Should new neighborhoods include super drone zones?

eVTOL air taxis are a few years away, just as they were at Oshkosh 2018 (see Transitioning to electric flight (lectures at Oshkosh)). The static displays that appeared at Oshkosh 2025, e.g., Joby’s, seemed too large to fit comfortably into our car-oriented world. The U.S. population keeps growing, thanks to the miracle of immigration, and developers keep developing more suburban sprawl. Should each new reasonably elite neighborhood include a “super drone zone” where an eVTOL air taxi can land and depart without annoying or endangering anyone?

(Also, if eVTOLs start to work as advertised does that mean that the rulers of the U.S. will stop making any attempt to make surface transportation tolerable? If elites go everywhere by private air taxi why would they care that peasants must endure a Mumbai-/Delhi-like experience when they try to go somewhere by “surface car”?)

So that the zone need not be a fenced-off blight when not in use perhaps it could be a “smart LZ” in which a low perimeter fence of lights begins to flash when an eVTOL is inbound (i.e., the inbound eVTOL robot or human pilot can activate the “move away from the pad” lights). The same fence can be equipped with cameras and other sensors to detect the presence of humans and other obstacles and warn the eVTOL if the landing zone isn’t clear.

Here’s the Toyota-funded Joby in the new-for-2025 Toyota booth at EAA AirVenture:

(This was one of the places where I heard about the FAA’s new-since-November-2024 religion of productivity and consequent hope for certification.)

Note that the only electric aircraft that was apparently working well enough to be included in the daily airshow was BETA’s conventional (runwary-required) takeoff machine. (See A visit to BETA Technologies in Burlington, Vermont (eVTOL aircraft) for the 2023 status and BETA Technologies update from Oshkosh 2025.)

Full post, including comments

Garmin’s new big-screen TXi

Just before Oshkosh: “Garmin introduces its largest TXi touchscreen flight display yet”. If you want to spend $200,000 on an avionics upgrade to a -G2 Cirrus airplane that was worth $150,000 in pre-Biden dollars in pre-coronapanic times you can now get a 12″ display from Garmin. Did they fix the absurdly low 1280×768 resolution on the 10″ displays that made approach plates illegible unless the pilot wanted to remove his/her/zir/their right hand from the controls and pinch/pan to view different parts of the plate sequentially? It seems that Garmin’s latest and greatest 2025 display has the same resolution as the old one, i.e., 1280×768. This is the resolution that consumers got in 2014 from the Samsung Galaxy Mega 2 ($150 pre-Biden dollars).

How does it look? (ignore the red bands, which are artifacts from the camera/display interaction)

I guess the theory is that the Garmin autopilot is so good the pilot doesn’t have anything better to do than pinch/zoom/pan.

The same company, for a little more than 1/100th the price, introduced a “smart buoy” that keeps track of SCUBA divers (press release). I can’t figure out why it is so difficult to deliver 1080p resolution (1920×1280) to aviation customers.

Full post, including comments

BETA Technologies update from Oshkosh 2025

BETA Technologies had a busy pavilion at EAA AirVenture (“Oshkosh”) this year. I last wrote about them in 2023: A visit to BETA Technologies in Burlington, Vermont (eVTOL aircraft).

The company’s “CTOL” aircraft was on display in a spacious six-seat configuration. It can supposedly travel 150 nm with a reasonable reserve (215 nm absolute range) with all six seats occupied. An efficient cruise speed is a Robinson R44-style 105 knots. Against a typical headwind maybe the range is more like 130 nm. Make sure not to run out of battery power because the stall speed is 80 knots, which would mean hitting the ground at over 100 mph.

BETA plans to certify the aircraft under FAR 23, which limits single-engine aircraft to a stall speed of 61 knots unless the manufacturer can demonstrate above-and-beyond crashworthiness. This has been stretched to 67 knots by a couple of companies, e.g., Cirrus for the Vision Jet and Pilatus for the PC-12, but nobody has ever gone anywhere near 80 knots. If the BETA has only one propeller how can it get FAR 23 certification? Maybe the answer is that the single propeller/motor combination has two independent motors internally? Thus, the aircraft could actually be considered a centerline twin?

The actual plane at the event has accumulated 250 hours. The pilots who’ve flown it say that it is quiet enough that they remove their headsets when in cruise (electric engine in the back). An air conditioner is coming soon. Finally we might have an aircraft as comfortable as a Honda Odyssey?

(The tail number is N916LF in memory of Lochie Ferrier, a young MIT graduate and former BETA employee who died in a homebuilt aircraft accident in January 2024. We don’t yet have a final NTSB report, but there appears to have been a power loss in a piston engine that may have been unrelated to the aircraft’s experimental status. 9/16 was Lochie’s birthday.)

The vehicle is huge. If a conventional airframe company built this it would have to sell for $3 million just to pay for the aluminum and carbon fiber construction.

How are the legacy piston-powered companies responding to this innovation? A new paint scheme at the Cirrus pavilion:

Full post, including comments

Defeating stealth aircraft with infrared sensors

EAA AirVenture (“Oshkosh”) opens today so it is time for an aviation-themed post…

The F-35 played a role early in the recent fighting between Israel and Iran, but after air defenses were neutralized, Israel bombed targets using older non-stealth fighters. From Topgun: An American Story, by Dan Pederson, one of the founders of the Navy Fighter Weapons School:

One question deserves to be whether we even need such expensive capabilities as stealth in our planes. I’m not so sure. New sensors that are within the current capability of Russia and China to field don’t even use radar waves. These infrared search-and-track devices can detect the friction heat of an aircraft’s skin moving through the atmosphere, as well as disturbances in airflow.

Maybe the cost-effective approach is to use drones to perform all of the attacks against an adversary’s air defenses and then send in legacy aircraft? The author says that we can’t afford to provide human fighter pilots with enough combat hours to stay proficient, which is another great argument for AI/drones:

At Topgun in my day, a pilot had to log a minimum of thirty-five to forty flight hours every month to be considered combat-ready. This is no longer possible. As the F-35 continues to swallow up the money available to naval aviation, the low rate of production all but ensures that our pilots will not soon gain the flight hours that they need to get good. For the past few years Super Hornet pilots have been getting just ten to twelve hours per month between deployments—barely enough to learn to fly the jet safely. The F-35 has far less availability. Its pilots have to rely on simulators to make up the deficit. Its cost per flight hour is exorbitant.

There are quite a few reminders in the book of the high cost of war against a near-peer, e.g., in Vietnam:

What else is in the book? Here’s a passage that can be used by the pro-open-borders folks:

My parents were immigrants and I was a first-generation American. Dad, named Orla or Ole, was born in Denmark in 1912 and his parents, Olaf and Mary Pedersen, immigrated the next year. My mother, Henrietta, was one of three beautiful sisters from the Isle of Man.

Immigrants, regardless of which society they come from, make the best Americans.

Serving in the Navy is a bad idea for anyone who wants to be a parent:

One night I was aboard ship, ready to take my first ship command, when I got a phone call. Somehow my eight-year-old son had found my direct number. I answered. He was crying. He begged me not to leave. “Please, Dad. Come back… everyone else has a dad home with them. I don’t.”

It worked okay, apparently, in the pre-no-fault (unilateral) divorce world, but it seems that Navy wives eventually turn plaintiff if the officer-pilot doesn’t get killed in an accident or combat. The author himself seems to have been sued by two wives:

My first marriage did not survive the many deployments of the 1970s. Being gone so much finally drove a wedge between us that could not be removed. I married a second time while serving in surface ships. Ever the optimist, I guess. It wasn’t meant to be.

The Vietnam war wasn’t winnable from the air for a variety of reasons:

Afraid of escalating the war, the Johnson administration refused to sanction attacks on Haiphong Harbor or the shipping there. As we started flying missions up north, we would pass near those cargo ships as they waited their turn to offload at the docks. We could see their decks crammed with weatherized MiGs and surface-to-air missiles that would shortly be used against us. But we couldn’t hit them. And we couldn’t mine the harbor, either. What a tragedy. The simple execution of an off-the-shelf aerial mining plan, long before perfected during World War II and carried out in three days, could have shut down that big port—the only one of its kind in North Vietnam. But the word from the White House was no. Those big surface-to-air missiles, as large as telephone poles, would spear up into the sky after our aircraft, homing on their radar signatures. They took a heavy toll. We could seldom bomb the missile sites for fear we might kill their Russian advisers.

When the North Vietnamese began flying Russian-and Chinese-built MiG fighters, the Navy and Air Force asked Washington for permission to bomb their airfields. The request was denied. Categories of targets that could not be struck under any circumstances included dams, hydroelectric plants, fishing boats, sampans, and houseboats. They also included, significantly, populated areas. Seeing the military value of these restrictions, the North Vietnamese placed most of their SAM support facilities and other valuable cargo near Hanoi and Haiphong—places we were forbidden to strike. The airfields around Hanoi became sanctuaries for the MiGs; the commander in chief of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, who had overall responsibility for the air war, urged the Joint Chiefs of Staff to lift the crippling restrictions. Meanwhile, the enemy fighter pilots could sit on their runways in their planes without fear of attack, waiting to scramble when our bombers showed up.

Postwar research suggests that Hanoi occasionally received updated target lists about the same time we did on Yankee Station. Our own State Department passed the list to North Vietnamese via the Swiss government in hopes that Hanoi would evacuate civilians from the target areas. Of course they cared little about that. They simply used the valuable intel to duck the next onslaught, moving MiGs out of harm’s way and bolstering antiaircraft artillery and surface-to-air missile batteries in the target areas for good measure. Destroying the MiGs on the ground proved difficult enough, but we were also ordered not to attack them in the air unless they could be visually identified and posed a direct threat.

Those rules of engagement negated the way we had trained to fight in the air. The value of our F-4 Phantoms was their ability to destroy enemy planes from beyond visual range. The AIM-7 Sparrow was the ultimate expression of that new way of fighting. Track and lock with the radar system, loose the missile from ten miles out, and say goodbye to a MiG. This is how the Navy trained us to fight. We abandoned dogfight training because of the Navy’s faith in missile technology. Most of our aircrews didn’t know how to fight any other way. Yet our own rules of engagement kept us from using what we were taught. The rules of engagement specifically prohibited firing from beyond visual range. To shoot a missile at an aircraft, a fighter pilot first needed to visually confirm it was a MiG and not a friendly plane. The thought of inadvertent or accidental shootdown of our brothers was of course intolerable. It did happen, sadly, in the heat of combat. Yet three years along, the training squadron in California was still teaching long-range intercept tactics to the exclusion of everything else. Our training was not applicable to the air war in Vietnam.

Assumptions used in engineering turn out to be wrong:

The MiG-17 was a nimble fighter armed with cannons, but no missiles. It was old school, derived from the lessons the Soviets learned in the Korean War. With such a plane, the North Vietnamese needed to get in close and track our planes with their gunsights. They would sometimes wait to open fire on us until they were within six hundred feet. Here we were, trained to knock planes down at ten miles. The F-4 carried only missiles; it did not have an internal gun because contractors and the Pentagon believed the age of the dogfight was over. We brought our expensive high tech into this knife fight in a phone booth. The result? The MiG pilots scored a lot more heavily than they should have.

And the engineering didn’t work:

Over Vietnam, our Sparrow missiles usually malfunctioned or missed. So did the AIM-9 Sidewinders. How could we not have known this prior to 1965? Well, history repeats: The weapons were so expensive that the Navy could not afford to use them in training. Live-fire shooting was done against drones flying straight and level, like an unsuspecting bomber might be caught doing. We didn’t know we had a problem until the weapons had to be deployed against fighters.

Politicians in Washington, D.C. managed to convince themselves that everything was going great:

We had to find a way to win in spite of these technical problems and political interference. Robert McNamara was a numbers guy. Under him, the Pentagon measured success in the ground war by the body count. In the air, the metric was the number of sorties flown over North Vietnam. One sortie equals one plane flying one mission. A ten-plane raid resulted in ten sorties. This became a delusional world. A sortie counted in the total even if our bombers were forced to dump their payloads short of the target, which often happened when MiGs appeared.

Is Trump the first president to give an adversary (Iran) a safe space? No:

At the end of March, in a speech declaring that he would not run for reelection in November, Lyndon Johnson changed the entire dynamic of the air war. He announced an immediate suspension of all bombing attacks north of the 20th parallel. Just like that, Rolling Thunder was over, neutralized by a lame-duck president. Up until then, the MiGs had been forced to operate from China, reducing their effectiveness. When LBJ told the world where we would not be bombing anymore, he essentially told the North Vietnamese we were giving their fighter regiments a safe space again. At the same time, the new restrictions greatly reduced the Air Force’s role in the air war over North Vietnam. The onus to continue it fell on the Navy.

I might print this out and tape it to the panel of the Cirrus SR20 to look at when I’m complaining about the lack of air conditioning:

Some time later, leading a strike mission at low altitude, Skank Remsen took a rifle round through the cockpit, straight through both thighs. He took his leg restraints, slid them up both legs, cinched them tight, and used them as tourniquets. He then flew one hundred and fifty miles and successfully landed aboard the carrier. Flight deck medical staff got him out of the airplane and rushed him to surgery. He refused medical evacuation to a stateside hospital and remained on board to heal. Two weeks later that tough old hombre was back in the saddle, flying combat missions with his boys. Now that’s my idea of real leadership.

Trigger warning: Nobody from Harvard or Columbia should read this book.

The Mediterranean, home of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, became a powder keg on October 6[, 1973]. That was the day our Israeli friends awoke to the greatest crisis of their lives: an imminent Arab invasion. The nation of Israel responded to that gathering storm with a massive preemptive strike. When the Yom Kippur War started, I was at Norfolk with the Dogs. All I could do was hope my Israeli friends, Eitan Ben Eliyahu and Dan Halutz and the rest of them, were out there knocking MiGs down and laying waste to ground targets.

The author eventually was promoted to command an aircraft carrier. The challenge of managing disgruntled and/or drug-addicted personnel turned out to be enormous. His Navy career ended when a sailor died and Michigan senators Carl Levin and Donald Riegle (both Democrats) faulted Pederson’s management of the ship.

A young airman named Paul Trerice collapsed and died while we were in Subic Bay about three weeks after we rescued the refugees. … The ship had just returned from a five-day visit to Hong Kong, where he was an unauthorized absentee. He was next in the CCU that April of 1981. My understanding from

Full post, including comments

Air India 171 fuel cutoff switches

It looks as though someone pulled out and then threw the fuel cutoff switches for both engines of the Boeing 787 that was operating as Air India 171. Airways offers a timeline.

The Air Current has a clear and annotated picture of the switches:

It is tough to understand how this could have been a mistake. After being pulled out to release the lock the switches had to be moved down/back to the cutoff position. During climb out, on the other hand, the appropriate levers are generally being moved up (gear and flap levers, for example).

Some interesting items from the Air Currents article:

Time to let SuperGrok 4.0 do all of the flying?

Full post, including comments

Air operations for the Texas flood search and rescue

Here’s the FAA visual flying chart for the area northwest of San Antonio, overlaid with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) by skyvector.com. Based on the TFRs, it looks as though the base for air operations in the search and rescue is the Kerrville Municipal Airport (KERV), a jet-capable general aviation airport with a flight school and FBO, but no control tower (a common traffic advisory frequency of 122.7 is advertised for pilots to talk to each other). It seems as though there are two main search and rescue areas, one just to the west of the airport and one to the east.

“Terrified Girls, Helicopters and a Harrowing Scene: A Rescuer’s Account at Camp Mystic” (New York Times):

Scott Ruskan, a 26-year-old Coast Guard rescue swimmer based in Corpus Christi, Texas, woke up to banging on his door in the early hours of July 4. There was flooding around San Antonio and he was being deployed, he was told. … Mr. Ruskan and his team took off on a helicopter around 7 a.m. Central on Friday to the camp, near Hunt, Texas. It took them nearly six hours to reach San Antonio because of poor visibility and challenging weather conditions. “A white-knuckle experience,” he said.

It’s only 166 nautical miles from KNGP to KERV so the trip should have been doable in just over an hour with decent weather. (The NYT doesn’t name or credit the pilots.)

Full post, including comments

How useful have helicopters been in recovering from the Texas floods?

The Texas flood tragedy unfolded as I was making my way back to Florida from Idaho so I’m just catching up on the situation. How useful have helicopters been in rescuing people washed away or trapped by rising waters? I found one video of a hoist out of a tree. I think it is an Astar (can’t read the tail number due to the low resolution and what seems to be continuing rain).

I spoke to a friend in Austin and his house, in a neighborhood that is up a steep hill, was fine, but he was out helping a friend an hour northwest of Austin whose house became “a disaster”.

This weather radar loop is frightening:

Full post, including comments

Air India 171 Boeing 787 crash questions

Friends have been asking my opinion regarding the recent Boeing 787 crash in India. Based on the fact that the 787’s gear wasn’t retracting or retracted, the most common speculation right now seems to be that the flight crew mistakenly retracted flaps rather than gear at the “positive rate” point just above the runway.

I’m not typed in the B787 so I can’t say for sure how far apart flaps retraction and rotation speed are. In the CRJ, the following are true:

  • the plane won’t take off without some flaps down (i.e., even with full power from two engines it will just go off the end of a 15,000′ runway)
  • rotation speed (Vr) and flaps retraction speed (V2+10) are reasonably close, separated by perhaps 15 seconds (admittedly that’s with gear coming up); see “Everything about V Speeds Explained”
  • flaps on an airliner move rather slowly
  • with two engines at full power, the plane will climb reasonably well even if the configuration isn’t perfect
  • given a long runway, less than full power is typically used for takeoff so as to reduce wear on the engines and stretch out the time to overhaul

So… I have no idea what caused this tragedy, but I don’t think that “proper configuration; proper rotation speed; full power; flaps instead of gear just after takeoff” explains a failure to climb. Gear adds drag, but the plane needs to be able to fly in a clean configuration on just one engine and, therefore, with double the power it can easily overpower the gear drag. An inadvertent flap retraction also shouldn’t have caused a crash because, once off the ground, the plane accelerates very quickly toward and beyond V2. The Ahmedabad airport is at sea level and has an 11,500′ runway, which might enable reduced thrust to be used even given the reported 43C temperature. On the other hand, pilots who are sinking would likely push the thrust levers full forward as a reflex.

An obvious explanation is that the aircraft lost power in both engines shortly after takeoff, but it is difficult to think of a way that two turbine engines can fail at the same time. It happened to a Boeing 777 landing at Heathrow due to high altitude icing, but that’s impossible during a hot summer takeoff. It happened to Airbus single-pilot hero Captain Sully (Jeff Skiles nowhere to be found in the media!).

Maybe the fuel was contaminated, but jet engines will burn almost anything and why didn’t the engines quit during taxi?

Separately, should “British man” Vishwash Kumar Ramesh (Guardian) spend all of his future earnings on lottery tickets?

Full post, including comments

Pride Month in aviation

Air Canada demonstrates “inclusivity” by excluding any cisgender heterosexuals from working on a particular flight:

Probability question: We are informed that being 2SLGBTQQIA+ is common/normal and also that in a company with more than 35,000 employees there had never previously been an assembly of 3-6 workers (pilots plus flight attendants) who all identified as 2SLGBTQQIA+ (the flight in the video was the “first all-2SLGBTQIA+ flight”.

In London, Ontario, home to a big Diamond factory:

The Irish equivalent of the FAA:

Atlas Air, best known for a crash with a DEI hire at the controls:

The folks who’ve taken over the Climate Change Awareness mantle from all-Hamas-all-the-time Greta Thunberg:

Airbus UK:

How is are observant Muslims supposed to “be their authentic selves” if they must walk by this flag on their way into work?

In case the Trump Tyranny (TM) reaches D.C.’s airports and the tweet below is memory-holed, screen shots:

Full post, including comments

Loss of Rob Holland and David Paton, founder of Orbis

It’s World Pilot’s Day today, but I’m not celebrating. Rob Holland, whom the legendary Mike Goulian brought to my old home airport, died two days ago in an MXS-RH while preparing for an air show. Confusingly, Rob wasn’t doing any crazy-looking maneuvers just before the crash, but only returning for a normal landing. An aviation friend: “heard the engine broke off and took out Rob’s wing. The composite firewall breaking is a known issue with the MX airplane.” Here’s Rob with an air show spectator:

The first time that I went upside down in an airplane it was with Rob, instructing out of KBED in the Decathlon at the time. I saw him only at air shows after he escaped to tax-free New Hampshire, but I remember him as patient and unfazed by student incompetence. A great ambassador for aviation.

Also notable, though not a tragedy, David Paton, the 94-year-old founder of the Orbis flying eye hospital charity, has died. From the New York Times obituary:

David Paton, an idealistic and innovative ophthalmologist who converted a United Airlines jet into a flying hospital that took surgeons to developing countries to operate on patients and educate local doctors, died on April 3 at his home in Reno, Nev. He was 94.

The son of a prominent New York eye surgeon whose patients included the shah of Iran and the financier J. Pierpont Morgan’s horse, Dr. Paton (pronounced PAY-ton) was teaching at the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins University in the early 1970s when he became discouraged by increasing cases of preventable blindness in far-flung places.

(i.e., his life was consistent with the data presented in The Son Also Rises: economics history with everyday applications)

Before it decided to concentrate on Rainbow Flagism and Critical Race Theory, USAID pitched in to help spread ophthalmology knowledge to poor countries:

Dr. Paton decided to raise funds on his own. In 1973, he founded Project Orbis with a group of wealthy, well-connected society figures like the Texas oilman Leonard F. McCollum and Betsy Trippe Wainwright, the daughter of the Pan American World Airways founder Juan Trippe.

In 1980, Mr. Trippe helped persuade Edward Carlson, the chief executive of United Airlines, to donate a DC-8 jet. The United States Agency for International Development contributed $1.25 million to convert the plane into a hospital with an operating room, a recovery area and a classroom equipped with televisions, so local medical workers could watch surgeries.

(I’m not sure that $1.25 million would pay for new carpet and a coffee maker in a Gulfstream today.)

David Paton wasn’t a pilot, but he created one of the greatest demonstrations of the power and value of aviation.

Some photos of the Orbis MD-10 at Oshkosh (EAA AirVenture) in 2021 (note the COVID-era mask, one of the few at Oshkosh that year):

Separately, if you need some help with your eyes in order to keep flying safely, U.S. News says to pack a bathing suit and go to Miami (ranked #1). Alternatively, pack a gun and ammo and go to Philadelphia (#2) or Baltimore (#3):

Circling back to Rob Holland, I think that he was truly one of those people whose personality in life matched his eulogy personality. Despite being a fierce competitor and top achiever, he never exhibited a touch of “pilot ego.” I will miss him.

Full post, including comments