the runway’ if an aircraft had a landing gear emergency. The thinking behind this practice was that if an aircraft had an emergency, fire retardant foam would be sprayed on the runway by emergency personnel to prevent sparks from igniting leaking fuel or the aircraft itself on arrival.
In earlier days of aviation, the concept of foaming the runway was seen as a best practice. Piston driven aircraft and airliners were slower. Runway length was typically not as much of a factor due to the relatively low speed approaches of the aircraft. Foaming the runway was seen as a way to prevent fires from starting.
The video below shows how firefighters deployed foam on the runway prior to a known arrival of an aircraft with a gear malfunction.
Aircraft were generally less reliable. Landing gear issues were more common and training on such scenarios were not as rigorous. Foaming was seen as the best option at the time but has been superseded by other approaches.
Foaming The Runway Is a Time Intensive Process
There are many difficulties with ‘foaming’ a runway. First, it is a lengthy process. A runway can be anywhere from one to three miles long. This means that it can take a lengthy time to deploy the fire retardant chemicals. Emergencies can happen fast.
While firefighting crews typically respond to an unexpected incident in less than 3 minutes, the time and coordination necessary to foam a runway in a coordinated manner with many vehicles would be much lengthier and time-consuming.
Foaming The Runway Requires Significant Chemicals
The amount of fire retardant necessary to ‘foam’ a runway can be significant. All airfields have a limited amount of fire vehicles and fire retardant chemicals. This means that some retardant that could be used to put out a fire after an incident would have already been disbursed prior to the incident. An FAA circular from 1966 highlights some of the risks with foaming the runway due to a landing gear malfunction. This circular was rescinded in 1987 by the FAA.
Advances in pilot training and aircraft safety
As modern aircraft have improved over time, landing gear and hydraulic systems have improved in robustness and reliability. This makes the likelihood of a landing gear malfunction much less common. While landing gear malfunctions still occur, they are relatively rare. Aircraft systems are more robust as well to reduce the likelihood of leaks and increase the amount of redundancies in case of a malfunction.
Additionally, pilot training has better emphasized the importance of fully diagnosing emergencies and utilizing alternate systems to deploy landing gear and flaps. This means that pilots are more comprehensive in their diagnosis and resolution of issues, lessening the frequency of landing with an unresolved issue that could require foaming the runway.
Improved Firefighting Techniques
An airport firefighting truck at Edmonton, Canada. Image: Alex Juorio (CC 2.0)
Aircraft systems and pilot training play a large part in successfully resolving aircraft incidents safely. Firefighting techniques have also improved drastically over the years. Airport firefighters regularly train to meet modern response time requirements.
They are trained how to best approach an aircraft to most effectively fight a fire and keep passengers and crews safe. Firefighters also have better tools to spot ‘hot spots’ on a stricken aircraft and more precisely target a fire.
Foam Can Introduce Additional Complexities
There are a few other reasons why foaming a runway is no longer the preferred option in an aircraft landing emergency. Modern airliners have precise landing data to ensure a safe stopping margin when landing. This information is based on the approach speed, runway available, winds, and surface friction.
A foamed runway has the effect or reducing the surface friction verses a dry runway. That means that the landing distance on a foamed runway would be significantly longer. While all aircraft have landing data for wet and snowy runways, the type of foam used could vary by airport meaning that the precise friction on a runway may be indeterminate.
In any emergency, you want to control the variables. Foaming the runway can add additional complexity and unknown risk.
Lastly, many firefighting foams contain PFAS. These are chemicals known to cause harm to the human body and the environment. While the chemicals are still needed for actual firefighting, the usage of them have been limited in training to reduce harm and long-term environmental risk.
In the late summer of 1980, as a Short 330 copilot, I encountered the Grim Reaper again. I thought he might lay off me since I wasn’t in a combat aircraft or in a combat zone, but here he was, empty eye sockets and all, watching over my shoulder.
The final mission leg one night took us from Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) to Salisbury, MD, with a 2100 takeoff time with a full load of 30 passengers. The weather briefing had been ominous with severe thunderstorms forecast, but takeoff and departure toward the Chesapeake Bay Bridge had been clear. Shortly after crossing the Bay, however, we picked up a dire radar depiction in the vicinity of Salisbury, a bright red return with a narrow yellow perimeter indicating a powerful storm. It was about ten miles from the Salisbury Airport but seemed headed in roughly that direction, southwest to northeast. We approached from the northwest.
As we reached 30 miles from the field, the storm had moved to within five miles of the airport. I considered that we should return to Baltimore because it would be a very close call on beating the storm to Salisbury. But, this was the last leg of the day, Salisbury was our domicile, and get-home-itis suggested maybe we should give it a shot. As a relatively new commuter copilot in the Short 330, I asked the captain, Deano, if we might consider returning to BWI.
“Naw,” he said, “we can make it.” With that he pushed up the throttles and the race was on.
With more than ten miles’ visibility we could clearly see the runway and airport as we lined up on a nine-mile final. It looked like we had it made. The storm, a towering black column with crackling lightning, seemed about two miles on the other side of the runway, but it was obvious we would get there before it did and land with clear visibility.
A Short 330 (or any plane) is no match for a giant thunderstorm. (Wikipedia commons)
Thunderstorms are impressive creatures. They can develop as eight-mile-high vacuum cleaners violently sucking up the ground air around the storm base and propelling it upward violently until it spews out the top of the column. As the low-level air is sucked off the ground, it must be replaced, usually from the air several hundred feet above it. As this air above the ground air is pulled downward toward the ground, it too must be replaced, usually with some of the ground air rising into the storm. This creates vertically circular eddies swirling around the storm at irregular intervals.
Just as I declared to myself we were home safe on about a one-mile final, we encountered one of the violent, vertically circular vortices in the clear air just ahead of the storm. This is termed the frontal gust that, if observed from the ground, displays trees with branches thrashing and bending back and forth in the strong wind. We had a fifty-fifty chance of getting an updraft or downdraft.
By Ardfern (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons
Had we hit a downdraft, we would have all been dead in the cornfield off the approach end of the runway in about three seconds. But my guardian angel saved me and we caught an updraft.
Suddenly we were not in control of the plane. I felt as if a giant invisible hand had scooped us up and raised us into the sky, a sensation similar to a rapidly rotating Ferris wheel after you pass the bottom of the circular arc and begin to rise rapidly.
Deano pulled the throttles to idle and shoved the nose downward in a futile attempt to descend to the runway that had begun to pass under us. Despite idle power and 15 degrees nose low attitude we rose at 1,500 feet per minute. The power of this force made me later realize we could never have recovered if the air column had been going down instead of up.
Finally, as we neared the departure end of the 5000-foot runway, the upward force released us and left us 1,500 feet above the ground and gasping in terror. But we were back in control of the plane. I’m sure the passengers sensed our plight. We raised the gear and flaps and sped away from the mayhem we had just encountered. A few miles from the airport we did a large 180-degree turn to appraise our chances of getting back to the field. The sight as the airdrome location came back into view sucked all the air from my lungs.
The storm had moved on to the field, blocking our return. Further, in its mass to the southwest and threat of moving to the northeast, it had blocked any possible return to BWI with our current fuel load. Behind us was nothing but the Atlantic Ocean. Except…
Twenty miles away and five miles from the shoreline lay the Ocean City, MD airport with 5000 feet of runway. Unfortunately, it was closed for the night, no lights, no tower, nothing. Further, although we had visual conditions, we didn’t know exactly where the field was located and had nothing to guide us there except an educated guess from the road network leading to the resort.
Again we went to full power to reach Ocean City with the storm roiling up behind us. We made our guess on the airport location and illuminated our landing lights, turning to and fro trying to sight the runway. Finally, there it was, all 5000 beautiful feet of concrete. We configured with gear and flaps and headed straight for it. We had no idea which way the wind was blowing and didn’t care, we were putting it down immediately regardless of the wind.
The frontal gust had not quite arrived so the winds seemed near calm. We landed, and as we rolled down the runway, the passengers broke into applause and cheers. We turned off at the end of the runway and began taxiing back toward the terminal. About the time we arrived at the gate area, the frontal gust arrived and then the storm with rain as heavy as I have ever experienced with the wind rocking the plane on its landing gear.
(Excerpt from “Flying the Line, an Air Force Pilot’s Journey, Military Airlift Command, 1981-1993,” by Jay Lacklen. Click here to buy the book.)
Editors note: This article will be updated as we learn additional information. Latest update: 29 Dec 24, 1400 EST
JeJu Air Flight 2216 Crashed At Muan International Airport Killing 179 People, 2 Survivors
A Jeju Air Boeing 737-800 crashed at Muan International Airport in Jeollanam, South Korea today. Flight 7C2216 was scheduled from Bankok, Thailand to Muan, South Korea. In video footage, the jet was seen landing on the runway without its gear extended before slamming into an approach lighting berm.
The Boeing 737-800 aircraft involved in the crash was HL8088. According to Airfleets.com, it first entered service in April of 2009 with Ryanair. The jet later entered service with Jeju Air in 2017.
Video below. We warn you that the footage is difficult to watch.
🚨#BREAKING: Video shows crash of Jeju Air Flight 2216 in South Korea. 181 people on board.
At least 28 killed in South Korea plane crash, fate of 151 people still unknown pic.twitter.com/QnmB9PbcDO
Many Fatalities on JeJu Air Flight 2216, Only two survivors
There were 181 people on board including 175 passengers and 6 crew members. A translated South Korean news report stated, “All passengers who crashed at Muan Airport are presumed dead except for 2 survivors.”
Video online showed an engine issue prior to landing
A video posted on X showed a Jeju Air 737-800 with an engine issue. Multiple posts online say that this was the same aircraft involved in the accident.
🚨🇰🇷 SHOCKING FOOTAGE: BIRD STRIKE SEEN ON JEJU AIR FLIGHT 2216 BEFORE CRASH
Flight Radar 24 data shows a typical approach profile to runway 1 with the last information received at 450 feet AGL. The data shows a slight climb prior to the data stopping. Flight Radar’s blog on the crash states that “there are multiple possible possible explanations for why an aircraft would stop sending ADS-B messages, including loss of electrical power to the transponder, a wider electrical failure, or pilot action on the flight deck.”
Based on the position of the video (see previous post), it would appear that the 737 was landing on RWY 19 (in the opposite direction of the last received ADS-B position). This leased us to believe that the final ADS-B messages we received represent preparation for a possible… pic.twitter.com/b4EIkNBBss
AirNavRadar reported that the same jet declared an emergency two days earlier. However, it appears to be due to a medical emergency onboard.
We can confirm that yesterday, December 27, 2024, the Boeing 737-8AS (Registration HL8088) involved in today's accident declared an emergency and diverted to Seoul.
AirNavRadar reported that the same jet declared an emergency two days ago and diverted to Incheon International Airport. However, a Korean news source states that the reason for the diversion was due to a Chinese passenger complaining of head and chest pain.
Flying a B-52 close behind a tanker during air refueling is one of the most demanding maneuvers in aviation. It may look steady and controlled from the outside, but inside the cockpit, it’s a tense balancing act.
Air refueling is supposed to be a very benign maneuver. But there is nothing ‘normal’ about being in a large aircraft just 6-18 feet away from another airliner-sized jet.
For the uninitiated, it’s more of a clench your jaw, squeeze your calves, and a ‘give it all you got’ type of moment. That apprehension leads pilots to tend to over-control the aircraft. New pilots will typically attempt to move too abruptly into the contact position. Their nerves and lack of experience mean that they’ll either get too close (forcing a breakaway) or fail to maintain a stable-enough position to grab a plug.
From experience, I can tell you that even the most generic, blue-skies weather air refueling between two large aircraft is an intense moment. Add weather, turbulence, darkness, a student boom operator, or a maintenance issue, and the intensity of the moment skyrockets.
It takes discipline, focus, constant practice, and a conscious effort to ‘chill’ while air refueling. Many instructor pilots teach with a mantra that says, “Slow is fast, and fast is slow.” Start stable, stay stable. While the mission requires refueling, it actually wastes more time to make a hasty attempt and fail than to just move towards the refueler at a steady pace.
So I get it, air refueling is hard…What’s your point?
Photo: US Air Force
My point is that the guys in these pictures have balls of steel. B-52 and KC-135 pilots used to execute a ‘confidence’ maneuver known as wifferdills. They not only did it in a dissimilar KC-135 and B-52 formation (which is challenging), but they did it IN contact, meaning that they were less than 20 feet away from each other with a boom connecting the two of them.
The maneuver was designed to build confidence. It was typically reserved for the instructor upgrade program. The philosophy was that air refueling wasn’t just about flying the perfect airspeed, holding a precise attitude, and heading.
As a KC-135 pilot, it was more important to be a stable platform. Any control inputs should be predictable. Any abruptness or large adjustments would make the receiver’s job harder, if not impossible. For the B-52 pilot, it was important to teach upgraders that successful air refueling meant following the tanker.
They should do what the tanker does to get the gas. If the pilot successfully followed the tanker and avoided focusing on the horizon or other distractions, they would get the gas. To prove this, the instructors’ crews would coordinate a wifferdill. If the student stayed ‘on the boom’ during the maneuver, they would be surprised to recognize that they were slicing through the sky at sharp (but not heavily loaded) bank angles.
Do they still do this training?
Sadly, no. This training was done when the KC-135 and B-52 were both part of Strategic Air Command, or SAC. SAC pilots took intense pride in flying excellence, professionalism, and discipline. Once SAC was dissolved, KC-135s moved over to Air Mobility Command in the early 1990s. The wifferdill ‘confidence maneuver’ faded with the command. Air refueling today is much more benign.
The Concorde was said to be ahead of its time in the 20th century, achieving a speed of 1,354 miles per hour — twice the speed of sound. The Concorde was capable of flying from London to New York in under three hours. It was discontinued in 2003, and none of the 20 Concordes made are still flying today.
Some passengers are curious if there are plans for an even faster jet, and many companies from around the world are working tirelessly to achieve this milestone. Here are four revolutionary jets looking to make history in the future.
Boom Overture: The Self-Proclaimed ‘ World’s Fastest Airliner’
Four Jets Promising to Travel Faster than the Concorde 16
Boom promises the Overture jet to achieve a Mach speed of 1.7 above water, and can carry a range of 64 to 80 passengers in a business configuration. United Airlines states an overture flight from Newark to London would take three and a half hours. Also having been ordered by American Airlines and Japan Airlines, this could be one of the more accessible high-speed jets one would board in the near future.
Former Concorde Pilot Mike Bannister got to pilot the Overture during a flight deck test and had this to say about Boom’s promising supersonic aircraft:
“I’ve long believed that Overture is the rightful successor to Concorde…After experiencing Overture’s flight deck, which is incredibly well designed and delightful to fly, my excitement and enthusiasm for this aircraft has only intensified.”
Boom is also developing its own engine known as ‘Symphony’ with StandardAero assisting in both production and testing in San Antonio, Texas.
Founded in Denver, Colorado, Boom’s Overture aircraft will be assembled in Greensboro, North Carolina. Boom press releases indicate that the Overture may be able to fly with passengers starting 2029.
Venus Detonation Ramjet: Faster than the Concorde?
Top Speed
4,603 miles per hour
Capacity
Unknown
Range
5,000 miles
Planned Year for Service
Unknown
While Venus Aerospace manufactures its own jets, the company is creating a buzz around a new hypersonic engine. The Venus Detonation Ramjet 2,000lb (VDR2) promises to become a ‘major breakthrough’ in fast travel.
The VDR2 comprises just one simple engine that can hope to achieve up to 3,000 miles per hour, or Mach 6, on its aircraft. This versatility allows other manufacturers to potentially build their own supersonic jets with a capable engine such as the VRD2.
The Texas-based company has partnered with Ohio company Velontra to develop this new engine. Velontra Chief Operating Officer Eric Briggs addressed the media on this partnership:
“We can’t wait to dig in, make the first one fly, and ultimately perfect an engine concept that has lived mostly in textbooks but never as a production unit in the air.”
Venus Aerospace is hoping to give the engine its first drone-operated flight in 2025.
Venus also plans to begin production of the Venus Stargazer M400 some point in the 2030s. The Stargazer is slated to seat a dozen passengers at a time and achieve a Mach 9. At 6,905 miles per hour, such aircraft would fly from New York to Tokyo in just an hour.
Nanqiang: From China to Los Angeles in Just Two Hours?
China also has plans to develop a hypersonic jet that may also achieve Mach 6. The Nanqiang No. 1 is said to fly anywhere in the world in two hours or less — “just as convenient as riding your local bus.”
Having started in 2019, the project is taking place at an unnamed location inside China’s Fujian Province. Lead project scientist Yin Zeyong claimed the Nanqiang will ‘change human civilization’.
The Nanqiang’s engine will be a combined cycle engine. The lab dubbed it the “MUTTER” engine, standing for ‘”‘multi-ducted twin-turbines ejector-ramjet’. The engine will also be equipped with two supplemental turbine engines.
In terms of seating capacity, the Nanqiang is currently planned to only have 10 passenger seats.
The similarities with Venus Aerospace don’t stop there. China will also plan to conduct a drone-piloted flight of the Nanqiang in 2025. The lab projects 2035 as a tentative date for when the plane will officially be ready to fly passengers.
Will the Yunxing Be First to Fly?
Yunxing Aircraft designed by Space Transportation for supersonic travel.
While not promised to be as fast as the Nanqiang No. 1 or Stargazer M400, the Yunxing will still look to achieve speeds of up to 3,045 miles per hour. At Mach 4, the Yunxing is said to be twice as fast as the Concorde.
As a tradeoff for slightly slower speeds compared to the other “Mach 6” jets, the Yunxing will be able to carry as many as 70 passengers at a time. A hypothetical London flight to New York would take the Yunxing under two hours.
The Yunxing will also be able to fly at an altitude of over 65,600 feet. Passengers who fly as high as 50,000 feet are able to see the Earth’s curvature.
Despite the successful test flight, Chinese professors claim more fine-tuning can be done to make further improvements on the Yunxing. Despite this, Space Transportation is aiming to get the Yunxing in service by 2027. This is a good handful of years before we could get to see the Stargazer M400 or Nanqiang No. 1.
Elegant and offering pressurized cabin comfort, the Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador found a brief niche with BEA British European Airways, whose image was elevated because of it. A crash with Manchester United Team defined an otherwise mid-century airliner
Design Origins of the Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador
As had occurred in other parts of the world, sights set on World War II’s end signaled a beginning—in this case, of commercial aviation no longer interrupted by conflict and the development of passenger, cargo, and mail aircraft optimized for it.
Taking its name from Lord Brabazon of Tara, the Brabazon Committee was established in Britain to study the emerging markets and then determine the most suitable types to serve them, whether powered by piston, turboprop, or pure-jet engines.
Aircraft Was Designed To Replace The DC-3 and Vickers Viking
Airspeed AS 57 Ambassador G-ALZR of BKS, Liverpool 1968. Image: Calflyer001, CC 2.0
One encompassed European routes, on which the Douglas DC-3 and the Vickers Viking had mostly been deployed, but their replacements needed to incorporate increased seating and the latest technical advancements.
Airspeed was selected to fill the Brabazon Committee’s Type 2A requirement.
Founded in Yorkshire by Alfred Hessel and Neville Shute Norway, both of whom were airship engineers, in 1931, it entered the aerial stage with its AS.1 Tern, a small glider which attracted publicity because of its record-breaking flights. It was followed by its first powered airframe, the ten-passenger AS.4 Ferry, which featured two de Havilland Gipsey II engines and a third upper wing-mounted Gipsey III.
Airspeed Was Formed
Renamed Airspeed (1934) Limited that very year after it was financially-supported by Swan Hunter Wigham Richardson, Ltd, Tyneside Shipbuilders, it was able to embark upon a more ambitious design program, eventually producing the AS.6 Envoy, the AS.8 Viceroy, and the AS.10 Oxford.
“With the outbreak of war in September 1939, Airspeed found itself with a range of aircraft which did not meet the beckoning requirements of the Royal Air Force (RAF), and in 1940 it was announced that de Haviland Aircraft Company had purchased a controlling interest in Airspeed (1934) Limited,” according to BAE Systems.
It was subsequently chosen to manage the Ministry of Aircraft production facility in Christchurch, New Zealand, one of Britain’s commonwealth countries.
Although it concentrated on the production of de Havilland types, such as the Mosquito, the Sea Vixen, and the Vampire, it was tasked with developing Britain’s first purposefully-designed post-war airliner.
“Entered upon in 1943, the Airspeed AS.57…had been seen as belonging to a second post-war generation to replace improvised aircraft or types not ideally suited to the routes, which would be hurried into operation when the war ended,” advises C. Martin Sharp in DH: A History of deHavilland (Airlife, 1982, p. 287).
Design Features of the Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador
Resembling, in overall configuration, the Fokker F.27 Friendship and the Handley Page Herald of the day, the AS.57 Ambassador featured a clean, all-metal, almost circular cross section fuselage with an 82-foot length. Low to the ground, it facilitated boarding, loading, servicing, and maintenance.
One of its cornerstones was its thin, high-aspect ratio, high-mounted, 115-foot wing, which increased speed, decreased drag, and afforded unobstructed passenger views from the cabin.
Power was ultimately provided by two 2,625-hp wing-installed, nacelle-encased, 18-cylinder, two-row Bristol Centaurus 661 radial engines, whose advantages were many.
A large power reserve in the event of engine loss.
A high cruise speed.
The ability to in- or decrease cruise speed based upon departure delay or other-airline competition on the same route.
Yaw axis control was achieved by means of three vertical fins and drag was decreased with a retractable tricycle undercarriage.
How Many People Could the Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador Carry?
Airspeed initially considered 40-passenger four-abreast and 60-passenger four- and five-abreast internal configurations in a pressurized cabin.
How Fast Could The Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador Fly?
Speed varied from a 260-mph cruise to a 312-mph maximum. Range was 550 miles, sufficient for most continental European routes.
An Elegant Design
“The Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador was an elegant, high-wing, two piston-engine airliner design with triple tail fins,” according to BAE Systems’ “Airspeed Ambassador: The Elizabethan Class Airliner of the 1950s” entry. “It had its origins in the Brabazon Committee’s Type 2A (category), originally calling for a piston-powered short-haul feederliner intended to replace the Douglas DC-3 to Ministry Specification 25/43.”
Two prototypes were authorized and their performance was seen as leading to airline interest and orders.
Flight Test Program Ready To Launch The New Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador
Powered by two 2,400-hp Bristol Centaurus 631 engines and piloted by Chief Test Pilot George B. S. Errington and Flight Engineer John Pear, the first prototype, registered G-AGUA, took to the air from Christchurch on July 10, 1947 still in unpressurized form. Although its 45-minute maiden mission could be labeled “satisfactory,” it revealed a few shortcomings, including less-than-effective ailerons and the need for additional flight control development.
The second prototype, G-AKRD, featured both pressurization and a fixed tail bumper to minimize under-fuselage damage in the event of runway strikes when it first flew in August of 1948. But while the airfoils of both were designed to increase lift, they revealed that they required additional strengthening, which delayed the program.
The type’s pressurization was tested when a fuselage was submerged in Portsmouth Docks, located only a short distance from the production plant.
Launched With An Order For 20 Aircraft
BEA, which placed a 3 million British pound launch order for 20 aircraft on September 23, also provided input about needed modifications for its routes, particularly a 47-passenger interior.
A third prototype, conforming to an Ambassador 2, introduced the more powerful Bristol Centaurus 661 engines and gross weight increase from 45,000 to 52,500 pounds. This was later increased to 55,000 pounds.
Airspeed AS.57 Ambassador Enters Service
Having principally operated smaller, earlier-generation aircraft, such as the Vickers Viking and the Douglas DC-3, BEA eagerly needed the larger, more modern Ambassador to enhance its image and cater to greater demand, particularly on the well-traveled continental routes, during the summer of 1951.
Because the modification-caused delays hindered timely delivery, it temporarily operated a loaned example, registered G-ALZN, replacing some of its Vikings between Northolt and Paris.
Delivery of its first full-production standard aircraft, G-ALZS, enabled it to enter a new chapter in its history. As the largest, most modern, and luxurious type it ever operated, it emphasized its newly-introduced prestige by dubbing it “Elizabethan Class,” and each was named after a notable figure from the Elizabethan era. It was inaugurated into service between London and Paris-Le Bourget on March 13, 1952.
Initial Success
Although it progressively replaced its Vikings with AS.57s and took delivery of all 20 ordered aircraft by March of the following year, it introduced all-first-class Silver Wing service on certain routes.
“The Elizabethan Class was an instant success, so other key routes were quickly introduced and at one point, the Ambassador became BEA’s most used aircraft, each attaining more than 2,230 flying hours per annum,” according to BAE Systems.
In its April 17, 1955 timetable, by which time it had already begun to take delivery of turboprop-powered Vickers Viscounts, it advertised, “Fly BEA Silver Wing: First Class services to Paris, Brussels, and Lisbon,” the first two of which were served with Ambassadors.
“Elizabethan airliners leave London Airport daily at 1:00 p.m.—flying time one hour, 20 minutes,” its timetable further noted. “Daily return service leaves Paris at 12:30 p.m.” The Brussels flight departed at 12:45. “Special ‘Silver Wing’ lunch served,” it emphasized.
An aircraft schematic indicated a three-person cockpit crew consisting of the captain, the first officer, and the radio officer; a forward galley and baggage compartment; a 47-passenger cabin with some rear-facing seats; and an aft wardrobe, toilet, and freight hold. Its “Elizabethan” aircraft, it stated, were de Havilland-Airspeed AS.57s, of which it operated twenty.
Tragedy Strikes With Manchester United On Board
Newspaper coverage of the Manchester United crash. Image: edwin.11 Flikr
Although the type was involved in a few nonfatal mishaps, its record was shattered on February 6, 1958 when aircraft G-ALZU, chartered by Manchester United and operating as Flight BE 609, failed to achieve airborne speed at the Munich-Riem Airport.
After beating Red Star Belgrade and making it through to the European Cup’s semi-finals, the football players boarded the AS.57, which made an intermediate refueling stop in Germany.
Under the command of Captain James Thain, it twice conducted its acceleration run, only to be twice aborted because its engines failed to achieve their full power output.
Despite mounting snow and slush, the crew elected to make a third takeoff attempt, now penetrating near-blizzard conditions. Plowing through speed-inhibiting accumulations, it was unable to reach its rotation speed and careened through a fence and into a house instead.
“Thick flames began to envelop the plane…the house caught fire before a hut filled with tires and fuel exploded,” according to Tom Herbert’s “Munich Air Disaster” coverage of the crash in the London Evening Standard.
Of the six crew members and 38 passengers on board, two of the former and 21 of the latter perished, and it took a decade to exonerate the captain, who was initially accused of attempting the takeoff without proper deicing, before the probable cause was ultimately determined as obstructing surface conditions.
Program Conclusion
In order to market the Ambassador, P. E. Gordon-Marshall of the de Haviland business department was appointed to the Airspeed board, but de Havilland itself acquired control in 1948 and fully absorbed it three years later.
“The Airspeed spirit remained, and nothing did more to keep it alive than the stalwart service which the fleet of Ambassadors…gave it for five to six years on the routes of BEA, albeit under the name Elizabethan, which the airline bestowed on it,” according to Sharp (op. cit., p. 289).
After those five or six years, it began to replace its AS.57 fleet with faster, turboprop-powered Viscounts, to which its passengers flocked when given the choice, leaving it to operate its last revenue service on July 30, 1958.
Nevertheless, as the type’s only original carrier, it was able to claim many achievements—namely, it resulted in lower operating costs, a decline in time needed for maintenance, higher load factors than those experienced by any other aircraft it had flown up to the summer of 1957, and a longer service life of its Bristol Centaurus engines than that of any other powerplant it had employed.
In March of 1957, it recorded a 71.9-percent load factor on its Ambassador flights and during the five years preceding it, its fleet had accumulated 151,741 airborne hours.
Second-hand examples were subsequently acquired by the likes of Autair International, BKS Air Transport, and Dan-Air.
Program Discontinued
While it was originally envisioned as offering turboprop power in a later version, de Havilland, increasingly focused on pure-jet Comet development, discontinued the program after two Ambassador 1 prototypes, a single Ambassador 2 prototype, and 20 production-standard Ambassador 2s had been produced.
Sole Survivor That You Can Still See Today
Aircraft G-ALZO, first delivered to BEA on November 25, 1952, became the last to survive, although only in static form.
After its initial operator career, it was used for VIP and transport flights by the Royal Jordanian Air Force in 1960 and then acquired by Dan-Air three years later, at which time it was retrofitted with a rear fuselage cargo door by Marshall of Cambridge, enabling it to undertake passenger and freight flights. The aircraft operated the type’s last scheduled service on September 28, 1971.
Only one AS.57 Ambassador remains today. Image: Alan Wilson
“It was then retired to the Dan-Air Maintenance Base at Lasham,” according to the British Airliners Collection website. “It remained at Lasham until 1986, when it was donated to the British Aircraft Collection and transported by road to Duxford. After long-term restoration in its Conservation Hangar, it was rolled out to join the other airliners in the collection in April 2013.”
It appears that American Airlines will suspend or change some international routes next year as the company doesn’t have the new aircraft from Boeing on hand for them.
With Boeing dealing with multiple internal issues, delays on aircraft have been very common. Many airlines have had to wait as long as six years for deliveries.
Boeing Jets Ain’t Showing
American Airlines (AA) has reportedly suspended several international flights and delayed the start of others as a result of Boeing orders arriving later than expected.
An American Airlines spokesperson responded to Quartz for comment. The spokesperson’s message is as follows:
“As a result of ongoing Boeing 787 delivery delays, American is adjusting service on certain routes in spring 2025 to ensure we are able to re-accommodate customers on affected flights…We’ll be proactively reaching out to our impacted customers to offer alternate travel arrangements and remain committed to mitigating the impact of these Boeing delays while continuing to offer a comprehensive global network.”
An American Airlines Boeing 787-9 from London Heathrow on short final for Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Notable Routes Put on Hold
AA clarifies that the company did not cancel any routes as a result of these delivery delays, but suspended or will soon suspend them. These suspended flights will restart later than expected.
AA’s Chicago-Paris route has been suspended since September. While the airline originally projected the route will restart in April 2025, that tentative month has been changed to May.
The Miami-Paris route will be suspended starting in May, with no clear timeline when the route will return.
The Miami-Bueno Aires route currently has three daily flights. But starting in April, there will only be two available for travelers.
Boeing workers gaze upon their work at the handover ceremony in North Charleston as Boeing delivered the 100th South Carolina made 787 to American Airlines (Photo by Mic Smith)
Boeing’s Backlog
According to Boeing’s website, there are 785 aircraft that have yet to be delivered for the 787 aircraft. American has 25 787-9 aircraft still unfilled. United Airlines, Riyadh Air, and Lufthansa are three airlines with more 787s in waiting.
Boeing recently restarted production after extended delays due to quality issues and an extended strike by its factory workers.
Pegasus Airlines recently placed an outstanding order of at least 100 of the Boeing 737-10 MAX aircraft. The company currently has almost $60 billion in outstanding debts due to ongoing problems such as delivery delays and safety issues.
A disgruntled Delta Air Lines customer vented his frustration on Reddit after the airline allegedly gave his first class seat to a dog that belonged to another passenger.
The passenger outlines his conversations with Delta customer support, and it appears there are mixed messages when they compare to the airline’s official policies.
Image: By Acroterion from Wikimedia Commons
‘Downgraded for a Dog’
Reddit user ben_bob shared a story on the Delta subreddit r/delta about a dog allegedly taking his first class seat.
Before an undisclosed flight, ben_bob states that Delta upgraded his seat to first class due to a seating change. About 15 minutes later, Delta changed his seat again to ‘a worse seat than I previously had’.
When ben_bob asked the desk agent what happened, she only said ‘something changed’. When ben_bob had his chance to board, he was ‘livid’ to find a dog in the seat. The dog was leashed to its presumed owner in the adjacent seat.
Ben_bob contacted Delta’s customer chat support. A representative told him there’s nothing that could be done since customers ‘may be relocated for service animals’.
“There is no way that dog has spent as much with this airline as I have … What an absolute joke, 😅” ben_bob wrote.
“What’s the point of being loyal to this airline anymore, truly. I’ve sat back when others complained about this airline mistreating customers lately and slipping in service levels, but I’m starting to question my allegiance as well. 😡”
The Reddit thread has 3,500 upvotes and 1,300 comments. There’s a mixed reception towards ben_bob’s story. Some readers agree with ben_bob while others criticize his reaction and argue that the owner could be disabled.
A220-100 reg N101DU wearing Delta colors. Image via Delta
Delta’s Dog Policies and Official Response
It appears that Delta may have stepped out of bounds with their decision. As it states on the official website, service animals aren’t allowed to occupy a seat or ‘encroach upon another customer’s space’. Service animals must only sit on the owner’s lap, in the owner’s legroom or in an adjacent legroom if the owner purchased an adjacent seat.
People Magazine reached out for comment about the incident. A Delta spokesperson responded with the following:
‘Delta teams are aware of the customer complaint and are researching the details of what may have occurred.’
The spokesperson encouraged ben_bob to speak with Delta directly. The response message concluded by clarifying that service animals are accommodated on Delta flights without disrupting seating assignments.
A Holiday In The Desert Unlike I Had Ever Experienced Before
Christmas, 1990 Operation Desert Shield, Seeb Air Base, Muscat, Oman
In Camp Nacirema, (“American”, spelled backwards) the off-duty flight crews, support personnel, and security police gathered at the Muscat Rose Saloon for beers under the cool, black starlit sky.
My tent-mate and fellow KC-10 copilot, Kirk Shepherd, and his crew returned from a mission and treated us to a low-altitude KC-10 flyby, using a legal circling approach maneuver.
David Dale (second from the right) at Camp Nacirema in 1990.
It Was A Circling Approach, Not An Airshow
A circling approach is a landing maneuver used when an airport has an instrument approach to get below the clouds but not to the runway of intended landing. If the winds are out of the south but the only approach available is to the north, the crew will fly the northbound approach until below the cloud layer, usually not lower than 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground.
Once clear of the clouds, the crew breaks off the northbound approach and turns 30 degrees right or left and flies to the north end of the airfield, then begins a 180-degree turn, keeping the field in sight and completes the landing to the south. It’s a visual maneuver flown below the clouds once the airport runway and surrounding environment are in sight.
Appearing Like Santa Over The Camp, Right On Time
Many crews had accomplished this approach, which conveniently overflew the camp’s saloon at 700 feet above the ground. Right on schedule, Kirk’s huge KC-10 appeared in the night sky, heading right for us. As they overflew the camp, their boom operator turned on all of their underbelly refueling guidance lights.
Great View Of The KC-10
This is a collection of red, yellow, and green lights in two parallel rows used to tell a receiver aircraft if he was too close, too far, or in the correct refueling position. At the same time, the boom operator lowered the flying boom and wagged it left and right, as Kirk banked the airplane left and right, in a wave to the crowd below. We all cheered and raised our cans of Smithwick Irish Ale, Newcastle Brown Ale, or O’Doul’s non-alcoholic beer.
Wing King Was Not Happy
Our wing commander, not amused by the display, announced that Kirk’s was the last fly-by to be flown over our camp. We protested, saying they were just flying a practice circling approach. He was in no mood to change his mind.
“It was a circling approach right up until the wing-wag. Then it became an airshow. No more!”
A Special Call Back Home Thanks To MARS Radio
MARS Radio.
As the military build-up continued, air crews routinely monitored BBC broadcasts over the airplane’s High Frequency (HF) radio to keep up with the diplomatic efforts and ensure we were aware if war broke out in the middle of our eight-hour missions. The HF radio also came in handy for calling our families back home.
The Military Auxiliary Radio System (MARS) is a volunteer organization that uses U.S. amateur (ham) radio operators to complete calls to our military dependents. From our KC-10 flying high over the Arabian Peninsula, we contacted a radio operator in the States and he or she patched us through to our home telephone in Louisiana.
“I Love You, Over”
Before beginning the conversation, the radio operator explained that they would be monitoring the call and had to switch a dial from Receive to Transmit to carry out the link between the two parties. At the end of each statement my wife or I had to say, “Over,” to let the radio operator know that the other person would now talk. The brief conversations went something like this: “How are you doing, Karin? Over.” “All is fine here. Over.” “I love you. Over.” “I love you, too. Over.”
The touching conversations became memorable for the slogan, “I love you. Over.”
Made The Best Of The Holiday Away
Night one of Desert Storm. Image: David Dale
We closed out 1990 with an outdoor Christmas celebration where I sang in the choir on a wooden stage complete with a fake decorated Christmas tree. I remember thinking that we were in the Middle East, surrounded by dry desert sand and not far from that Little Town of Bethlehem.
Operation Desert Shield provided just what the name implied. We provided a protective air shield over the Arabian Peninsula while ships full of combat personnel and equipment offloaded in ports throughout the region. Our country and allies completed the largest military buildup since World War II in record time.
Avgeekery salutes all the men and women of our great nation and our allies who are serving our far away from home this holiday season. Thank you for what you do.
