December 10, 2025 - No. 50 In This Issue : Boeing to take back control of Spirit AeroSystems, Airbus operations carved out to save 3,000 UK jobs : United Airlines provides important update on the world’s first Boeing 777 amid reports it's being moved to the Mojave Desert : Boeing delivered the first T-7A Red Hawk to the Air Force : Grounded by Red Ink: The Hidden Chokepoint in U.S. Air Force Readiness : How USAF engineering breakthroughs returned damaged B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to service : Greater maintainability for improved safety for helicopters : Boeing delivered the final QF-16 to the US Air Force : Ask Paul: The fall-out from not doing due diligence : Texas Supreme Court hears dispute over whether Bell flight manual counts as a 'part' under federal statute of repose : U.S. Air Force retires last Huey from Yokota Air Base : What Are Winglets & Why Do They Matter Boeing to take back control of Spirit AeroSystems, Airbus operations carved out to save 3,000 UK jobs With the US planemaker taking back control of the key components supplier, doubt had reigned over Spirit AeroSystems staff employed to build Airbus planes. Luke Peters December 8, 2025 News Air TransportManufacturingAirbusAirbus A220 Note: See photos in the original article. In a deal which is expected to be announced on Monday, 8 December, Spirit AeroSystems will cease to exist as an independent supplier to the global aircraft manufacturing industry. Instead, the company will revert to sitting under the control of the previous owner, Boeing, but with a significant portion of the business being carved out in favour of arch-rival Airbus. Boeing brings Spirit AeroSystems back in-house Coming at the end of an 18-month process led by Boeing to regain control of Spirit AeroSystems, the company is expected to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange on the morning of 8 December as the final elements of the agreement with Boeing are put into place. Spirit AeroSystems was originally a wholly-owned division of Boeing before being spun off in 2005. Boeing recently confirmed that it expects to complete its Spirit AeroSystems acquisition by the end of 2025, after receiving approval from the US Federal Trade Commission. The relationship between the two companies, having become increasingly fractious over recent years due to production delays, eventually broke down in 2024 following the Alaska Air Boeing 737 MAX 9 incident in which an emergency exit plug door blew out from a three-week-old aircraft at 14,800ft. Spirit AeroSystems produced the aircraft’s fuselage. Photo: JHVEPhoto / stock.adobe.com With allegations of quality control issues at Spirit rife, Boeing subsequently decided to bring the Spirit Airlines operation back in-house, providing the US planemaker greater control over its entire manufacturing chain. With that process now complete, an announcement issued by Boeing confirmed that Spirit AeroSystems is no more, with Boeing taking back full control of both the company and its operations. “This is a pivotal moment in Boeing’s history and future success as we begin to integrate Spirit AeroSystems’ commercial and aftermarket operations and establish Spirit Defense,” said Kelly Ortberg, president and chief executive officer of The Boeing Company. “As we welcome our new teammates and bring our two companies together, our focus is on maintaining stability so we can continue delivering high-quality airplanes, differentiated services, and advanced defence capabilities for our customers and the industry.” Boeing’s acquisition includes all of Spirit’s Boeing-related commercial operations, including fuselages for the 737 program and major structures for the 767, 777 and 787 Dreamliner. It also includes commercially procured fuselages for the P-8 and KC-46 military aircraft. An Airbus carve-out is planned for some Spirit operations However, this has presented Boeing executives with an issue. Almost 3,000 Spirit AeroSystems employees are not engaged in tasks related to Boeing products at all, but rather in building components for Airbus commercial aircraft. However, as reported by Business Matters, a side deal has been agreed under the terms of the agreement whereby Airbus will take over these operations itself, ending a period of uncertainty for Spirit AeroSystems workers in Belfast (Northern Ireland) and Prestwick in Scotland. These plants will become known as Airbus Belfast and Prestwick Aerosystems, respectively. The deal will not only secure these jobs but will also guarantee continuity for specific Airbus programmes, while also likely to satisfy the relevant competition authorities in the countries affected. Photo: r 4300streetcar / stock.adobe.com Both sites affected by the carve-out have deep-rooted histories in the UK aviation sector. Spirit acquired the Belfast site through its acquisition of Bombardier in October 2020. The site specialises in the production of wings for the short-haul Airbus A220 and was originally part of the Short Brothers factory, which began building flying boats in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the Prestwick site was originally part of British Aerospace and first became involved in the Airbus manufacturing process through the two companies’ tie-up in the 1970s. The site specialises in the manufacture of leading and trailing wing-edge components for both the A320 and A350 aircraft types. The deal will secure thousands of Spirit jobs The deal between Spirit AeroSystems and Boeing will secure the jobs for Spirit’s UK employees, who had feared for their jobs had Boeing taken the whole of Spirit AeroSystems back under its control. Both UK sites have been operating under short-term agreements while Airbus and Boeing worked to unravel an agreement that allowed Spirit to supply both Airbus and Boeing production lines simultaneously. Photo: Airbus Under the terms of the carveout, Airbus will take on approximately 1,550 staff at the Belfast site and around 1,200 at the Prestwick plant. It is believed that Boeing could retain the Belfast employees not engaged on the Airbus A220 programme, which could equate to around 2,000 employees in total. Outside of the UK, other Spirit AeroSystems plants that will be taken over by Airbus as part of the carve-out from Boeing include facilities in St. Nazaire in France and Casablanca in Morocco. This is in addition to the main sites in the US, including Kinston in North Carolina and Wichita in Kansas. “This milestone marks a special moment for all of us at Airbus,” said Florent Massou, Executive Vice President Operations for the Commercial Aircraft business of Airbus. “We are proud to welcome over 4,000 new colleagues, with whom we will embark on a new chapter in our industrial operations by taking on activities of critical importance to our commercial aircraft programmes,” Airbus to be paid compensation for loss-making plants According to Simple Flying, by way of compensation for Airbus assuming financial responsibility for assuming control of its loss-making operations in Belfast and Prestwick, Spirit AeroSystems will pay Airbus an amount of $439 million as compensation. Notably, the Belfast site alone recorded a $670 million loss in 2024, prompting concern for its future viability. It is understood that Airbus has also agreed to provide Spirit AeroSystems with non-interest-bearing lines of credit of $200 million. This amount will be used to shore up Spirit’s Airbus programs during the intervening period. The entire deal remains subject to regulatory approval. Click here for more aerospace manufacturing news Airbus retains Spirit staff for global expansion plans In the meantime, with the deal secured that will ensure the longevity of the Belfast plant, planning activity has already commenced for the expansion of the wing assembly plant as Airbus gears up A220 production to meet growing global demand for the single-aisle jet. Just last week, Argentinian low-cost carrier Flybondi ordered 15 of the type, becoming the first operator of the A220 in Latin America. Photo: Airbus Once Spirit’s UK workforce transfers to being under the Airbus umbrella, the European manufacturer’s total UK workforce will increase to around 14,000 employees across the commercial, defence, and space sectors. In addition to the Belfast and Prestwick plants, Airbus also maintains a strong UK presence in both Chester and Bristol, where key components such as wing sections are produced for the rest of the Airbus family of aircraft. United Airlines provides important update on the world’s first Boeing 777 amid reports it's being moved to the Mojave Desert Published on Dec 07, 2025 at 10:42 PM (UTC+4) by Grace Donohoe Last updated on Dec 08, 2025 at 12:43 PM (UTC+4) Edited by Emma Matthews Note: See photos and video in the original article. United Airlines is one of the biggest airplane operators around and even operated the world’s first Boeing 777. Now, though, decades after it was first sent high into the sky, there have been reports that it’s being retired. Worried that the jet’s service could be coming to an end, aviation fans have been speculating online. Now, United has explained to SB Media what is really going on with the 777. United Airlines started the world’s love for the Boeing 777 The Boeing 777 is an airplane that we’ve all heard of one way or another, but not many people know that United Airlines was actually the first ever airline to fly the jet in a special program. United Airlines brought the jet into service, enabling the aircraft to fly to exotic destinations, with other airlines soon following suit, and despite the age of the jets, the cabins of the 777s are still high-tech and comfortable. By DReifGalaxyM31 – Own work, CC BY 3.0 Reportedly, the 777-200 jet first flew commercially in 1995, but after reports surfaced of the airline retiring it, fans started to speculate. The world’s first 777 was tracked by aviation enthusiasts to have last flown on November 29, 2025, to Victorville’s Southern California Logistics Airport, where it currently resides. For many, alarm bells started to ring, and worry arose that the plane was set to be retired after over three decades of service. By Meisterflieger – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0 Boeing itself stated that the plane has 30 years of innovation behind it, and over 3.9 billion passengers have even flown on board. So, was N777UA really at the end of its service? Here’s what United Airlines have said about the ‘retirement’ reports After word of the Boeing 777 entering retirement started doing the rounds online, we reached out to United Airlines, which set the record straight. “We’ve temporarily parked the aircraft and plan to return it to service,” United told SB Media. So, there’s no need to panic or mourn just yet, as the airplane is being treated to a well-deserved rest after decades in the sky. At least when it does return to service, it will be raring to go, so it’s not all bad. Boeing delivered the first T-7A Red Hawk to the Air Force Note: See photos in the original article. Boeing has delivered the first production T-7A Red Hawk training aircraft to the U.S. Air Force, which arrived at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, on December 5, 2025. This delivery marks a significant milestone in the program to replace the aging T-38 Talon fleet. Key Details • Arrival Location: The aircraft was delivered to the 12th Flying Training Wing at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph. • Purpose: The T-7A Red Hawk is an advanced trainer designed to prepare pilots for fifth- and sixth-generation fighter and bomber aircraft. • Program Goals: The Air Force's program of record includes procuring 351 T-7As, 46 simulators, and associated ground-based training systems. • Initial Operational Capability (IOC): The program is on track to achieve IOC in August 2027, with 14 jets assigned to the 99th Flying Training Squadron. • Features: The T-7A features an open-architecture design, fly-by-wire controls, and high-fidelity simulators, allowing for an integrated training system that emphasizes modern data management and decision-making skills. • Legacy: The aircraft was named the "Red Hawk" in honor of the Tuskegee Airmen, who painted the tails of their World War II aircraft red. • While this is the first aircraft assigned to the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), several engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) aircraft had previously been delivered to Edwards Air Force Base for testing purposes. Grounded by Red Ink: The Hidden Chokepoint in U.S. Air Force Readiness Austin A. Gruber December 9, 2025 At sunrise in the Pacific, a fighter jet rolled to the end of the flight line as crew chiefs swarmed in final checks. Everything pointed to “ready.” Then a small crack was spotted — a hole that needed to be smoothed out. The maintainer sent a waiver request. Hours later: denied. The request was out of spec by a hair — imperceptible to the naked eye. The jet never launched — not for lack of training, skill, or threat. It stayed grounded because an engineer — far removed from the fight — saw red ink. Where the maintainer’s judgment saw an acceptable risk, the engineer saw only a violation. This rigidity is the U.S. Air Force’s hidden chokepoint: A culture where combat readiness bends not to enemy pressure, but to engineering risk aversion. In the U.S. Air Force, the engineering authority approves all technical decisions across a weapon system’s life cycle. Typically, each platform or program has a single chief engineer — the individual serving as the engineering authority — who has completed an extensive qualification pipeline and is hand-selected by a cadre of professionals. Because they are accountable — and legally liable — for the consequences of technical decisions, the vetting process is rigorous, and that burden of responsibility often drives a reluctance to accept risk. Engineers see no room for assumption. Their decisions are mathematical and they bear full accountability for miscalculation. This rigid approach once sufficed, but is no longer adequate for today’s strategic landscape . This is not a niche technical squabble. It is a readiness crisis. Readiness, as defined in Air Force doctrine, is the ability of forces to deliver required capabilities to meet mission demands. It encompasses trained personnel, materiel condition, and the availability of aircraft to fly designed missions. In practice, it is the measure of whether combat power can be generated when called upon. At the Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference on Sept. 22, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink admitted: “I knew there was a readiness challenge. I didn’t appreciate how significant that readiness challenge was.” The service is entering great-power competition with the smallest fleet in its history and readiness rates at historic lows. This year, the inventory is projected to fall below 5,000 aircraft. Only 62 percent are mission capable. That means nearly 1,900 planes are unable to fly their designed missions on any given day. Meanwhile, modernization crawls. The Government Accountability Office recently found that major defense programs average nearly 12 years to deliver the first version of a new system, with software proving especially troublesome. Add in budgetary gridlock, shifting congressional priorities, and evolving requirements, and timelines slip further. The result: The average Air Force aircraft is now 32 years old, nearly double the age at the end of the Cold War. China, by contrast, is modernizing at speed and edging closer to parity in a contest where time favors Beijing. Two decades of counter-terrorism wars only deepened the strain, burning through flying hours and stressing airframes never built for such sustained demand. To keep pace, the service has leaned on modifications and upgrades to keep legacy platforms relevant. These efforts extend utility but also expose brittle supply chains. Too often, a single missing part or unapproved substitute halts an entire line — and with it, combat power. The F-16 illustrates this point. Originally designed for 8,000 flight hours, many jets reached that ceiling by the mid-2000s. With F-35 deliveries delayed, the Air Force turned to a Service Life Extension Program, raising the certified structural life to 12,000 hours by reinforcing bulkheads and other critical structures. But those fixes are only as strong as the pipeline that feeds them. Each kit, bulkhead, or repair sequence depends on parts that too often arrive late — or not at all. An aging fleet, declining readiness, and sluggish modernization are a dangerous mix. If the Air Force cannot fly what it has and cannot field what it needs, it risks entering the next fight already a generation behind. While the original manufacturer’s standard becomes increasingly unattainable, engineers remain bound to it. Each day, the gap between operational reality and engineering rigidity grows wider — and the risk to combat capability grows sharper. Here lies the dilemma: Weapon system readiness begins and ends with the engineering authority. Technical data is followed precisely by those who have this role. Deviating from technical data, substituting a part, or using an alternative process without obtaining engineering approval is considered unauthorized and carries risks to safety, airworthiness, and potential legal consequences. Sustainment risk, therefore, starts with engineering, which holds the single voice of authority for interpreting or granting exceptions to technical data. The challenge is cultural as much as procedural. Engineers operate within strict accountability frameworks that leave little room for judgment. That rigidity has unintended consequences when combat power is at stake. Maintainers and crews are pressed for solutions, while the technical gatekeeper remains the sole authority to approve change. The fix is uncomfortable but essential: Engineers should advise, not decide. Commanders ought to reclaim readiness decisions because only they bear responsibility for the fight. Operational readiness demands decision space. The U.S. Air Force should shift from risk aversion to calculated risk. That does not mean compromising safety. It means balancing airworthiness with readiness. The engineering authority should evolve into an engineering advisor. Advisors quantify how far out of limits a system is, outline risks, and provide failure probability estimates. Commanders, accountable for mission success, then weigh those risks against operational needs. Critics will argue that shifting authority risks safety and consistency. They are right to worry. But the greater danger is a force that cannot fly when it is needed most. The fix should be carefully designed: Engineers should remain the technical conscience of the force, but commanders need to own the readiness decision. This proposition does not preclude accelerating acquisition or reforming the requirements process. Those efforts are essential to reduce the long-term burden of operating geriatric fleets. But acquisition reform is a years-long fix, with benefits that arrive only after new systems are fielded. The proposed shift in engineering authority operates in parallel, addressing the here-and-now readiness gap. One targets the future force. The other sustains today’s. The U.S. Air Force cannot allow engineering rigidity to become the single point of failure in a future fight. Preserving airworthiness will always be non-negotiable, but so is readiness. The two are not mutually exclusive — but that balance ought to rest with leaders in the fight. Unless the system evolves from a culture of “no” to a culture of “calculated risk” — one that accepts alternative materials, fast-tracks approvals, and aligns replacement cycles with reality rather than original specifications — America’s air force may struggle to command the skies. How USAF engineering breakthroughs returned damaged B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to service The “Spirit of Georgia” looked beyond repair after its runway collapse, but innovative engineering, rapid digital analysis and composite repair breakthroughs returned the rare stealth bomber to frontline duty. Jay Menon December 9, 2025 Note: See photos in the original article. When a B-2 stealth bomber is damaged, the consequences are never minor. With only 20 in existence, any serious incident threatens one of America’s rarest and most capable aircraft. And four years ago, the “Spirit of Georgia” looked perilously close to being written off. On a September night in 2021, a hydraulic failure forced tail number 89-0129 into an emergency landing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. The left landing gear collapsed, the wing scraped along the runway, and millions of dollars’ worth of composite structure were destroyed in seconds. Photo: USAF “It was significant structural damage,” said Col. Jason Shirley of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, who led the recovery effort. “There were serious questions whether the aircraft could ever fly again.” Many assumed that the world’s most advanced stealth bomber might become its most expensive museum piece. Instead, the repair turned into a masterclass in rapid engineering and creative problem-solving. On 6 November 2025, the Spirit of Georgia returned to the air. Read also: $2 billion Spirit of Hawaii B-2 bomber crashed because of a tiny part failure How engineers began restoring the damaged B-2 bomber using digital scans and rapid analysis The first challenge was simply lifting the 170,000-lb bomber without causing further harm. Maintainers resorted to giant industrial airbags to raise the aircraft high enough to manually lock the gear and tow it into a hangar, an approach borrowed more from civil engineering than frontline aviation. Then the forensic phase began. Technicians used laser dimensional scanners normally reserved for precision manufacturing. The scans revealed that critical load-bearing structures remained aligned, avoiding weeks of dismantling and giving engineers the confidence to map a viable repair plan. Finite Element Method simulations then confirmed that major wing spars had not been overstressed. Suddenly, what looked like a total loss became salvageable. Photo: USAF Those steps alone saved an estimated 52 million dollars and cut nine months from the programme schedule. Crucially, they meant the aircraft could eventually fly again. After temporary patches and structural reinforcements, the B-2 ferried itself in September 2022 to Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale facility, the only location capable of fully rebuilding a stealth wing. Inside the composite repair breakthroughs that rebuilt the B-2 bomber’s damaged wing The team faced a pivotal decision: manufacture a new composite wing-skin panel from scratch or take an unconventional route. They chose the latter. Engineers sourced a donor panel from a retired B-2 test article, avoiding months of production lead time and subtly reshaping the Air Force’s philosophy on composite sustainment. Traditionally, B-2 repairs required curing composite patches in a pressurised autoclave. The Spirit of Georgia, however, was far too large, prompting specialists to adopt a new resin system designed to cure outside an oven — a first for the fleet. Photo: USAF “It required completely new ways of controlling heat in tight, sensitive spaces,” said structural engineer Matt Powers. “We custom-built heating systems, mapped temperatures with thermal surveys, and even piped cooling air through the wing to prevent damage.” Years of fuel exposure had contaminated internal surfaces, usually a nightmare for bonding work. Meticulous cleaning brought them close to laboratory conditions, enabling reliable adhesion. By May 2025, the wing had been fully rebuilt, including: • a restored left wingtip • new landing-gear door hinges and rigging • repaired internal fuel-tank composite skins • reinstated load-bearing lower wing structure All were certified airworthy following an intensive approval process. What the B-2 Spirit repair means for future stealth aircraft sustainment With such a small fleet, extending the life of each B-2 is strategically vital. The Spirit of Georgia, now fully modernised, returns to duty with lessons that will shape sustainment across multiple US aircraft programmes. The effort demonstrated: • faster repairs without reliance on scarce autoclave capacity • reduced long-term sustainment costs for composite-rich fleets • new opportunities for life-extension upgrades • validated use of donor structures to avoid premature retirements Photo: USAF Northrop Grumman programme manager Jerry McBrearty described the achievement as a “breakthrough in composite repair methodology”, one already influencing work on other platforms. AF Global Strike Command, meanwhile, ensured rapid technical approvals and synchronised funding. “Their rapid concurrence on temporary and scarf repairs made the whole schedule possible,” said Cindy Connor of the B-2 Programme Office. A stealth aircraft saved by teamwork as much as technology From depot maintainers to digital modellers, logistics planners and composite specialists, hundreds of people contributed to restoring this aircraft. The B-2’s operational world may be characterised by secrecy, yet the story of how one severely damaged bomber was saved is much more open: a reminder that American airpower is sustained not only by stealth, but by the ingenuity and collaboration that keep these rare aircraft flying. Greater maintainability for improved safety for helicopters Dr. Fabien Bernard and Raphaël Paquin, ergonomics and human factors experts at Airbus Helicopters, explain how integrating their expertise from the design phase can improve the operating and maintenance conditions of our products, and ultimately enhance safety. You are both ergonomics and human factors experts at Airbus Helicopters. What does this involve? Fabien: Ergonomics and human factors is the science of studying people in a work situation. To do this, we analyse the key dimensions defined by the International Ergonomics Association: the physical aspect, involving effort and posture; the cognitive aspect – memory, mental workload and judgement–; and the organisational aspect, i.e. organisation in the workshop, flows between people, and cooperation between individuals. We apply this analytical framework to existing work situations, in which case we make a diagnosis, or to future cases. This involves carrying out simulations. In both cases, our conclusions lead to recommendations for solutions. What motivates you to engage with the maintenance aspects? Raphaël: Safety reasons, first of all. Accidents due to maintenance errors are the second cause of helicopter accidents - the first one being pilot error. This higher rate can be explained by the complexity of helicopters. It is often said that a helicopter has the complexity of an aircraft but in the size of a car. Accessibility to areas is often a challenge. This can make the work arduous. Then there are financial reasons. The cost of maintenance throughout the operating life is an important factor for our customers. Our aim is to try to control and reduce these costs. This is part of Airbus' competitiveness, given that operators are attentive to all aspects of aircraft operation. Your profession is a recent creation. How did your area of expertise emerge? Fabien: Historically, aviation safety improvements have been achieved first through cockpit design and aircraft reliability, then through air traffic management. The beginnings of the human factors approach can be found in the first psychological studies during the Second World War. In maintenance, human factors gained traction in the 2000s in connection with the emergence of physical or digital simulation tools. Today, to reinforce our industrial methodologies and associated tools, many research activities are being carried out. In my case, I supervise PhD students, and contribute to scientific publications. Three main axes are currently studied: How to improve the human factors skills for everyone involved in the design process, how to better use simulation tools such as virtual reality and augmented reality tools to anticipate and assess human factors in the early design stage, and how to better understand the real constraints of maintenance operators. Raphaël: As far as Fabien and I are concerned, two dates stand out. The first is personal. In 2014, I supported Fabien during his internship in our department, on the subject of taking ergonomics into account in the design of maintenance tools used by our customers. It was this area that made us realise that we had a fairly broad and free field ahead of us in taking into account ergonomics, not only in maintenance tools, but more generally in the design of the helicopter. So we decided to launch a research project in the form of a PhD study with Fabien. The second date is 2016. Airbus decided to make significant changes to the way it works. This led us to launch the Human Hazard Analysis project in 2018 in collaboration with HeliOffshore, an association of offshore helicopter manufacturers and users dedicated to improving safety. The aim was to improve the robustness of the maintenance activities carried out by our customers by taking human factors into account. In terms of human factors, how does maintenance differ from other areas? Fabien: In maintenance, complexity is linked to variability. The same maintenance task can be carried out by individuals of all sizes, from different cultures and with different levels of training. Conditions can also vary: is the task carried out at night or during the day, with easy access – or not – and are correct documentation and tools available? Is the overall organisation consistent? These variations generate totally different ways of doing things that are difficult to anticipate. But the simulations and our studies aim precisely to study these variabilities and, from the design stage onwards, to think about the health and safety of the operators. Can you share a concrete example of your work? Raphaël: We recently worked on a new development to enable pre-flight inspections of the aircraft to be carried out under optimised conditions. It’s a standard regulation that before each flight every morning, the pilot must climb onto the helicopter to check the condition of the blades, the rotor, the engine and the transmission, and the flight controls. If the integrated steps and handles that are needed in order to properly carry out this inspection are not designed optimally, if they are not the right size and/or position for example, it can create risks. The operator could fall or be unable to properly inspect the aircraft – and detect any damage – due to lack of balance or comfort. We therefore carried out a digital 3D study, followed by tests on wooden models supplemented by a mixed reality hologram to ensure that the positioning of this equipment was optimal. It should be emphasised that we conducted this study during the design phase, before the architecture was finalised and mass production launched. What are the next steps to see ergonomics and human factors become more widespread in maintenance? Fabien: The integration of our principles from the design stage of products is booming. It is driven in particular by customer feedback. For the H160 and H140’s development, we contributed by improving accessibility and simplifying documentation. Customer feedback tells us that it is an easier machine to maintain than the previous generation. Despite this, ergonomics and human factors is still a relatively unknown science. We still have work to do to show that it is a science, and that it can contribute to the improvement of the helicopter sector, particularly in terms of safety. Boeing delivered the final QF-16 to the US Air Force December 08, 2025 Boeing recently delivered the 127th and final QF-16 full-scale aerial target to the U.S. Air Force, concluding a 15-year conversion program. This final delivery occurred around December 4-5, 2025. The QF-16 program converted retired F-16 fighter jets into unmanned, remotely piloted drones capable of supersonic speeds and high-performance maneuvers to serve as realistic targets for weapons testing and training. Key details of the program include: • Purpose The QF-16s are used by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron to provide realistic, full-scale threat simulation for testing new weapon systems and training pilots in live-fire scenarios. • Capabilities The drones retain the F-16's original performance characteristics, including supersonic speed and high-G maneuvering, which is a crucial capability for validating modern air-to-air missiles and sensors. • Service Life The fleet of 127 QF-16s is expected to remain in service until at least 2035. • Successor The QF-16 replaced the aging QF-4 Phantom drones, which were retired in 2016. The Air Force is now exploring options for a next-generation aerial target (NGAT) platform to simulate fifth-generation threats. Ask Paul: The fall-out from not doing due diligence By Paul McBride December 3, 2025 A Lycoming O-540-B4B5 engine. (Photo) Question for Paul McBride, the General Aviation News engines expert: Hi Paul, I came across your name in an AI search. Looks like you are well informed on Lycoming. My question is wide deck vs. narrow on a Lycoming O-540 engine. I purchased a 1971 PA-32 Cherokee 260 about 18 months ago. I did not do my due diligence in a pre-buy and even being in the marine business on Cape Cod for over 45 years did not consider the effects on an airplane engine with only 300 hours since rebuilt in 2012 that spent a lot of time in a hangar in New Jersey. Now at the annual with the 120 additional hours we put on the engine, the #1 and #2 cylinders have 10/80 due to exhaust valve issues, along with oil analysis showing higher than normal nickel. Borescope through the fill shows excessive wear on the cam, as well as surface rust on viewable parts, such as rod bolts and crank counter weights. It’s being decided whether to reman or replace. Lycoming is out one to two years, which is too long to wait for a new engine. I’m trying to weigh out the extra expense and benefits, if any, going forward with another narrow deck engine or putting more into a wide deck. My inclination is to spend the extra $6,000 to $10,000 and go with a wide deck as the narrow has not been produced for a long time and is basically obsolete or is rebuilding a narrow deck still a viable option? That being said, are there any questions that should be asked of the history or anything I would want to know about the wide deck being used for the replacement or is that a moot point as it will be completely overhauled and warrantied? I own this airplane, but two of my four sons fly it. There was a lot of pain telling my two boys about the down time, one of who flys CRJs for a living but loves to fly the airplane on his off days and my other son who just earned his IFR rating. Our use in just pleasure flying, hopefully a minimum of 100 hours a year. We plan to keep it for a few years anyway. What are your thoughts considering our use and do you think it would lessen the value if we stuck with the narrow deck? Thanks much for your time and I look forward to any insight you have. Marty Taubert, via email Paul’s Answer Marty, I could begin by saying shame on you for not doing your due diligence in a pre-buy inspection. However, I’m sure that would be just adding insult to injury, and you’ve probably already beat yourself up over that decision enough and don’t need your nose rubbed in it one more time. It may not make you feel better, but you are not the first person — nor will you be the last — to find themselves in this situation. So, let’s see what we can do about helping you out with your dilemma. From the ugly information you provided, I’d say you’re in bad shape and I might think twice about continuing the aircraft in service. True, the two low cylinders are bad enough, but the results of the oil analysis are what I don’t like at all. When you looked inside the engine and noted excessive wear on the camshaft in addition to surface corrosion on other internal components, that sounds like the death knell to me. It at least would limit any further operation because any further operation would cause even more damage internally. So now we come to the big question as what the next step would be. I can’t even begin to explain why factory engines have such a long lead-time but, as they say, it is what it is. My suggestion for you would be to look around at the various “reputable” field overhaul facilities and see what they may be able to do for you by either exchanging your engine for one that they may have in stock (I have serious doubts about this) or possibly overhauling your engine. Marty, my thought is that having your engine overhauled would be the easiest way to go. However, there are certain risks, one of which is the true condition of the crankcase. If it is found to be serviceable, then that’s the good news. If it’s found not serviceable, the only hope is that it can be salvaged by weld repair and whatever else is required to bring it back to a yellow-tagged serviceable part. I don’t think Lycoming still offers narrow deck crankcases for your model of engine, which means the only available sources are to be found in the field. Lycoming does continue to produce complete cylinder, piston, and ring assembly kits for narrow deck engines. I will caution you that these kits may also be suffering from a huge backlog and not be readily available. Hopefully, all of your cylinders would be able to make it through the overhaul process, saving you from having to purchase costly replacements. My final thoughts would be do whatever you need to do to keep either your engine and have it overhauled or find another engine and have that overhauled. I’d guess the cost to overhaul your present engine will be rather expensive due to the high replacement cost for the internal components. One last comment Marty, and that is the overall history of your aircraft. There is no doubt in my mind that the extended time in the hangar in New Jersey, which is not a friendly environment for very limited flight time on an engine, had a detrimental effect on the overall condition of the engine. Marty, I completely understand how difficult it must have been to break the news to your boys, but I think they will both agree that this challenge is in the interest of safety. I understand that the CRJ pilot can exist without the Piper, but the recently new IFR pilot may want to consider renting an aircraft to stay in practice while waiting to get your airplane back in the air. Marty, I apologize for probably ruining your day, but I prefer to tell it like it is, rather than sugarcoat a situation. About Paul McBride Paul McBride, an expert on engines, retired after almost 40 years with Lycoming. Send your questions to askpaul@generalaviationnews.com. Texas Supreme Court hears dispute over whether Bell flight manual counts as a 'part' under federal statute of repose December 03, 2025 | Supreme Court of Texas, Judicial, Texas This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error » The Supreme Court of Texas heard arguments in Case No. 240883 on whether a Bell helicopter flight manual or a subsection of it qualifies as a "part" under a federal statute of repose that can preclude lawsuits more than 18 years after a part was added or replaced. Counsel for the relators argued the manual is a regulated "part" and that omissions in the manual cannot be treated as a new part subject to the rolling provision; counsel for the real parties in interest countered that a manual can be defective and that updates or deletions to a manual can restart the repose clock. Why it matters: If the court accepts the relators' reading, manufacturers could gain broader protection from long-tail litigation over aircraft components and documents that have been in use for decades. If the court adopts the real parties' approach, plaintiffs might be able to recover in cases where manuals or particular checklist provisions were added, revised, or remained misleading after safety-critical changes to hardware or procedures. Relators' case and core arguments Mister Rutter, who was announced to present argument for the relators, and other counsel pressed that the flight manual is treated as a "part" in aviation law because manufacturers are required by the Federal Aviation Administration to provide the manual and to maintain it as part of the regulated aircraft system. Counsel argued that the statute's plain language requires a "new" part, replacement, or addition within the last 18 years to restart the rolling repose provision. Counsel also told the court that omissions—text that is not present in the manual—cannot constitute a "part," and therefore an omission cannot trigger the statute's restart. Real parties' response Mister Henry, appearing for the real parties in interest, told the court the relators' characterization as pleading "immunity" is misleading and argued that the same "suit may not be brought" language is common in limitative statutes without creating an unreviewable immunity. Henry urged the court to read the statute in context and to recognize circumstances in which a manual or a subsection (for example, a preflight checklist provision) could be treated like other parts and thus be defective or misleading. Precedents and procedural questions Justices and counsel debated how federal precedents apply. The arguments referenced federal cases the court has considered in prior interlocutory-review decisions (including cases colloquially cited in argument as "Facebook," "Academy," "Robinson," "Kennedy," and "Garrett") and discussed whether the statute's language and the presence of constitutional dimensions or fact disputes make the present case suitable for mandamus interlocutory review. Counsel for the relators emphasized the industry-protection rationale behind the repose provision; opposing counsel stressed that factual disputes (for example, when and how manuals were revised) could be fatal to immediate appellate review. Fact patterns at issue A recurring factual example in argument involved an engine cowling warning and whether the manual addressed securing the cowling. Relators' counsel said the relevant instructions and parts had existed for decades and no discrete new part within the last 18 years was alleged to have caused the accident; real-party counsel argued that a mismatch between a manual and newly installed componentry could render the manual defective in the same way as a defective physical part. Court action After extended questioning of counsel on statutory interpretation, regulatory context and mandamus standards, the court thanked counsel, took the case under submission and recessed briefly. No decision was announced. U.S. Air Force retires last Huey from Yokota Air Base By Colton Jones Dec 8, 2025 Note: See photo in the original article. Load a UH-1N Huey into a C-5M at Yokota Air Base, Japan, Dec. 3, 2025. (Photo by David S. Calcote) Key Points • The U.S. Air Force retired the last UH-1N Huey from Yokota Air Base after 45 years of operational service in the Pacific. • The helicopter was loaded onto a C-5M Super Galaxy and returned to the U.S. as part of the Air Force’s rotary-wing modernization effort. The United States Air Force has ended the operational presence of the UH-1N Huey at Yokota Air Base in Japan, marking the conclusion of more than four decades of continuous rotary-wing operations across the Pacific theater. On December 3, 2025, Airmen from the 730th Air Mobility Squadron and the 22nd Airlift Squadron at Travis Air Force Base, California, loaded the last UH-1N Huey into a C-5M Super Galaxy for departure, closing a chapter on a platform that served at Yokota since 1980. According to the Air Force, the UH-1N provided extensive support for aeromedical evacuation, search and rescue, and high-priority airlift missions throughout the Indo-Pacific region. The aircraft became a familiar presence across the theater, routinely tasked in disaster-relief operations and emergency evacuations. The Air Force said in a statement that the aircraft “played a key role in evacuation, transport and disaster-relief operations” since its arrival at Yokota more than 45 years ago. Though the UH-1N has been gradually phased out of frontline service, its continued use at select bases reflected its reliability and adaptability. The retirement at Yokota aligns with the Department of War’s broader effort to replace legacy platforms with upgraded systems offering improved range, survivability, and mission flexibility. In recent years, the Air Force has transitioned to more advanced helicopters capable of supporting the expanding range of missions across the Pacific, including quick-response operations, distributed logistics, and personnel recovery. While the Air Force has not publicly stated what system will replace the Huey at Yokota, platforms such as the MH-139A Grey Wolf have been procured for similar roles elsewhere. The removal of the last Huey was executed by the 22nd Airlift Squadron, which transported the helicopter aboard a C-5M Super Galaxy, one of the Air Force’s largest strategic airlifters. The C-5M’s cargo capacity made it possible to carry the retired Huey back to the United States for disposition.U.S. Air Force retires last Huey from Yokota Air Base For generations of U.S. personnel and allied partners in the region, the UH-1N served as a dependable platform across peacetime and contingency missions. Its contributions ranged from humanitarian relief after natural disasters to support for joint training exercises with regional partners. Winglets: The Aerodynamic Marvels of Aviation Winglets are the vertical or angled extensions at the tips of an aircraft's wings. They are a critical aerodynamic feature designed to significantly improve a plane's efficiency and performance. What is their role? Winglets primarily work by mitigating wingtip vortices. • Wingtip Vortices: These are miniature tornadoes of air created at the wingtips due to the pressure difference between the high-pressure air beneath the wing and the low-pressure air above it. The high-pressure air flows around the tip and curls upward, creating these turbulent vortices. • • • The Problem: These vortices cause a form of aerodynamic drag, known as induced drag, which reduces the overall efficiency of the wing and requires the engines to use more thrust (and fuel) to maintain speed and lift. • • The Solution: Winglets act as barriers that inhibit the formation and strength of these vortices, effectively reducing induced drag. Why do they matter? Reducing induced drag provides several significant benefits, making winglets an indispensable feature of modern commercial aviation: • Fuel Efficiency: By reducing drag, winglets lower fuel consumption, often by 3–7% depending on the aircraft and flight conditions. This translates to substantial cost savings for airlines. • Extended Range: Improved efficiency allows the aircraft to fly longer distances with the same amount of fuel. The Boeing 747-400 is an example of a plane that gained range from its winglets. • Environmental Impact: Lower fuel burn directly results in reduced carbon emissions, contributing to environmental sustainability. • Improved Performance: They can also lead to better climb rates and higher cruising altitudes, enhancing overall flight performance. • Increased Safety: They improve safety by minimizing wake turbulence caused by the vortices, allowing aircraft to fly closer together while maintaining safe separation. Different Types of Winglets Winglets have evolved into various forms to suit different aircraft designs: • Traditional Winglets: Simple upward vertical extensions (e.g., Boeing 747-400). • Blended Winglets: Feature a smooth, aerodynamic curve transitioning from the wing to the winglet. • Wingtip Fences: Vertical surfaces extending both upward and downward (e.g., Airbus A320 family). • Split Scimitar Winglets: An advancement of blended winglets with an additional downward-pointing tip (e.g., Boeing 737 MAX series). Would you like to know more about the specific types of aircraft that use winglets, like the different Boeing and Airbus models? Generated by AI: The Ultimate Guide to Winglets on Airplanes ✈️ - FlyUSA flyusa.com Why Winglets? | Science Project www.sciencebuddies.org Winglets — what are they, and what is their role? - LOT Polish Airlines www.lot.com Winglets Explained | The Aerodynamic Marvels of Modern Aviation | - YouTube www.youtube.com Are Winglets Worth Installing on Your Skymaster? Flight Test Results Revealed. cessnaskymaster.com The wonder of winglets - or what are those things on the end of the wings | Stories - Fly With Virgin Atlantic flywith.virginatlantic.com Curt Lewis