The 218-page document, assembled by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) at the behest of Congress, warns that NASA is prioritizing short-term missions and commercial contracts over the people and technology that make its out-of-this-world activities possible.

Per the report, the space agency’s emphasis on near-term victories and overreliance on private contractors comes at the price of a strained budget, degraded infrastructure, and exodus of talented personnel.

“NASA should rebalance its priorities and increase investments in its facilities, expert workforce, and development of cutting-edge technology, even if it means forestalling initiation of new missions,” the NASEM said.

NASEM operates under a congressional charter and comprises private and nonprofit institutions that provide independent analysis on public policy decisions. The academies release decadal reports on topics such as astronomy and planetary science, effectively giving NASA and Congress a roadmap for funding over the next ten years. The studies take years to put together and are considered influential within the spaceflight community.

Tuesday’s publication, titled NASA at a Crossroads, is a bit of an aberration. The report was requested by Congress in 2022 amid growing pressure from China, which in June became the first nation to return samples from the moon’s far side.

NASEM members met with experts, visited NASA centers, sent requests for information, and reviewed agency documents to inform their conclusions. The outlook, the organization says, may be bleak.

The State of NASA

The NASEM report paints the picture of an agency in turmoil from top to bottom.

Internal and external pressure from NASA and its benefactors has placed it in a bit of a tight spot. Agency senior center managers told researchers they would prefer to spend additional funding on new missions rather than facility maintenance or personnel training. But per the U.S. Committee on Human Spaceflight, NASA annually spends about $3 billion on missions it cannot afford.

“Each dollar of mission support that previously had to sustain a dollar of mission activity now has to support $1.50 of mission activity, effectively a 50 percent increase,” the report says.

In short, the agency’s workload is expanding more rapidly than its mission budget—and that’s absorbing money that could be better spent elsewhere.

NASA infrastructure is essential to the agency’s mission and is used by other agencies and private partners. But “chronic insufficient funding” has resulted in about 83 percent of the agency’s facilities, many of which were built in the 1960s, exceeding their design life. These aging assets are difficult to maintain, soak up valuable personnel time, and make NASA less attractive to prospective talent.

“During its inspection tours, the committee saw some of the worst facilities many of its members have ever seen,” NASEM said.

For example, according to the report, NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN)—a network of radio dishes around the globe that receive and transmit data from missions—is too degraded to support current and planned projects without disrupting others. DSN locations over the next decade will cost tens of millions to maintain, it predicts, while contending with a thin workforce and failing infrastructure. The DSN budget in 2022 was $200 million, down from $250 million in 2010.

NASA’s employee turnover rate is largely consistent with the commercial space industry, per the report. But agency employees cited lower salaries and greater private sector involvement as deterrents to working there. In addition, NASEM found that women and minorities are underrepresented, leaving plenty of talent untapped.

Researchers worry the prevalence of certain commercial contracts, such as fixed-price or milestone-based, could make matters even worse by turning NASA engineers into contract monitors. These agreements stifle agency personnel by reducing hands-on work while opening the door for private companies to develop technology that, in the NASEM’s view, should be built in-house.

“Innovative, creative engineers don’t want to have a job that consists of overseeing other people’s work,” said ex-Lockheed Martin executive Norm Augustine, the lead author of the report, during a virtual briefing Tuesday afternoon.

A Tight Budget

NASA’s tendency to prioritize short-term missions over long-term success stems in part from a constrained budget environment.

Between 2014 and 2023, the agency’s funding actually increased by an average of more than 3 percent over the previous year. But over the past two decades, its purchasing power has essentially held flat while mission complexity has grown. During the peak of the Apollo program, NASEM estimates, purchasing power was about three times higher.

The 2023 debt ceiling agreement capped increases to federal non-defense discretionary funding for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, and NASA has felt the impact. Its 2024 budget left it with about half a billion less than it had in 2023. The 8.5 percent discrepancy between what the agency requested and what it received was the largest since 1992.

The funding cut gives NASA little wiggle room for certain missions such as Mars Sample Return, for which the agency has requested help from private industry to lower costs. Another high-profile program, the Chandra X-ray observatory, was placed on the chopping block, and several others have been delayed.

It could be a similar story in 2025. The White House’s 2025 NASA budget request, which seeks the same amount awarded in 2023, has been marked up by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, with the latter’s proposal reading much more favorable.

Under the House budget, NASA would receive $200 million less than requested, a slight increase over 2024 in real dollars but below the current rate of inflation.

The biggest loser would be the Science Mission Directorate, which would get $7.3 billion—the same as 2024’s allocation, which represented the first cut to NASA’s science budget in a decade. A coalition of scientific organizations and more than 40 members of Congress believe the agency needs closer to $9 billion to support its dozens of space science missions.

Mars Sample Return could also suffer despite the House requiring it to spend $450 million more than NASA requested.

That’s because it would provide less than half of that money, leaving NASA to scrounge up the rest by axing other planetary science projects. The House would require full funding for certain programs, so only a few—namely Discovery, New Frontiers, and fundamental research—would be candidates for cuts. Within those programs are the critical Veritas Venus mission and Dragonfly Saturn moon mission, both of which could be jeopardized.

Also at risk is the Artemis lunar program, the successor to Apollo. NASA asked to shift funding from flight-proven components to novel technology that will be used on future missions, including the return of Americans to the moon during Artemis III. But the House mandates that the former programs maintain their historical levels of funding.

According to Casey Dreier, head of policy at the Planetary Society, that creates a roughly “half-billion-dollar hole” for the Lunar Gateway moon space station. To fill it, NASA will need to either redirect funds from other programs or significantly cut Gateway funding.

Artemis II and Artemis III have already been pushed to September 2025 and 2026, respectively, and NASA has hinted at delays to future missions. Earlier this year, it suddenly canceled development of the Viper lunar rover due to budget uncertainty.

“Future funding is clouded by the ever-declining federal discretionary budget from which NASA support is provided,” the report says.

Things may improve in 2026 when spending caps are lifted. However, NASA within the last year and change has lowered its budget projection for 2030 from about $30 billion to $28 billion.

Instant Gratification

NASA’s inefficiencies arise not just from its meager budget but also from how the agency uses it, the NASEM says.

The agency is often stretched thin by the sheer number of projects it pursues, causing setbacks to individual missions as in the case of Mars Sample Return or the James Webb Space Telescope.

Further, according to the report, many NASA leaders dismiss the need for long-term internal strategy, citing immense influence from Congress on its annual projects and budget. In short, the perception within NASA is that doing so would waste resources.

“Even planning for the advancing Artemis program lacks certain action-specific details associated with an architecture that is more complex and interdependent than Apollo,” the NASEM said.

But the lack of foresight by leadership results in unrealistic initial cost estimates, creating a domino effect that forces underfunded missions to pull money from other programs. The NASEM characterizes NASA’s internal research and development program, for example, as underfunded.

“The inevitable consequence of such a strategy is to erode those essential capabilities that led to the organization’s greatness in the first place and that underpin its future potential,” the report reads. “The profound negative consequences of this are felt far beyond the specific projects producing the delays and unanticipated funding demands.”

The NASEM recommended a total overhaul of NASA’s long-term mission planning process, including required “need dates” for capability and component needs. It also suggested that as responsibility shifts from NASA centers to specialized mission directorates, the agency should make sure its checks and balances are providing enough oversight.

An Eroding Base

Because NASA puts so much energy into its missions, the agency has neglected the engine that drives them: personnel and infrastructure.

Since 2017, only two NASA congressional authorization acts—which allocate funds from the Treasury Department and establish new programs and policy focuses—have been made law.  According to the report, “this inhibits the forecasting of workforce, infrastructure, and technology needs.”

On the infrastructure side, the NASEM recommended NASA work with Congress to create a revolving working capital fund (WCF) financed by the government and users of NASA facilities, similar to those for other federal departments. The agency could use the money to eliminate its maintenance backlog over the next decade and make continuous infrastructure enhancements.

Equally concerning is the agency’s workforce, which faces more competition for employment than ever before. Creating a commercial space ecosystem was a U.S. national policy goal for decades, and NASA has benefitted from working with private companies. These partnerships are necessary, the report argues, but verging on excessive.

Researchers contend that specialized, early phase mission work should be handled in-house, or NASA risks losing the talent that has propelled it thus far. Fixed-price or milestone-based contacts, such as the Artemis human landing system (HLS) agreements with SpaceX and Blue Origin, take agency personnel out of the picture. Many employees told researchers they would like more training or opportunities to hone their skills.

“In this case, NASA is more of a contract monitor than a technical organization capable of taking humanity into the solar system,” the NASEM said. “The concern is not only an erosion of ‘smart-buyer’ capability, but also of the capacity to invent and innovate.”

There is also the risk that a commercial provider exits the market or fails to deliver. A NASA inspector general report, for instance, blames contractor Boeing for certain delays associated with the Artemis program.

The NASEM directs NASA to invest in “early-stage, mission-critical technologies” that commercial firms have yet to crack, emphasize more hands-on work, and unearth new talent by targeting underrepresented demographics.

It could also seek to update the NASA Flexibility Act of 2004, which was implemented partially in response to the space shuttle Columbia accident and dictates what the agency can pay employees. By securing greater appointment and hiring authority, it could ease the burden of attracting and retaining talent.

Houston, Do We Have a Problem?

NASA’s budget woes have been well documented. The NASEM report, however, raises new concerns about how the agency uses what little it receives.

It’s not all NASA’s fault—the agency’s effort to scale back Mars Sample Return, for example, faces opposition from the House. If NASA must divert funding from other projects to support that mission, the blame would land squarely on Congress.

But the agency certainly isn’t helping matters. The neglect of long-term mission planning, despite lawmakers’ control over the budget, borders on ineptitude. Infrastructure and technology are dated. And private firms are snapping up talent faster than NASA can produce it.

Given the pressure the agency faces internally, from the government, and from its contractors, these issues are unlikely to resolve themselves without some serious effort. The hope is that the adoption of the Senate’s more favorable budget proposal, and the lifting of spending caps in 2026, could give it some much needed support. But NASA’s fortunes will also hinge on a reassessment of its priorities.

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

The post Report to Congress: Shortsighted, Aging NASA Faces Uncertain Future appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Tuesday, members of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) alleged that U.S.-based Anzu Robotics and Hong Kong-based Cogito Tech are actually fronts for China’s DJI.

DJI is the world’s largest provider of consumer drones—the kind flown by hobbyists for fun or personal enjoyment. The aircraft undercut most American-built models on price and have proliferated among U.S. buyers, including police and fire departments.

“DJI appears to be using [Anzu and Cogito] as part of a concerted effort to thwart current and prospective restrictions on its operations imposed by the United States,” the lawmakers say.

Chinese drone manufacturers have been the target of sweeping bans on procurement and sale among federal agencies, including the Defense Department, Treasury Department, Commerce Department, and Department of the Interior. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security, among other entities, have warned of cybersecurity threats from DJI drones, citing the company’s obscured ties to several Chinese state-backed investors.

Lawmakers have even called the technology “TikTok with wings,” likening it to the Chinese social media app that faces allegations of spying and collecting user data without consent. A bill being deliberated by Congress, the Countering CCP Drones Act, would effectively extend federal DJI bans to the consumer level by prohibiting the drones from using Federal Communications Commission (FCC) infrastructure.

Amidst the DJI panic, Texas-based Anzu quietly registered with the FCC in December. The company’s founder and CEO, Randall Warnas, spent two years as an enterprise sales manager for DJI and was later chief executive of its competitor Autel before resigning abruptly after three months.

U.S. Representatives John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) worry that Warnas continues to leverage those connections. In letters penned to Warnas and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, they allege Anzu’s Raptor T drone is “essentially a DJI Mavic 3 painted green, with its remote control and application all running on DJI technology.”

Warnas told FLYING: “We believe there are fundamental misunderstandings about how Anzu Robotics operates and complies with the law. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Committee to address their concerns.”

A Drone Clone?

The lawmakers cite independent research from drone reviewer Half Chrome Drones and software developer Konrad Iturbe, who documented myriad similarities between the Raptor T and DJI’s Mavic 3, including some of the same hardware. Shortly after they published their investigations, DJI revealed the companies’ partnership—which they did not disclose to the FCC—to news outlet DroneDJ.

“DJI has a business partnership with Anzu Robotics,” a company spokesperson said. “This was established with the goal of enhancing the accessibility of capable and cost-effective drones in the market. DJI had established a similar partnership in the past when it collaborated with Skycatch in 2018.”

Anzu claims it has rebuilt DJI’s software in partnership with American firm Aloft Technologies, using U.S. servers to store data. But lawmakers claim the company relies heavily on the Chinese manufacturer in that arena, too.

Moolenaar and Krishnamoorthi cite an analysis authored by Andreas Makris, CEO of German software startup ThinkAwesome, that suggests Anzu’s firmware is signed and decrypted by DJI keys, among other connections. In their view, this “strongly indicates that the Anzu firmware was directly sourced from DJI.”

“The Anzu Raptor is just a green DJI Mavic 3 Enterprise, without any substantial own development,” Makris concludes.

His analysis also found that Raptor’s remote controller “seems to be a relabeled DJI RC Pro.” It has identical firmware but uses a different app, Aloft ai, that runs on DJI’s software.

“The software provided to Anzu Robotics is our Software Development Kit (SDK), which is publicly accessible on the internet for any developers within the drone ecosystem to utilize for free,” a DJI spokesperson told FLYING.

But according to Makris, “all functions like DJI cloudcontrol are still in the SDK. If this is an [sic] ‘secure’ product, like Anzu claims, it should not use an SDK that has these functions included.”

What’s in It for DJI?

Anzu claims to operate and develop its technology independently. But it has a unique licensing agreement with DJI that has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers. According to the firm, the partnership allows it to modify and manufacture DJI hardware and software to produce its Raptor series drones.

“There are no royalties shared with the licensing organization (DJI), no joint or shared ownership of Anzu Robotics, and no reporting on customer data,” the company says in an FAQ.

Lawmakers say the arrangement is fishy. They point out that DJI under the agreement would be providing access to its industry leading technology essentially for free. In addition, internal Anzu materials show that DJI provides “priority technical support” for Raptor drones.

“Through this licensing agreement, Anzu Robotics maintains a relationship with a manufacturer that, in turn, has a relationship with DJI,” the DJI spokesperson told FLYING.

 “Given these facts,” the lawmakers write, “it is hard to understand the business rationale for DJI to enter into this relationship aside from using it as a passthrough to circumvent legal restrictions (current and prospective) placed on its products.”

Warnas’ comments in an interview with the New York Times appear to contradict Anzu’s position: “Anzu licensed the design for its drones from DJI, which receives a payment for every drone that Anzu orders from its manufacturer in Malaysia.”

The implication, according to lawmakers, is that DJI is paying a premium to get Anzu’s “clones” on the U.S. market.

Warnas told the Washington Post he has no knowledge of the agreement between DJI and the Malaysian manufacturer Anzu uses: “It could be just like a monthly fee…but I am unaware of that and I like to be unaware of that because then I could say I don’t know how DJI is benefiting from this.”

In an earlier interview with YouTuber Bill the Drone Reviewer, the Anzu CEO recalled a conversation with DJI executives regarding declining market share due to U.S. bans. Later in the discussion, in lawmakers’ opinion, he admitted “that this conversation was the genesis for the eventual Anzu licensing agreement with DJI.” Separately, Warnas told the New York Times it was “essentially DJI’s idea” to form the arrangement.

Also in lawmakers’ crosshairs is Cogito, which they similarly allege is selling DJI clones. They point to a “teardown” video analyzing the internal components of Cogito’s Specta Air and DJI’s Air 3, in which Half Chrome reviewers discovered certain components, such as propellers and batteries, are interchangeable between the two models.

Makris reviewed Specta’s internal code and found that DJI is listed as the manufacturer. Additionally, drone experts tell The Hill that the Specta Air and Specta Mini are almost indistinguishable from DJI products.

Opening the Floodgates

Moolenaar and Krishnamoorthi request that Anzu provide the House committee with a rundown of its relationship with DJI by September 13. They also pose plenty of questions for the company to answer by September 6.

Lawmakers request that Anzu disclose any contractual and financial transactions with DJI, information on its factories in Malaysia, and the sources of components such as chips. They question DJI’s level of involvement in the manufacturing and sourcing of parts, asking Warnas to detail the nature of his time at the company.

The representatives also issued a call to action to the Commerce Department, urging it to implement measures that would prevent DJI and others from selling white label products through American companies. Such measures could be popular in Congress, which has passed several federal bans on Chinese drone manufacturers with bipartisan support.

“This effort represents a second ongoing attempt by DJI to white label its products,” the lawmakers write, in reference to Cogito. “It is unknown how many more may be ongoing.”

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

The post Chinese Drone Clones Accused of Skating U.S. Federal Bans appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

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.

This additional funding is part of the FAA’s Aviation Workforce Development Grants program, which provides support to aviation-related education programs. The $80 million in pilot development grants is part of a broader $240 million pool intended to also recruit aircraft mechanics and aviation manufacturing workers.

According to Yahoo Finance, an early version of the bill included $120 million in total funding, but that number was doubled with an amendment introduced by Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock. “This is a long-term issue,” he said during an interview.

‘The Pilot Shortage Myth’

The roughly $55 million in new funding comes as the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) – the world’s largest pilots union representing over 77,000 aviators—says the pilot shortage “isn’t real.” The labor group even goes as far as saying that the shortage is a so-called “myth,” instead pointing fingers at airline leadership.

“So, although we don’t have a pilot shortage, we do have a shortage of airline executives willing to stand by their business decisions to cut air service and be upfront about their intentions to skirt safety rules and hire inexperienced workers for less pay,” ALPA says on its website.

Despite the rhetoric, regional carriers say they aren’t quite out of the pilot supply woods yet with some offering lucrative bonuses for direct-entry captains. In a recent presentation, the Regional Airline Association (RAA)—a trade group—said, “We can’t believe we have to say this, but an abrupt, temporary hiring disruption—driven entirely by an abrupt aircraft delivery disruption—is not the same thing as fixing the pilot shortage.”

Some in Washington also believe the so-called pilot shortage isn’t over. During a press briefing at Austin’s Bergstrom airport on Tuesday, Texas Senator and Senate commerce committee ranking member Ted Cruz said he ‘absolutely’ still believes there’s a shortage, adding that Congress should have done more.

“So this bill…takes modest steps in the direction of addressing the pilot shortage, but I wish we had been able to take more, and I’m going to continue working to take even bolder steps,” he added.

Cruz strongly supported raising the airline pilot retirement age from 65 to 67, which failed after a narrow party-line vote. ALPA and other pilot unions opposed the increase.

“The pilots union has an interesting position on this. It’s one of the very rare circumstances I know of where a union picked some members over other members,” Cruz said at the briefing.

Diversity Push

With the bill now passed, the FAA will be tasked with distributing the funding as grants to flight schools and other institutions. Sen. Warnock said he pushed to include provisions in the bill to distribute some of the funding to ‘underrepresented populations’ in the aviation sector.

“I’m making the business case for diversity,” Warnock told Yahoo Finance. “It’s in our enlightened self-interest to find that talent and create a robust pipeline so that they can become pilots.”

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AirlineGeeks.com.

The post Congress Shells Out Millions to Aid Pilot Shortage appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

After months of several short-term extensions, the $105 billion legislation passed the House on Wednesday and the Senate last week before being sent to the president’s desk for final approval.

“The bipartisan [FAA] reauthorization is a big win for travelers, the aviation workforce, and our economy,” said Biden in a statement. “It will expand critical protections for air travelers, strengthen safety standards, and support pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers.”

Several aviation leaders echoed the president’s sentiments—applauding the bill for its commitment to strengthen aviation safety, grow the workforce, and advance technology and innovation.

The Air Line Pilots Associaiton (ALPA) called the bill a “major step forward” for the safety of our nation’s aviation system.

“This bill addresses runway and airport near misses, maintains rigorous pilot training standards and ensures that the United States remains the global leader in aviation safety,” said ALPA president Captain Jason Ambrosi.

FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker commended the new reauthorization that “allows for more runway safety technology, more air traffic controllers, and stronger oversight of aircraft production.”

The package includes language with a requirement for airlines to install 25-hour cockpit voice recorders on new and existing aircraft, up from two hours currently.

National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy also praised the bill.

“We appreciate Congress’s safety leadership in mandating the FAA to implement many of our most critical recommendations, which, once acted upon, will further strengthen our nation’s ‘gold standard’ of aviation safety,” Homendy said.

Notably, the FAA Reauthorization Act also includes the first general aviation title, drawing praise from groups such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). There are several provisions in the bill that support GA including expanding BasicMed, mandating a 24-month deadline for the FAA’s final rule on MOSAIC, and sections that address the continued availability of avgas among others.

“We appreciate the leadership of lawmakers who see the importance of this section and worked in a bipartisan manner to include provisions that enhance safety and support general aviation,” said EAA president Jack Pelton.

Full text of the bill can be found here.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act Signed Into Law appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the legislation with a 387-26 vote after the Senate approved it last week, meaning the only thing standing in the way of the bill becoming law is a signature from President Joe Biden. The bill would reauthorize the FAA for the next five years.

Drone and AAM industry stakeholders have plenty of reasons to be excited. Within the legislation are several critical provisions intended to move the industries forward and assert the U.S. as a global leader in emerging aviation technology.

For example, the bill would require the FAA, within four months of passage, to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for drone flights beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) of a human operator. A BVLOS regulation has long been sought by the drone industry, as it would allow drones to fly farther than they do with humans directly watching them, opening new use cases.

The bill also contains a mandate for the FAA to publish a final special rule for operations of powered-lift aircraft—a new category that includes eVTOL air taxis—within seven months of passage. It would expand FAA research into preparing the U.S. for the safe integration of electric, hydrogen-electric, and other new aircraft types, including type and pilot certification, the electrification of existing aviation infrastructure, and the installation of vertiports.

Immediate reactions to the legislation’s House passage have been overwhelmingly positive.

The Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), which comprises U.S. uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) companies and organizations, offered general praise for the long-awaited bill.

“The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 brings much-needed stability to both the FAA and aviation industry and enables the U.S. drone industry to keep pace with other countries,” said Lisa Ellman, executive director of the CDA. “This legislation reflects years of dedicated collaboration between lawmakers and industry stakeholders, including the CDA.”

The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), a global nonprofit, highlighted a few provisions in particular, such as the progress toward a final BVLOS rule and powered-lift aircraft operations.

“We look forward to working with the FAA and Administrator [Michael] Whitaker on the implementation of congressional mandates on key issues for our industries, including a Part 108 BVLOS rule and a special final rule for powered lift aircraft operations, which will safely unlock scalability and new, high-value commercial drone and AAM operations,” said Michael Robbins, president and CEO of AUVSI.

Pete Bunce, president and CEO of the General Aircraft Manufacturers Association (GAMA), applauded the bill for “furthering air traffic and airport operations through…electric aircraft infrastructure, fostering future improvements in certification and production oversight, expanding sustainability research programs, and following through on initiatives focused on a safe transition to unleaded avgas.”

U.S. lawmakers—on both sides of the aisle—similarly applauded the bill’s passage in the House.

Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who authored provisions in the legislation that would invest $1 billion into airport improvement projects, praised the bipartisanship of the House vote and several forward-thinking provisions within the bill.

“Our reauthorization legislation addresses several critical priorities, including…addressing environmental resiliency, strengthening the general aviation sector, [and] ensuring the safe operation and integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) aircraft,” said Cohen.

Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.) highlighted the bill’s benefits to the domestic drone industry. The legislation would ban federal procurement and use of drones produced by Chinese manufacturers—a longtime target of U.S. lawmakers, who perceive the foreign drones as a threat to U.S. industry and national security. Attempts to restrict Chinese-made drones have been the subject of controversy among industry stakeholders.

“This bill contains many provisions important to the Hoosier [State] aviation industry and the flying public,” said Young. “I am pleased that it passed the Senate in a strong bipartisan vote and urge the House to pass this critical bill.”

Manufacturers of electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) air taxis have heaped praise on the bill’s AAM provisions.

Joby Aviation singled out language around the type certification of novel aircraft and propulsion sources, training of eVTOL pilots, development of AAM operational rules, and production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

Joby board members Michael Huerta, who was FAA administrator from 2013 to 2018, and Dan Elwell, who served as deputy and acting FAA administrator from 2017 to 2020, went into more detail in a blog post.

“This congress has implemented foundational legislation that sets the stage for U.S. leadership in the next hundred years of aviation,” Huerta and Elwell wrote. “By mandating the FAA to lean into AAM, Congress aims to ensure that the FAA will serve as a driving force for innovation and continued U.S. leadership while keeping safety at the heart of its mission.”

Across the Atlantic, German eVTOL manufacturer Lilium, which is seeking type certification with both the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and FAA, spoke highly of the bill’s commitment to modernizing AAM and eVTOL infrastructure in particular.

“We commend the United States Congress for their dedication to electrifying aviation and for recognizing the vital role that our industry will play in the future of transportation,” said Matt Broffman, head of partnerships and public affairs for the Americas at Lilium.

Added Klaus Roewe, CEO of Lilium: “The U.S. is a globally important market for aircraft like the Lilium Jet and we welcome this additional guidance from the U.S. Congress as we seek dual certification in both the U.S. and at home in Europe.”

Similarly, U.S. manufacturer Beta Technologies, which is building a network of proprietary electric aircraft chargers nationwide, praised the legislation’s emphasis on eVTOL infrastructure. The company shared with FLYING last year’s congressional testimony from CEO Kyle Clark, in which Clark lauded several measures. Among them are provisions around building new infrastructure, such as vertiports, as well as the electrification of existing airports.

“This is the first comprehensive piece of federal legislation that specifically advances the priorities of the AAM industry, which feels like a big win,” Beta told FLYING. “It’s the result of a multiyear effort by the whole industry, and we look forward to working with the FAA and DOT to implement these provisions.”

While FAA reauthorization still awaits the president’s signature, the industry, evidently, expects it to happen soon. At first glance, it appears to be a crowd pleaser: the rare piece of legislation that satisfies the demands of all, or nearly all, parties. The next challenge will be to ensure that the implementation of these provisions goes smoothly.

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

The post Stakeholders Commend Drone, AAM Measures in FAA Reauthorization Bill appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The House vote was 387-26, following last week’s Senate vote of 88-4. Passing the long-term funding bill ended a frustrating chain of four short-term extensions.

The bill faced much less contention in the House than it had in the Senate, where a string of unrelated controversial amendments threatened to scuttle passage. House leadership declined to schedule votes on amendments, specifically to avoid the same sort of logjam negotiations.

• READ MORE: FAA Reauthorization Bill Exempts Boeing 767 From 2028 Production Cutoff

That said, a controversial measure adding airline slots to Washington Reagan National Airport (KDCA) was among the more prominent provisions of the bill. Members of Congress were divided for and against the measure, dependent on their homes. Those from states close to Washington, D.C., were opposed based on congestion and the fear of midair collisions. Those from states farther away were in favor of adding slots. Their opponents accused them of advocating for their own convenience.

Other important measures included agreeing to hire and train up to 3,000 new air traffic controllers; increasing the length of cockpit voice recordings to 25 hours (from two hours); and extending the time frame for airline passengers to redeem travel credits to at least five years.

From the general aviation side, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) praised passage of the long-term legislation to fund and support the FAA.\

“The final bill contains many of the important provisions that GAMA strongly advocated for throughout the process, including during our Capitol Hill Day last week, when our board members met with over 120 lawmakers while the Senate was finalizing the bill,” GAMA president and CEO Pete Bunce said. “Overall, the bill supports safety, innovation, infrastructure investment, sustainability, and the aviation workforce.”

Bunce listed some key provisions, including adding a new assistant administrator for rulemaking and regulatory improvement, which mandates a review of the rulemaking process to reduce bureaucratic delays. He said the bill also strengthens workforce development grants for pilots and maintenance technicians by adding manufacturing workers to the eligibility list.

Bunce also added that the bill includes “furthering air traffic and airport operations through pilot programs for mobile delivery of air traffic clearances and electric aircraft infrastructure; fostering future improvements in certification and production oversight; expanding sustainability research programs; and following through on initiatives focused on a safe transition to unleaded avgas.”

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post FAA Reauthorization Passes House, Heads to Biden for Signature appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The bill gives Boeing (NYSE: BA) a bridge, in case the express carriers need extra capacity, until it can develop a new freighter next decade. Multiple industry sources familiar with the process said FedEx (NYSE: FDX) and UPS (NYSE: UPS) joined Boeing in lobbying Congress for a reprieve from the January 1, 2028, production deadline. The legislation previously passed the Senate and will be sent to President Joe Biden to sign into law.

At face value, a split from international consensus would limit operation of freighters produced between 2028 and 2033 to the domestic U.S. market, but it’s possible some countries could permit access, according to experts. Freighters delivered before the end of 2027 aren’t covered by the enhanced carbon emission rules and won’t face any restrictions. 

Under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) agreements, commercial aircraft manufacturers effectively can’t sell aircraft that don’t meet the 2028 carbon emissions standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted the fuel efficiency standard in 2021 with the FAA following suit in February.

Even if post-2027 freighters end up being limited to domestic flying, it makes sense for FedEx and UPS to buy them, said Tom Crabtree, a Seattle-based industry consultant and former Boeing market analyst, in an email exchange with FreightWaves.

“The 767-300 production and converted freighter provides the lowest trip costs of any widebody freighter in production today while simultaneously allowing service to smaller markets where 50 metric tons of payload, or more, simply isn’t needed,” Crabtree said. “They also have sufficient range to serve international markets to/from Europe and/or northern South America from the U.S.”

Boeing stopped making the 767 as a passenger jet many years ago. It also supplies a tanker variant for militaries. FedEx and UPS are the only customers for the 767-300 freighter. Traditional cargo airlines opt for used 767s that have been converted to a cargo configuration because they don’t have the consistent, daily volumes of integrated express carriers and can’t afford more expensive new models.

UPS was the launch customer for the Boeing 767 freighter in 1995. The parcel logistics giant has 88 B767-300s in its fleet, including 10 converted freighters, and 19 additional factory aircraft on order from Boeing. 

“We expect to receive all outstanding orders before that time,” said UPS spokeswoman Michelle Polk.

FedEx has 137 B767s flying in its network, with 15 more deliveries scheduled through mid-2026, according to the company’s latest statistics.

Aviation publication The Air Current was first to unearth the 767 freighter waiver, tucked away on page 1,038 of the FAA bill. The language doesn’t mention the 767 by name, but the maximum takeoff weight of 180,000 kilograms to 240,000 kilograms squarely fits the 767.

Boeing officials have increasingly signaled that they plan to develop a freighter version of the 787 Dreamliner as a replacement for the 767F, but the first delivery is expected to take at least eight to 10 years.

“The 767F continues to be the most environmentally sound mid-size freighter available. We are working with our customers and are in communication with regulators regarding the requirements for this market segment,” Boeing said in a statement before the vote. “As we look ahead to future medium-widebody freighter options, the 787 is a natural place for us to look. We continue to evaluate our options in this space and are listening to our customers. Any future decisions regarding whether to launch a new program, will be largely driven by customer needs and market demand.”

Without the exemption, FedEx and UPS could be limited to Airbus A330 converted cargo jets, a model neither currently operates, if they need more medium-widebody aircraft in four or five years. The feedstock for 767 conversions is drying up because passenger airlines like Delta and United are holding on to aircraft longer than anticipated in response to supply chain, manufacturing and engine-related problems that have delayed delivery of replacement aircraft. The airlines probably won’t be ready to let go of the 767s until “they are well beyond the age of conversion or have too many flight cycles and flight hours accumulated on them to make it worth a while to convert it,” said Crabtree.

The new law will enable Boeing to compete with Israel Aircraft Industries, which installs 767 conversion kits, and an Airbus subsidiary that rebuilds A330s into freighters, and give it time to bring a 787 freighter to market, said the former chief editor of the biennial Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast. And A330 conversion providers would be able to demand higher pricing without that competition.

“Express firms like the certainty of production freighters even though they are more expensive than conversions of the same airplane models,” he said. That certainty takes the form of more consistent delivery schedules and meeting of specifications.

FedEx and UPS put pressure on Congress to keep the 767 option open and keep the playing field level until Boeing brings out the 787 freighter, the sources said.

Many have interpreted the carve-out to the international fuel efficiency standards to mean that noncompliant aircraft will be prohibited from flying outside the United States. But there is no universal enforcement mechanism. ICAO’s carbon emission standard will be implemented by individual countries as new domestic regulations updating their system for certifying aircraft types. Production will essentially be banned starting in 2028 because noncompliant models will not be certified for sale by civil aviation authorities in their area of jurisdiction.

Countries that ban the sale of noncompliant models are likely to ban aircraft with an exemption from entering their airspace on the basis of having an unfair advantage.

But an aviation industry source, who didn’t want to be identified because of the political sensitivity of the topic, said FedEx and UPS access to airspace in foreign countries would depend on what individual governments are willing to accept. Smaller countries that typically follow FAA and European Union regulations rather than certify aircraft themselves might have fewer qualms with allowing exempted 767s to operate.

Boeing also continues to deliver 777 cargo jets to FedEx and other airlines around the world. The FAA reauthorization doesn’t provide a waiver for the 777, probably because it is a transcontinental aircraft that wouldn’t make economic sense to operate only in the domestic market.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on FreightWaves.

The post FAA Reauthorization Bill Exempts Boeing 767 From 2028 Production Cutoff appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The $105 billion bipartisan bill, dubbed the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, was overwhelmingly passed in an 88-4 vote. Following its passage, the Senate also approved a one-week extension to ensure the House had enough time to vote on the bill before it is sent to the President Joe Biden’s desk for final approval.

According to the Senate, the reauthorization bill “sets national priorities to strengthen aviation safety standards, grow air traffic controller [and] safety inspector workforce, implement safety technology on runways [and] in cockpits” among other initiatives. While the package does not include an amendment to increase the pilot retirement age from 65 to 67, it does contain language to increase the cockpit voice recorder length from two hours to 25 hours.

The legislation was stalled for several days in the Senate this week, primarily over provisions to increase flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (KDCA) and unrelated measures proposed by some congressional leaders.

FAA reauthorization is considered the last “must-pass” measure for Congress before this fall.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Senate Passes Five-Year FAA Reauthorization Bill appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The House voted in favor of a reauthorization bill in July that would have included raising the mandatory airline pilot retirement age to 67 from 65. But in February, the Senate Commerce Committee rejected that element of the proposed five-year, $105 billion FAA reauthorization measure.

According to a Reuters report, the mandatory-retirement-age extension is not in the bill agreed to by House and Senate negotiators. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill later this week.

• READ MORE: FAA Data Shows Student Pilot Numbers on the Rise

Among the provisions that are still included in the 1,000-page document are measures prohibiting airlines from charging extra for families to sit together; a required five-year period for airlines’ vouchers and credits to remain valid; and a mandate for 24-hour cockpit voice recorders. Not included, according to Reuters, were other “stricter consumer rules” proposed by the Biden administration.

While consumer concerns are prominent in the news about the agreement (it includes raising the maximum civil penalty for airline passengers’ consumer violations to $75,000 from $25,000), in large part, the reauthorization legislation addresses concerns over aviation safety following months of alarm over near collisions and quality-control discrepancies, primarily focused on Boeing.

• READ MORE: FAA Adopts New Rules for Air Traffic Controller Rest

The negotiator-approved version of the legislation addresses FAA staffing shortfalls in air traffic controllers (a need for 3,000 new controllers) as well as inspectors, engineers, and technical specialists. The five-year time frame for the FAA reauthorization bill also includes five years of funding for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

In a joint statement, Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) joined the top Republican on the panel Ted Cruz (R-Texas), House Transportation Committee Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.), and top Democratic member of the committee Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) in writing, “…now more than ever, the FAA needs strong and decisive direction from Congress to ensure America’s aviation system maintains its gold standard…”

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Congress Strikes Agreement on Long-Term FAA Reauthorization appeared first on FLYING Magazine.