Here are your stories to close out this week...
Of note, an accident in Ecuador during a water salute when an aircraft collided with an ARFF rig HRET, and also a report out of the United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch regarding EV battery risks to First Responders and Accident Investigators.
Have a safe weekend!
Tom
--
Plane Crashed At Danbury Airport Thursday Morning
The incident temporarily closed a road near Danbury Airport.
By Hayleigh Evans, Patch Staff
DANBURY, CT — A small plane crashed into a fence at
Danbury Municipal Airport Thursday morning after failing to become airborne during takeoff, according to Airport Administrator Michael Safranek.
The incident occurred around 10:30 a.m. when a Beechcraft G36, tail number N726EA, was cleared for takeoff on the airport's south-to-north runway, Safranek told Patch.
According to Safranek, the aircraft was unable to rotate and become airborne, causing it to continue beyond the runway and into a fence near Backus Avenue, adjacent to the Danbury Fair area.
The Danbury Fire Department arrived within seconds, and the pilot — the sole occupant of the aircraft — was not injured, Safranek said.
The incident temporarily closed Backus Avenue while 
crews worked to free the aircraft from the fence. The runway was closed for about 90 minutes and reopened around noon.
Airport officials are still investigating what caused the failed takeoff.
This morning at approximately 10:20 a.m., fire units were dispatched to Danbury Airport following reports of a small aircraft that had crashed into a perimeter fence on airport property at the end of Runway 35.
The aircraft came to rest just short of Backus Avenue. Fire Department personnel, working under the direction of Airport Administration, assisted in safely disentangling the aircraft from the fencing.
The pilot, who was the sole occupant of the aircraft, was not injured in the incident.
The circumstances surrounding the crash are currently under investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
https://patch.com/connecticut/danbury/amp/34241759/plane-crashed-at-danbury-airport-thursday-morning
Iberia Airbus A350 Grounded in Ecuador After Celebratory Water Salute Goes Horribly Wrong
by Mateusz Maszczynski
An Airbus A350-900 belonging to Spanish flag carrier Iberia has been grounded in Guayaquil, Ecuador, after a water cannon salute went horribly wrong on Thursday when the swooping wing tip of the multi-million-dollar jet collided with an airport fire truck.
The incident occurred as the A350 was preparing for 
departure back to Madrid, forcing the pilots to taxi back to the terminal building, where the flight had to be cancelled so that engineers could assess the damage to the aircraft.
Iberia normally operates one of its older Airbus A330 airplanes to Guayaquil, but the airline is temporarily substituting its much newer and technologically advanced A350-900 on this route.
To celebrate the commencement of services on the A350, the airport authorities in Guayaquil decided it would be nice to honor the first departure of the aircraft type with a water cannon salute whereby airport fire trucks create an arch of water over the aircraft as it passes underneath.
Water canon salutes are a traditional form of celebration in the airline industry and can be used to mark route launches, the arrival of a new aircraft type, and even pilot retirements.
Some airlines have, however, banned their pilots from taking part in water cannon salutes due to the risk of damage being caused to the aircraft. A lesson that Iberia has just learned the hard way.
As the A350-900 was taxiing for departure as flight IB-132 back to Madrid, the aircraft started to taxi underneath the arch of water formed by two fire trucks positioned on either side of the aircraft.
Unfortunately, it appears that the fire truck on the left-hand side of the plane had positioned itself too close. The wing tip of the aircraft collided with the extendable water arm of the fire truck, leaving a deep groove in the wing tip.
Photos and videos of the incident were caught by planespotters at the airfield perimeter, as well as by shocked passengers on board the plane.
In 2018, a water cannon salute involving a Saudia Airlines Airbus A320 went wrong as the plane approached the gate at Dubai International Airport, when the jet of water caused the overwing emergency slide to be deployed by accident.
According to an official report into the incident, when the jet of water hit the side of the aircraft, it did so with such force that it pushed in a panel hiding the overwing exit control panel.
The water then exerted pressure on the control panel, forcing it upwards and activating the overwing slide to deploy.
In this incident, investigators concluded that this wasn’t down to user error, as the water turret that shoots the water out was malfunctioning and not reacting to user inputs.
Iberia Airbus A350 Grounded in Ecuador After Celebratory Water Salute Goes Horribly Wrong
UK Air Accident Investigators Warn of EV Battery Risks
South London King Air crash was only fatal commercial air transport accident
By Amy Wilder • Writer
High-voltage battery systems in electric aircraft pose a lethal risk to accident investigators and first responders, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch warned in its Annual Safety Review for 2025. The AAIB received 783 occurrence notifications in 2025, up from 762 the previous year, and recorded 12 fatal accidents resulting in 18 deaths.
The only fatal commercial air transport accident of the 
year involved a Beechcraft King Air B200 at London Southend Airport (EGMC) in July, which resulted in four fatalities. The AAIB opened one formal investigation, 23 field investigations, 56 correspondence investigations, and 131 record-only investigations during the year, and supported 45 overseas investigations involving UK interests.
Nine safety recommendations (SRs) were issued by the AAIB last year, the fewest in at least the past decade, according to a historical chart in the report. Industry stakeholders delivered 96 proactive safety actions in direct response to AAIB investigations, without the need for formal recommendations.
Chief inspector Robert Balls, who took over the role in January, succeeding Crispin Orr, described the low recommendation count as a reflection of closer collaboration with stakeholders. “This reduction in SRs and increase in safety actions compared to last year reflects the importance of working closely with stakeholders in our investigations in order to deliver the best safety outcomes for aviation,” he wrote in the foreword.
The review also addresses two emerging concerns. The first is the risk posed by high-voltage battery systems to investigators and first responders at accident sites involving electric aircraft. The AAIB warned that batteries capable of producing 350 to 800 volts DC present lethal electrocution risks and can trigger thermal runaway: an uncontrolled chemical reaction producing intense heat and flame that is difficult to interrupt and can destroy evidence. The AAIB said it is developing protocols and training to mitigate these risks as electric and hybrid aircraft enter wider service.
Another concern is the use of artificial intelligence to support investigations. The AAIB has developed a proof-of-concept AI transcription tool, hosted on a secure, isolated server, that can process cockpit voice recorder audio without exposing protected data to external platforms. Early results indicated that the tool reduces the time required to prepare a fully verified transcript by about 50%, depending on recording quality.
Balls said the pace of technological change in aviation made adaptation essential. “I am committed to ensuring the AAIB continues to adapt to maintain a leading role in aviation safety by conducting thorough, timely, independent investigations that make a real difference to flight safety,” he wrote.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2026-06-04/uk-air-accident-investigators-warn-ev-battery-risks
FAA Scrambles to Regulate Electric Aircraft as Manufacturers Race Ahead
By Legis1 Editorial · Edited by Zarrin Ahmed, Joanne Levine
Why It Matters
A new government watchdog report suggests the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is still working out the rules of the road for a technology that manufacturers are racing to bring to market. It has not certified a single manned electric aircraft for commercial operations. Instead, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, released May 27, 2026, finds that the FAA is evaluating electric aircraft certification requests on a case-by-case basis, with no unified regulatory framework in place.
Meanwhile, a congressional mandate to update 
airworthiness standards for electric engines and propellers due by May 2027 is already stalled because the advisory committee tasked with doing that work was effectively shut down by the Trump administration in August 2025.
Electric aviation technology promises quieter skies, lower operating costs, and expanded air service to rural and underserved communities that have seen regional airline service collapse over the past two decades. But without a clear federal certification pathway, manufacturers face an uncertain road to market, and investors, airports, and local governments that have already begun spending money on the infrastructure are betting on a timeline that federal regulators have yet to validate.
A Technology Racing Ahead of Its Regulators
The electric aircraft industry spans a wide range of designs and ambitions. Fully electric aircraft run solely on battery-powered motors. Hybrid-electric models supplement batteries with conventional combustion engines, extending range and payload. Some require conventional runways; others (electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, known as eVTOLs) lift off like helicopters.
The near-term commercial prospects are concentrated at the short end of the range spectrum. The Archer Aviation Midnight eVTOL, for example, is designed for back-to-back trips of roughly 20 miles (think airport-to-downtown air taxi service). The Heart Aerospace ES-30 can travel about 500 miles in hybrid-electric mode. The Electra EL9 Ultra Short aircraft can take off in 150 feet, according to its manufacturer, opening up airstrips that conventional planes cannot use.
Large commercial electric aircraft (the kind that would replace a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320) are a different matter. Selected research studies cited in the GAO report conclude such aircraft are not likely to enter service within the next 20 years. The battery technology required may not be available until midcentury, and even then would depend on advances in high-temperature superconducting motors that do not yet exist at a commercial scale.
The Bottleneck
Since 2018, the FAA has accepted 23 electric propulsion type certification projects. The number is small, but the complexity is not. Electric propulsion systems do not fit neatly into the regulatory frameworks built for piston engines and jet turbines.
FAA has two paths available. The "existing standards" path applies to fixed-wing aircraft and conventional engine designs; 10 of the 23 projects have gone this route. The "special class" path, used for all 14 eVTOL applications, allows the FAA to develop tailored airworthiness criteria for aircraft that don't fit existing categories. FAA has issued special conditions for four products under the existing standards path (engines made by Safran, magniX, BETA Technologies, and ZeroAvia) and has issued special class airworthiness criteria for two eVTOL products, from Joby Aviation and Archer Aviation.
That leaves the vast majority of applicants still waiting.
Industry frustration with the process is documented in the report. Representatives from four of seven manufacturers interviewed by GAO cited limited FAA subject matter expertise in electric propulsion as a challenge. Four also flagged a lack of standardization in the certification process. Three said FAA's reluctance to delegate certification authority to industry, a practice common in aviation, was slowing things down.
FAA's 2022 decision to shift eVTOL aircraft from the "existing standards" path to the "special class" path was described by industry representatives as an unexpected reversal that forced manufacturers to abruptly change course mid-process.
As of July 2025, the FAA's East and West Certification Branches were short eight full-time employees with electric propulsion expertise. FAA told GAO that as of March 2026, those staffing gaps were not affecting certification progress, a claim the report does not independently verify.
The staffing issue is not new. In 2021, GAO recommended that FAA ensure its workforce skill gap assessments were based on quantitative data covering all mission-critical occupations. FAA agreed with the recommendation. As of March 2026, it has not acted on it.
The Advisory Committee Problem
Congress, in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, directed the FAA to update airworthiness standards for electric engines and propellers through its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, with a May 2027 deadline. The problem: the committee no longer has active members.
In February 2025, the Department of Transportation placed a hold on all Federal Advisory Committee Act activities. In August 2025, DOT terminated FACA committee memberships across the board, including the aviation rulemaking panel. FAA published a notice seeking new committee nominations in September 2025, but as of March 2026, the agency had not yet formally tasked the reconstituted committee with the electric propulsion standards work.
The clock is running. If the FAA cannot stand up the advisory committee and complete the rulemaking process, it will miss a statutory deadline set by Congress less than two years ago.
Airports Are Already Spending Money
On the ground, airports are not waiting for Washington to sort out its regulatory framework. As of December 2025, 47 airports had identified electric aircraft charging stations in their official Airport Layout Plans, with many already installed. Forty-three of those airports are nonhub or smaller facilities, concentrated in the Northeast and Southeast, exactly the kind of regional airports that electric aviation advocates say stand to benefit most from the technology.
Thirty-four of the 47 are part of BETA Technologies' charging network, which, as of the company's November 2025 IPO filing, included 52 active charging stations and 32 more under construction.
BETA also holds a $20 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services to install 22 electric aircraft chargers at airport sites along the East and Gulf Coasts: a public health preparedness application that reflects the broader federal interest in getting this infrastructure built.
But airport operators are candid about the obstacles. One airport cited approximately $2 million in electrification costs for a single vertiport. Another reported losing power at least six times a year, which is a reliability problem that raises obvious questions about electric aircraft operations. Charging equipment is not yet standardized. Firefighting guidance for electric aircraft is incomplete. One fixed-base operator told GAO it does not expect to see electric aircraft in its facilities until 2030.
The Political Backdrop
The Trump administration has pushed hard on drone and eVTOL integration. Executive Order 14307, signed in June 2025 and titled "Unleashing American Drone Dominance," directed the FAA to establish an eVTOL integration pilot program. FAA followed through in September 2025 and in March 2026 selected eight state and local government proposals for the program, including those from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Texas, Florida, Utah, North Carolina, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Manufacturers partnering with those pilots include Joby Aviation, BETA Technologies, Archer Aviation, and Electra.
The Department of Transportation also released an Advanced Air Mobility National Strategy in December 2025, projecting initial commercial demonstrations by 2027, new urban and rural air operations by 2030, and fully autonomous flight by 2035. Those are ambitious targets given where the FAA's certification work currently stands.
The GAO report was mandated by the same 2024 FAA reauthorization law that set the electric propulsion standards deadline. The six congressional committees that requested the report include the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri. Their jurisdictions cover both FAA oversight and airport infrastructure funding, giving them direct leverage over how quickly the regulatory gaps identified by GAO get addressed.
https://legis1.com/news/electric-aircraft-regulation-faa-scrambles-to
NTSB Final Report: American Champion Aircraft 7ECA
Pilot And Flight Instructor Were Conducting An Instructional Flight During Which The Pilot Performed Upset Recoveries And Basic Aerobatic Maneuvers
Location: Longview, Texas Accident Number: CEN24LA162
Date & Time: April 12, 2024, 08:10 Local Registration: N793L
Aircraft: American Champion Aircraft 7ECA Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Aircraft structural failure Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Instructional
Analysis: The pilot and flight instructor were conducting an instructional flight during which the pilot performed upset recoveries and basic aerobatic maneuvers. During the flight and subsequent taxi, the pilot reported intermittent rudder resistance that he described as a “catch” and an audible “pop.” A post-flight inspection revealed that the lower rudder hinge had separated from the rudder post.
Postaccident examination revealed that the rudder post had fractured along the weld toes that attached the middle knuckle of the lower rudder hinge to the post. Although the service manual required inspection of the rudder for damage and cracks, it is likely that the fatigue cracking was obscured by the fabric covering and was not readily apparent during routine visual inspection.
Further inspection of the fracture surface revealed features consistent with fatigue cracking that initiated primarily from the exterior surface of the rudder post at the weld edge. Pits and branching microcracks near the crack origins were consistent with corrosion fatigue crack initiation and progression.
Wear observed on the hinge knuckles and the vertical stabilizer hinge hardware, along with the measured offset of the upper hinge knuckle from the rudder centerline, was consistent with a misaligned hinge system that produced rubbing and binding during rudder movement. The misalignment was associated with the rudder’s previous damage history and subsequent repair activity. This binding would have increased localized stress at the lower hinge weld toes and contributed to the growth of the fatigue cracks. The rudder post had been finished with a protective coating; however, the presence of corrosion-related features at the crack origins indicated that the coating had been compromised at some time during the rudder’s life and was insufficient to prevent corrosion due to environmental exposure, which contributed to the acceleration of the fatigue cracking.
As the fatigue cracks progressed, the remaining tube wall section was reduced until it could no longer sustain operational load applied during rudder movement. The pilot’s reported rudder resistance and audible “pop” were consistent with progressive binding and final separation of the lower rudder hinge from the rudder post.
Although minor welding anomalies were identified, they were not located at the fatigue crack origins and did not contribute to the fatigue cracking. Hardness testing showed that the rudder post material met the required tensile strength specifications.
Probable Cause and Findings: The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be -- The rudder post’s failure due to corrosion fatigue. Contributing to the accident were the misalignment of the rudder hinge components, which produced mechanical binding and elevated localized stress, and a compromised the protective coating, which allowed corrosion to accelerate fatigue cracking.
FMI: www.ntsb.gov
Today in History
76 Years ago today: On 5 June 1950 A Westair Transport Curtiss C-46 ditched into the sea off Florida, USA, after both engines lost power, killing 28 occupants; 37 survived the accident.
| Date: | Monday 5 June 1950 |
| Time: | 22:03 |
| Type: | Curtiss C-46F-1-CU Commando |
| Owner/operator: | Westair Transport |
| Registration: | N1248N |
| MSN: | 22496 |
| Year of manufacture: | 1945 |
| Total airframe hrs: | 2890 hours |
| Engine model: | P&W R-2800-75 |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 28 / Occupants: 65 |
| Other fatalities: | 0 |
| Aircraft damage: | Destroyed, written off |
| Category: | Accident |
| Location: | 480 km E off Melbourne, FL, USA - Atlantic Ocean |
| Phase: | En route |
| Nature: | Passenger - Non-Scheduled/charter/Air Taxi |
| Departure airport: | San Juan-Isla Grande Airport (SIG/TJIG) |
| Destination airport: | Wilmington-New Hanover County Airport, NC (ILM/KILM) |
| Investigating agency: | CAB |
| Confidence Rating: | Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
Narrative:
A Westair Transport Curtiss C-46 ditched into the sea off Florida, USA, after both engines lost power, killing 28 occupants; 37 survived the accident.
The fully laden Curtiss C-46, which was 258 pounds in excess of the mtow, departed from San Juan, Puerto Rico, at 17:24 for Wilmington. Approx. 21:45 the crew noticed that the indicated right engine oil quantity had fallen from 32 gallons to 20. Immediately after this was observed, the left engine backfired and lost power. Application of carburetor heat and adjustment of fuel mixture and other engine controls were ineffectual, so the left propeller was feathered. The aircraft was headed toward Nassau, the closest island with an adequate landing field. Power settings for the right engine were increased to 2400 rpm and 30 in manifold pressure. The cruising altitude of 6,500 feet was maintained for about five minutes. Shortly afterwards the crew observed that the indicated oil quantity for the right engine had fallen from 20 to 15 gallons. At about the same time the crew also observed that the right engine was overheating with an indicated cylinder head temperature of nearly 300 degrees centigrade. Because of this condition, the captain began a voluntary descent to ditch before complete right engine failure occurred. An attempt was made to hold altitude at 200 feet above the water until shore stations could obtain radio bearings. The right engine speed decreased from 2400 to 2250 rpm and could not he increased. Airspeed was then reduced to between 100 and 110 mph by retarding the right throttle, and the aircraft was ditched about 20 minutes after the malfunctioning of the left engine began. The wing flaps and landing lights were not used. At the time, the weather was clear and the wind was from the southwest at approximately 10 miles per hour.
As soon as the aircraft came to rest in the water, the crew entered the cabin where they opened the main cabin door and the emergency exits. The emergency exits were not opened prior to the ditching as prescribed in the company's Operation Manual. Some of the passengers then climbed out onto the wings, and others jumped into the sea. All seven of the 10-man life rafts were thrown overboard, five floated away in the darkness because their retaining ropes were not held, two were inflated The three crew members and 34 of the 62 passengers were able to swim to and board the two life rafts. During the night five flares were fired at intervals but were not observed. A company C-46, which had remained in the search area, reported at 23:21, one hour and eighteen minutes after the ditching, that they saw a blinking light on the water. A fix was established and the following morning a Coast Guard aircraft located the survivors, and shortly afterwards the USS Saufley, a US Navy destroyer, drew alongside and rescued those in the two life rafts. The position of the rescue was 27 degrees 51'north latitude and 75 degrees 22'west longitude.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The malfunctioning of both engines from causes unknown."
