- Why ADS-B/In is essential for air safety
- NASA reforms Artemis lunar program
- Why can’t the FAA and the Pentagon communicate and coordinate?
- DC ground stop explained
- Does the Dallas/Ft. Worth area need a third airport?
- Canada’s private airport security screening
- News Notes
- Quotable Quotes
Why ADS-B/In is Essential for Aviation Safety
As I write this, a battle is underway in Congress about competing aviation safety measures—the ALERT Act and the ROTOR Act. Both are claimed to improve aviation safety, but the ROTOR Act would provide much greater safety improvements.
The largest point of contention is that the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform (ROTOR) Act, which passed the Senate unanimously, concerns all aircraft that already broadcast their speed and position via what is called ADS-B/Out. But for other aircraft to benefit from this information, they need to be equipped with ADS-B/In. The latter allows aircraft to receive the ADS-B information broadcast by essentially all aircraft in controlled airspace. The Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act, thanks in part to opposition from the general aviation community, would not require increased use of ADS-B/In, as the ROTOR Act does.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has, for several decades, been calling for ADS-B/In to be required as the obvious complement to ADS-B/Out. Last month, the Washington Times claimed that someone at NTSB was supporting the ALERT Act. “An NTSB official said privately that many within the agency support the ALERT Act because it includes all the agency’s recommendations,” the Washington Times reported.
That prompted this response from NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy:
“I don’t know who this anonymous NTSB ‘official’ is, however anyone saying that we support the ALERT Act and that it fully addresses NTSB recommendations is flat-out wrong. It does not implement our longstanding recommendation on ADS-B/In, as the ROTOR Act does. Whoever said this has no idea that we are actively working with the committees to address our concerns with ALERT.”
The NTSB has provided a side-by-side comparison of the two bills, cited by Jeff Davis of the Eno Center for Transportation on Feb. 27. ALERT requires only a subset of aircraft to be equipped with technology “capable of” receiving ADS-B/In transmissions, which is not the same as providing that information to the cockpit crew. Second, ALERT applies only to turbine-powered aircraft and only in a subset of airspace. It also exempts several types of aircraft covered by the ROTOR Act. ALERT also requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administrator to set up a rulemaking committee to require that this narrower set of “covered” aircraft be equipped with “collision mitigation” technology, whatever that means. The NTSB notes that it is unfamiliar with collision “mitigation” technology and repeats that “We believe that all aircraft should be equipped with technology that avoids collisions, not mitigates them.”
If the NTSB’s long-standing recommendation for ADS-B/In had been adopted by the FAA years ago, and applied also to military aircraft that operate in civil airspace, the deadly collision between a regional jet and an Army helicopter at Reagan National Airport would have been prevented, The helicopter training flight would have been broadcasting its trajectory via ADS-B/Out and the regional jet crew would have seen it on their ADS-B/In display. Yet the Pentagon is now opposing the ROTOR Act.
Why is the House of Representatives opposing the ROTOR Act?
It seems likely to me that the House Aviation Caucus, many of whose members are friends with general aviation organizations, is opposed to the ADS-B/In requirement as an unfunded mandate on private planes. So I asked a knowledgeable aviation consultant what it would cost for a general aviation plane to add ADS-B/In. He explained that the same companies that produced the original ADS-B/Out boxes for private planes are now producing units that include both the transmitter (Out) and the receiver (In) in the same unit, with virtually the same weight and dimensions as the original ADS-B/Out unit. He estimated that adding ADS-B/In should cost less than $1,000. Alternatively, a complete replacement of the existing box with one that includes both Out and In and integrates with either a primary flight display or multi-function display would be less than $3,000.
Those able to afford a private plane have no excuse for opposing a critically important safety improvement because it would cost them between $1,000 and $3,000. ADS-B/In should be required for the widest possible array of aircraft in controlled airspace. This change should be supported by everyone concerned about aviation safety.
NASA Reforms Artemis Lunar Program
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator Jared Isaacman late last month released plans to streamline the agency’s Artemis return-to-the-Moon program. It scraps a number of costly projects and makes the overall program less expensive and more likely to succeed.
Last summer, Reason Foundation published a detailed report by aerospace engineer Rand Simberg, “Why Commercial Space Should Lead the U.S. Return to the Moon.” Simberg’s report proposed that NASA should cancel a number of components of the Artemis program—and Isaacman has proceeded to do that.
As Eric Berger reported in Ars Technica, Isaacman has terminated:
- The Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) for the SLS rocket;
- The Block 1B upgrade of SLS;
- The Mobile Launcher 2 (no longer needed due to EUS being cancelled).
Follow-up news articles suggested (as Simberg recommended) that the planned Lunar Gateway, intended to orbit the Moon, could also be cancelled, as it is not required for the commercial vehicles that would actually carry out the lunar landings. Politico Pro Space reported that a current Senate NASA bill deleted language from the original version of the bill that referred to Gateway as “critical for the United States to maintain a presence on and around the Moon.”
Irene Klotz reported in Aviation Week (March 9-22, 2026) that Isaacman wants to increase the SLS launch rate to at least once per year, which is part of the rationale for cancelling previously planned additions to its configuration. Freezing the SLS configuration is part of his plan to increase the pace of launches.
Isaacman has also commented several times that a non-reusable heavy-lift launch vehicle (like SLS) is not cost-effective. It is clear from many statements he has made that SLS’s days are numbered, now that we have far more cost-effective reusable launch vehicles, including the huge SpaceX Starship, which is intended to have key roles in the Artemis lunar program. Congress has mandated that SLS remain the primary heavy-lift NASA launcher for Artemis missions, but just about everyone in the space-launch community appreciates that its ancient technology and enormous cost mean its days are numbered.
Isaacman also welcomed the 2026 annual report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) released on Feb. 25. It pointed out that the previous Artemis plan’s third launch (Artemis III) would rely on a dozen first-time technologies, adding considerable risk. As Klotz reported, Isaacman welcomed this message, saying that “What we are doing is exactly in line with what ASAP asked us to do. . . . It should be obvious that you don’t go from one uncrewed launch of Orion and SLS, wait three years, go around the Moon, wait three years and land on it. . . . NASA has been working on these plans, knowing this is not the right approach. . . . We did not just jump right to Apollo 11. We did it through Mercury, Gemini, and lots of Apollo missions, with a launch cadence of every three months. We should be getting back to basics and doing what we know works.”
Why Can’t the FAA and the Military Communicate and Coordinate?
The recent laser incident near El Paso Airport illustrates the ongoing problem of a lack of coordination between the FAA and other agencies, including the Defense and Homeland Security departments. That lack was illustrated in last year’s fatal collision at Reagan National Airport between a small airliner and an Army helicopter. And we observed the same problem in last month’s debacle of the FAA closing down the airspace at El Paso Airport due to Army laser tests at nearby Fort Bliss.
The New York Times had a lengthy article on “The Debacle that Led to the Closure of El Paso’s Airspace.” As recounted in this article, during spring 2025, Pentagon officials briefed Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg on plans to deploy high-energy lasers near the Mexican border to take out drones being used to smuggle drugs into the United States. The reporters’ Pentagon sources said that Feinberg believed DoD could proceed without having to coordinate with DOT or FAA. When they used a laser at Fort Bliss, very near El Paso Airport, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford was caught off guard and announced a 10-day closure of the airspace around the airport.
Denials have come from several sources, but the Times reporters cite a Feb. 6 email from the FAA’s “top lawyer” warning the Pentagon that deploying a laser there without restricting flights would create “a grave risk of fatalities” to air travelers in that area. Another email from the FAA attorney warned 14 senior officials at DoD and the White House National Security Council of the FAA’s likely action to close the El Paso Airport airspace.
The Times story goes on to report that discussions between DoD and the FAA had been ongoing in the aftermath of the collision at Reagan National Airport, as well as regarding El Paso and planned laser testing. The Pentagon insisted there would be no risks to civil aviation from the Fort Bliss laser tests, but the FAA asked for the military’s data so that it could do its own analysis (per its role as the federal aviation safety regulator). But the FAA was not given that data. A Jan. 23 email from DoD’s Mark Ditlevson to FAA chief counsel William McKenna simply informed him that the laser system was now operational. McKenna responded on Feb. 6 that the FAA was concerned about the safety of airliners and passengers. But on Feb. 9, Customs & Border Protection deployed and operated their new laser, aiming at what they thought was a drone, but which turned out to be a metallic balloon. Later that day, Ditlevson responded to the FAA lawyer that DoD was not changing its laser plans. And that led to the FAA announcing that airspace in the El Paso region would be closed for all flights under 18,000 ft. Fortunately, higher-level communications led to the airport being reopened within 8 hours.
In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on Feb. 12, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy noted that “there has been miscommunication or no communication between at least the Army and FAA for years.” She added, “I don’t understand it. People can’t talk? It’s astounding to me, but it’s not surprising to what we’ve seen from the (DCA collision) investigation.”
On Friday, March 13, air traffic serving five airports in the Washington, D.C. area was subject to a ground stop lasting 2.5 hours. Flights to and from Washington Reagan (DCA), Dulles (IAD), Baltimore Washington (BWI), Andrews, and Richmond were halted, and huge numbers of air travelers had their trips disrupted.
The ground stop was called due to the evacuation of controllers from the Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility. As reported in numerous media accounts, the controllers evacuated due to a strong chemical odor, but they returned after 2.5 hours, and the TRACON went back online. Some media reported that the odor came from a circuit board that overheated.
A former FAA engineer whom I’ve known for many years filled in the rest of the story. The smoldering circuit board was on a 25-year-old voice switch. It had not been maintained and likely had layers of accumulated dust and filthy air filters. An obvious question is this: Why was this (and all the other electronics at Potomac) not being maintained?
The answer is that years ago, the FAA moved to a policy of “replace on fail” for most of its systems nationwide. This appears to mean no ongoing maintenance of ancient systems. That, in turn, suggests that other failures of this kind could well happen at many other air traffic control (ATC) facilities.
Why was such a short-sighted policy decision made? During the 1990s, the FAA experienced operating budget shortfalls due to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) not understanding the need for adequate maintenance funding. This led the executives running FAA Technical Operations to adopt “fix on fail” to save money. Prior to that decision, ATC equipment had been maintained 24/7 by a workforce of more than 6,600 technicians doing this for all of the FAA’s ATC facilities. That number is now roughly 4,000, and a shortage of training funds means technicians are not learning how to maintain every critically important type of equipment.
My source tells me that the Air Traffic Organization’s senior officials have not brought this mistaken “fix-on-fail” maintenance policy to the attention of either the FAA administrator or the Department of Transportation secretary. Since this foolish policy applies across the entire National Airspace System (NAS), similar equipment failures could occur anywhere in the system. Problems like what occurred at Newark TRACON last year would not be happening in a disciplined, well-run air traffic organization with a viable systems engineering staff. Today, that staff no longer exists (according to a number of my ex-FAA contacts).
The highly-touted “Brand New ATC System” is a one-time program to replace some of the ancient systems with new ones. But it does not address foolish policies such as “replace on fail.” The FAA’s aviation customers should demand wiser policies than this. But without serious organizational reform, such as converting the Air Traffic Organization to a utility paid for by its customers, these built-in problems will remain in place.
Does the Dallas-Ft. Worth Area Need a Third Airport?
While some aviation people in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metroplex are imagining vertiports and electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOLs), officials in McKinney are upgrading their general aviation (GA) airport, known as TKI, into the region’s third commercial airport. With the two major airports dominated by major airlines (American has 82% market share at DFW and Southwest has a 98% market share at Love Field), the vision of TKI director Ken Carley deserves a serious look.
Carley told Simple Flying that he started thinking about this in late 2018 when several airlines asked if there was any interest in expanding TKI into a commercial airport. One factor is TKI’s location, about 35 miles northeast of Dallas, serving fast-growing Collin County and two other counties north of it. It is a long trip from up there to DFW or Love. So one factor is serving a growing local air travel market.
What kinds of airlines might actually be interested, assuming a suitable terminal and runway(s) of sufficient length? My best guess is low-cost carriers (LCC) such as Allegiant, Avelo, Breeze, Frontier, and (if it survives) Spirit. I doubt if the amount of added capacity would be enough to interest Delta, which is not a major player at either DFW or Love. Aviation consultant Courtney Miller agrees that LCCs are most likely to be interested in entering the DFW market in this manner, where they would not have to vie for runway use with the majors.
The initial expansion, already underway, is a terminal with four gates costing $79 million (compared with the planned $165 million terminal at New Haven, to serve mostly Avelo). TKI airport fees would likely be far lower than at DFW or Love. The terminal’s external walls and the parking lots are under construction, and the aircraft apron is nearly complete, per Simple Flying. TKI has a 7,000 ft. runway and has begun work on a parallel taxiway. The article cites TKI’s target for having the project completed by November, and some reports say that Avelo has already signed up.
What might interfere with this ambitious plan? One necessity for beginning airline operations is TSA screening or its equivalent. For an airport this size, TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (which allows interested airports to hire TSA-approved contractors) might be a better fit, but TSA’s application process is tedious and time-consuming. Another is possible opposition from the current users of the airport: general aviation. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) might not be comfortable with having airliners using some of the capacity of their runways, and their opposition could be a problem.
Nevertheless, adding a third airport and LCC service to the metroplex would be an important addition to northern Texas air travel.
Canada’s Private Airport Security Screening
By Michel Kelly-Gagnon
The Washington Post editorial board recently cited several relevant examples of successful private security screening in foreign airports. However, it did not mention another compelling example close to America: Canada. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) was established in 2002 as part of an enhanced air travel security system after Sept. 11, 2001. CATSA directly employs about 400 full-time staff and contracts with various private security companies that employ about 8,000 officers to conduct screening at airports across Canada. These officers apply vigorous standards established by this government and wear CATSA uniforms.
By entrusting such private security agents to provide security instead of unionized bureaucrats, Canadian airports have ended up outperforming their American counterparts on most metrics. A 2017 study by the Heritage Foundation found that Canada spent about 40 percent less per capita on aviation security than the U.S. and approximately 15 percent less per traveler. Yet despite these lower costs, CATSA screened 159 travelers per hour compared with 150 for TSA.
Canada’s model of highly trained private security professionals providing pre-boarding security screening and physical security at airports could thus serve as a concrete source of inspiration for long-awaited changes for TSA, helping it deliver a more-efficient and cost-effective service to the traveling public in the United States. Canada’s experience over the past two decades also illustrates that these policy objectives can be achieved without conceding an inch in terms of security standards.
This article is based on Mr. Kelly-Gagnon’s letter to the editor in the March 5 issue of The Washington Post. He is the president of IEDM and was the founding president of the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI).
Electronic Flight Strips at DCA Tower—At Last
Last month, the FAA announced that electronic flight strips have finally come to the control tower at Reagan National Airport. The e-strips are part of the new Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM) system FAA is gradually installing at only 49 towers, rather than a previous plan to equip 89 towers (out of a total of 142 federal towers). The idea of replacing paper flight strips dates back to the FAA’s 1983 AAS program, which was terminated in 2000 with little to show for its time and spending. By contrast, Nav Canada developed and tested its e-strips in-house in 1998, and the operational version was certified in 2003. By 2006, it had been installed in all of Canada’s towers and TRACONs, and by 2009, it was in all Nav Canada facilities, including general aviation airport towers. The company’s NAVCANstrips have been sold to other ATC providers and are in use in Australia, Dubai, Italy, and the U.K.
SpaceX Announces Space Traffic Management System
Jeff Foust reported in SpaceNews that SpaceX is developing a space situational awareness (SSA) system called Stargaze. It uses images from star trackers on its nearly 10,000 Starlink satellites to identify and plot the orbits of other satellites. The system collects nearly 30 million observations each day and uses that information to calculate potential close calls and issues data messages to other satellite operators. Foust reports that initial beta tests are getting positive reviews from other satellite operators.
Air France Gets Opposition on Shift to Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Airport
Aviation Daily reported (March 2) that Air France’s announced shift of most of its current flights at Paris Orly Airport to much-larger CDG is running into environmental and noise objections. The operator of both airports, Group ADP, is moving forward with expansion plans at CDG, anticipating a 19% increase in flight movements by 2050 and a 38% increase in passenger numbers. Those projections have aroused opposition from mayors and members of Parliament over both noise and environmental impacts. Environmental group Transport & Environment would prefer no CDG expansion, which it estimates would allow only 82 million annual passengers by 2050, rather than ADP’s expectation of 105 million.
NASA to Use Existing Upper Stage for Artemis Missions
NASA has cancelled the $3 billion Boeing Exploration Upper Stage for the Artemis lunar missions. Instead, it has shifted to the existing ULA Centaur V, which is used on ULA’s Vulcan rockets. NASA’s announcement noted that this change will save large sums and reduce risk by making use of a proven upper stage.
Flight Cap at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport Killed by Court
The Dutch Council of State, the highest court in the Netherlands, has ruled that the flight cap of 478,000 flight movements per year at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is not legal. It found that the government did not properly write the decree. The ruling, which cannot be appealed, means the government will likely draft a revised version that it hopes will be approved.
Another FAA-Approved Controller Training Program
U.S. DOT last month announced that Aims Community College in northern Colorado has been approved as the 11th school to join the FAA’s controller training initiative. Students who pass the FAA-approved training course (and pass aptitude and medical checks) can be assigned to an FAA air traffic facility for on-the-job training. These 11 schools provide training comparable to the training provided by the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City.
China Lands a Booster Rocket after its Launch
Earlier this month, as Politico Pro Space reported on Feb. 20, China announced the powered landing of the booster rocket of its Long March-10. The launch put a Mengzhou spacecraft into orbit, in a test of that vehicle, which is designed to convey astronauts to a lunar orbit. This is the first known recovery of a booster rocket in China.
Bangalore Airport Considers Bidding on Upcoming Privatizations
In Infralogic on Feb. 24, Rouhan Sharma reported that Bangalore International Airport (BIAL) has hired Grant Thornton Bharat as its advisor. The Airports Authority of India is expected to invite proposals to privatize as many as 11 airports. The government has created five “bundles,” each consisting of two or three airports. Six larger airports were privatized in 2019, all of which were acquired by Adani Group. The first round of privatizations, in 2006, led to GMR winning the Delhi airport and GVK winning Mumbai.
Ditching Obsolete Federal Buildings May Save the Government $50 Billion
In a 27-page report released early this month, the Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) argued that “a glut of old and unused federal buildings” is costing the General Services Administration (GSA) $50 billion in deferred maintenance liabilities. When government tenants move out and GSA rents replacement office space, it ends up paying to maintain both the obsolete building and the newly leased space. The PBRB’s acting chair, D. Talmadge Hocker, told Politico that “Congress is never going to be able to appropriate its way out of this problem. The only way to handle this is through a radical reduction in the GSA’s portfolio size.” The two FAA office buildings on the Mall in D.C. are among these obsolete buildings.
Astronaut Lives Were at Stake in 2024 Boeing Starliner Failure
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman disclosed last month that the Starliner launch to the International Space Station in 2024 has been designated as a “Type A Mishap” that resulted in at least $2 million in damage and put the crew members’ lives at risk. The Starliner suffered thruster failures as it approached ISS for docking, in addition to helium leaks that led to a temporary loss of complete control. NASA would not allow any astronauts to return to Earth on the damaged Starliner. Orlando Sentinel space reporter Richard Tribou revealed that the report from NASA’s Program Investigation Team “raises major questions about the future of the Starliner spacecraft.”
What Would It Cost to Rename Palm Beach International Airport?
Last month, the Florida legislature, in a highly partisan move, approved legislation that would rename PBI as “President Donald J. Trump International Airport.” The measure would also prohibit local governments from naming or renaming airports, leaving that up to the state legislature. The cost of changing PBI’s name was estimated by airport officials as $5.5 million, but the bill offers Palm Beach County only $2.75 million. The Trump family company filed three trademark applications based on the new airport name, which could be used for watches, jewelry, clothing, etc.
What Will ATC Integrator Get Paid?
FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford announced that national security firm Peraton’s contract to manage the brand-new-air-traffic-control system will be paid $1.5 billion to oversee the many contracts involved. He also said that President Trump negotiated a $200 million discount off the initial proposed contract price. Peraton is owned by Veritas Capital.
MIT Students Design Ultra STOL Aircraft Model
Aviation Week reported (Feb. 23-March 8) that a team of MIT students invented a super-short takeoff and landing (STOL) model aircraft using “blown lift” to enable super-short takeoffs and landings. That took place in 2019, and the results led to Electra.aero’s EL2 super-STOL demonstrator and its larger EL9 that is now in development. The MIT students (by now, I presume, grad students) are looking into the use of ducted fans rather than propellers to enable higher cruise speeds in addition to short-field performance.
AutoFlight Developing 10-Seater eVTOL
Aviation Week experts Ben Goldstein and Graham Warwick were very impressed with a flying prototype VTOL that weighs 5.7 metric tons, seats 10 passengers, and has a reported 200 km range with a 1,000 kg payload. Its hybrid version claims up to 1,500 km range carrying 1500 kg. Consistent with its longer range and increased passenger capacity, it is the first eVTOL to include a lavatory. The reporters also note that the target market is not short-range commuting but scheduled regional shuttles. If all these claims are valid and the price is competitive, this could be a viable commercial product. AutoFlight is a Chinese company, and it’s not clear if this project has been funded privately or by the government. It’s definitely worth watching.
American Airlines Plans $1 Billion Terminal Investment at MIA
As its contribution to a $9 billion modernization underway at Miami International Airport, American has announced large planned upgrades to its existing main terminal. The most notable is to convert the regional jet boarding area into a three-level facility with 17 new gates and jetways for all-weather boarding of these aircraft. Other AA improvements are a new baggage handling system and direct third-level access to Customs and Border Protection facilities.
London City Airport Proposes Shallower Approaches and Larger Aircraft
London City Airport (LCY) is known for its steep 5.5-degree approach for landing, but it is considering the implementation of a shallower approach of 4.49 degrees. This change would enable larger narrow-body aircraft such as the A320neo to use the airport. LCY officials argue that the new approach would enable larger, quieter, and more fuel-efficient airliners to serve the airport. These aircraft would use somewhat less fuel and generate less noise and less CO2 than current aircraft serving the airport. Larger aircraft could enable LCY to handle more passengers per year without increasing the number of flights.
Chile Adds 36 Months to Santiago Airport Concession
Infralogic reported (Feb. 20) that the government has added three years to the long-term concession of Santiago’s Arturo Merino Benitez Airport. The extension resulted from a 2024 ruling by an arbitration commission.
“Contractors are key and critical in areas that are not in our core competencies. . . . When it comes to aerospace-related engineering, launch operations, on-orbit operations at mission control, flight-test programs from within our aeronautical division, those are all areas where that talent should live inside the organization. If not, you create a lot of external dependencies, and those external dependencies have to work with your prime contractors, which have hundreds of subcontractors that use different software tools, different systems for exchanging information. When you wind up in that environment, it shouldn’t be surprising that projects take longer than they should, and sometimes they cost a lot more than they should. So we’re trying to bring that back in-house. We’re going to do it very, very quickly, and it’s certainly the right direction for NASA.”
—Jared Isaacman, in Irene Klotz, “Fast Five with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman,” Aviation Week, Feb. 12, 2026
“The majority of commercial airports across Europe use private services for security screening. Frankfurt Airport in Germany and Heathrow Airport in the United Kingdom work with private firms, but no one considers these major hubs to be any less safe. In America, airports are allowed to apply to run their own security with private companies, and they’ve had success. San Francisco International operates under this model, and routinely ranks as one of the best in America. A big part of that is because it’s so easy for passengers to move through security.”
—Editorial Board, “Privatize Airport Security,” The Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2006
“[JSX CEO Alex] Wilcox points out that Dallas and other cities are putting in infrastructure for electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing air taxis. ‘There is a ton of money right now chasing eVTOL infrastructure,’ he says. ‘I have my doubts about the certification timeline and the practical utility of these vehicles. Along comes Electra, probably years ahead of eVTOL in terms of certification timeline, more or less a standard Part 23 airplane, no new rules required. I think they have a multi-year head start. . . . I think there is going to be a significant infrastructure that only this airplane is going to be able to access for a good period of time.’”
—Alex Wilcox, in Graham Warwick, “Flying Ultra Short,” Aviation Week, Feb. 9-22, 2026