Here are your stories for today...
Be safe out there!
Tom
--
Small plane crashes on dirt road near Yuma; no serious injuries
By David Baker
Published: Jun. 30, 2026 at 7:24 PM EDT
YUMA, AZ (AZFamily) — Three people were not 
seriously injured after their plane crashed on a dirt road near Yuma last week.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the pilot said the plane was having engine problems and was losing power Friday.
The pilot told the Marine Corps Air Station Yuma tower that they were going to find an area to land in the North Dome Valley, about 25 miles northeast of Yuma.
An Air and Marine Operations crew in a helicopter was quickly launched to where officials believed the plane had gone down. They found the downed plane on a dirt road within five minutes.
A Border Patrol agent on the ground also arrived at the crash scene, and officials said the three people on board the plane were OK.
The helicopter crews navigated first responders on the ground to the scene since it is a complex layout of farm fields and irrigation networks, officials said.
It was unclear what caused the plane to have engine trouble.
https://www.azfamily.com/2026/06/30/small-plane-crashes-dirt-road-near-yuma-no-serious-injuries/
Small plane crashes during takeoff in Macon Co.; 1 person has minor injuries
By: Holly Lehren
MACON COUNTY, Tenn. (WTVF) — A small plane crashed
during takeoff in Macon County on Tuesday evening, according to the sheriff.
The sheriff said the aircraft went down shortly after takeoff with three people on board.
One person suffered minor injuries, while the other two occupants were not seriously hurt.
Officials said there was no fire or explosion following the crash. First responders arrived quickly and the scene remains active.
The cause of the crash has not been determined.
The National Transportation Safety Board will investigate what led to the crash.
This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/state/tennessee/macon-county/small-plane-crashes-during-takeoff-in-macon-co-1-person-has-minor-injuries
FAA Proposes New Supersonic Flight Rules
Plan Is To Allow Supersonic Flights Over Land In The U.S. Without A Sonic Boom
U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has announced the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is taking a pivotal step toward enabling civil supersonic flights over the continental United States, including a repeal of the ban from the 1970s.
He said due to massive innovations in supersonic 
technology, it will be possible to safely operate these innovative aircraft without a sonic boom. When operational, next-gen supersonic planes will drastically reduce travel times, enabling faster movement of people and goods. There is a formal notice of proposed rule making on this issue.
The new proposed rule sets a noise-based certification standard for supersonic aircraft. In addition to this first rule, the FAA plans to propose another rule later this year, establishing landing and takeoff noise standards for supersonic aircraft. Together, these actions will give manufacturers the guidance they need to finalize their designs and bring these innovations online, the department said in a release.
The FAA aims to finalize both rules by mid-2027.
“Restoring supersonic flight over land isn’t just about speed, it's about unleashing American innovation and ushering in a golden age of travel,” Duffy said. “We are working at lightning speed to safely enable the next quantum leap in aviation technology.”
“Advances in aerospace engineering, materials science, noise reduction, and new operational concepts will eliminate the old sonic boom,” said FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford. “This means we can ultimately repeal the ban from the 1970s on supersonic flight over U.S. territory while minimizing noise impacts to residents in communities along the route and near airports.”
FMI: www.faa.gov
NTSB Final Report: Icon Aircraft Inc A5
Pilot’s Inadequate Fuel Planning, And Improper In-Flight Decision Making
Location: Destin, Florida Accident Number: ERA25LA382
Date & Time: July 26, 2025, 12:15 Local Registration: N594BA
Aircraft: Icon Aircraft Inc A5 Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Fuel exhaustion Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Personal
Analysis: The pilot reported that he departed for a planned 1 hour flight with 8 gallons of fuel indicated on the fuel gauges, and that the airplane’s fuel consumption averaged 4 gallons per hour. About 1 hour into the flight, and approximately 10 miles from the destination, the engine began to sputter, followed shortly thereafter by a total loss of engine power. The pilot informed air traffic control that he was running out of fuel and made a forced landing in the water about 1 mile short of his destination, which resulted in substantial damage to airplane’s hull and engine pylon.
The amphibious airplane was capable of water operations; however, the pilot did not hold a seaplane rating. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation and attributed the loss of engine power to fuel exhaustion.
Probable Cause and Findings: The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be -- The pilot’s inadequate fuel planning, and improper in-flight decision making which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
FMI: www.ntsb.gov
Today in History
24 Years ago today: On 1 July 2002 Bashkirian Airlines flight 2937, a Tupolev Tu-154M, and DHL flight 611, a Boeing 757-200PF cargo plane, crashed following a mid-air collision near Überlingen, Germany. All 69 on board the Tu-154 and both crew members of the Boeing 757 were killed in the accident.
| Date: | Monday 1 July 2002 |
| Time: | 23:35 |
| Type: | Tupolev Tu-154M |
| Owner/operator: | Bashkirskie Avialinii |
| Registration: | RA-85816 |
| MSN: | 95A1006 |
| Year of manufacture: | 1995 |
| Total airframe hrs: | 10788 hours |
| Engine model: | Soloviev D-30KU-154-II |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 69 / Occupants: 69 |
| Other fatalities: | 2 |
| Aircraft damage: | Destroyed, written off |
| Category: | Accident |
| Location: | Ãœberlingen - Germany |
| Phase: | En route |
| Nature: | Passenger - Non-Scheduled/charter/Air Taxi |
| Departure airport: | Moskva-Domodedovo Airport (DME/UUDD) |
| Destination airport: | Barcelona-El Prat Airport (BCN/LEBL) |
| Investigating agency: | BFU |
| Confidence Rating: | Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
Narrative:
Bashkirian Airlines flight 2937, a Tupolev Tu-154M, and DHL flight 611, a Boeing 757-200PF cargo plane, crashed following a mid-air collision near Ãœberlingen, Germany. All 69 on board the Tu-154 and both crew members of the Boeing 757 were killed in the accident.
Bashkirian flight BTC2937 operated on a charter flight from Moscow (DME) to Barcelona (BCN), Spain. The aircraft departed Moscow at 18:48 UTC and climbed to the planned cruising altitude of FL360.
Five flight crew members were in the cockpit. The commander (under supervision) - who was the PF (Pilot flying) on this flight - occupied the left-hand seat. The right-hand seat was occupied by an instructor, who as a PNF (Pilot non flying) also conducted the radio communications. He was also the pilot-in-command (PIC). The seat of the flight navigator was between and slightly behind the pilots. The work station of the flight engineer was behind the instructor. A further pilot (copilot), who had no function on this flight, was on a vacant seat behind the commander.
DHL flight DHX611 departed from Bahrain 13:30 UTC on a cargo flight to Bergamo (BGY), Italy to Brussel (BRU), Belgium.
The flight landed at Bergamo Airport at 19:10 UTC. The airplane was refuelled, unloaded and reloaded with cargo. Take-off for the last leg to Brussels was at 21:06 UTC. The airplane was flown by the copilot (PF).
At 21:21 flight DHX611 contacted ACC Zurich, and received clearance to climb to FL320 and subsequently to the planned cruising altitude of FL360. At 21:29 the airplane reached this flight level, without the pilots reporting it.
At 21:30 flight BTC2937 contacted ACC Zurich, and reported they were at FL360.
From about 21:33 a discussed ensued among the crew on the Tu-154 concerning an airplane approaching from the left which was displayed on the vertical speed indicator (VSI/TRA) which is part of the TCAS. The crew strived to localize the other airplane as to its position and its flight level.
Meanwhile, on board DHX611, the copilot had handed over the control of the airplane to the PIC in order to go to the lavatory. At 21:34:31 the PIC confirmed that he had taken over.
At 21:34:42 the airborne TCAS on board both flights alarmed the crews about possibly conflicting traffic by a Traffic Advisory (TA): “traffic, traffic".
Seven seconds later the radar controller issued descent instructions to flight 2937: "Descend flight level 350, expedite, I have crossing traffic". This descent was necessary for continuation of the flight to Barcelona and to achieve a vertical separation with respect to the approaching DHL Boeing 757.
At 23:42:56 the crews of both aircraft received a Resolution Advisory (RA)-command from their TCAS. The DHL crew complied with this and initiate a descent. At the same time the Tupolev crew were trying to deal with the conflicting descent (by ATC) and climb (TCAS) instructions. Seven seconds after the Resolution Advisory-command, the ACC Zurich controller repeated the instruction to descend. The Bashkirian crew then decided to follow the controller's instructions. A little later the TCAS aboard the Boeing 757 gave the crew a Resolution Advisory to "increase descent". At that time the First Officer had returned to his seat.
They then contacted ATC, reporting that they were doing a TCAS descent.
Since both aircraft were descending, the TCAS of the Russian plane warned the crew to "increase climb" to avoid a collision. This was eight seconds before the collision. Just prior to the collision, both crews detected the other aircraft, and reacted to avoid the collision by attempting appropriate flight manoeuvres. Nevertheless, at 23:35:32 both aircraft collided at approximately FL354. The tail fin of the Boeing 757 struck the left side of the Tupolev 154 fuselage near both overwing emergency exits, while the Tupolev's left wing sheared off 80% of the Boeing's tail fin. The Tupolev immediately broke up in four pieces (left wing, right wing, main fuselage and tail unit including the engines). The Boeing 757 lost control and crashed 8 km north of the Tupolev, just after losing both engines.
At the night of the accident, from 21:00 UTC, the configuration of the radar data processing of ACC Zurich was modified in order to re-arrange the control sectors.
During this time the radar system was operated in the "fallback mode" and the separation minimum had been increased from 5 to 7 NM. In doing so the MV9800 radar computer was not available to the controllers, therefore no automatic correlation of the flight targets was possible and the optical STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert) was not displayed anymore.
After the air traffic flow had decreased one controller retired to rest at about 21:15.
From then on one controller was solely responsible for the entire ATC within ACC Zurich. For this he had to fill two adjacent workstations with different frequencies and worked with two radar monitors. In order to control flights in the upper airspace and the approach in the lower airspace to Friedrichshafen. During the last five minutes prior to the collision, the controller paid more attention to the
Airbus A320 in approach to Friedrichshafen.
At 21:33:24 the radar controller of UAC Karlsruhe was alerted by his STCA of the conflict situation. His attempts to warn the controller of ACC Zurich by phone were not successful as a telephone connection could not be established.
A Russian man who had lost his family in the accident held the controller responsible and killed him at his home in Kloten, near Zürich, on 24 February 2004.
CAUSES: The following immediate causes have been identified:
- The imminent separation infringement was not noticed by ATC in time. The instruction for the TU154M to descend was given at a time when the prescribed separation to the B757-200 could not be ensured anymore.
- The TU154M crew followed the ATC instruction to descend and continued to do so even after TCAS advised them to climb. This manoeuvre was performed contrary to the generated TCAS RA.
The following systemic causes have been identified:
- The integration of ACAS/TCAS II into the system aviation was insufficient and did not correspond in all points with the system philosophy.
The regulations concerning ACAS/TCAS published by ICAO and as a result the regulations of national aviation authorities, operational and procedural instructions of the TCAS manufacturer and the operators were not standardised, incomplete and partially contradictory.
- Management and quality assurance of the air navigation service company did not ensure that during the night all open workstations were continuously staffed by controllers.
- Management and quality assurance of the air navigation service company tolerated for years that during times of low traffic flow at night only one controller worked and the other one retired to rest.
