JPATS News

A Swiss International Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration HB-JHK performing flight LX-16 from Zurich (Switzerland) to New York JFK,NY (USA) with 229 people on board, was enroute at FL320 about 100nm southeast of Bangor,ME (USA) when the crew decided to divert to Bangor reporting smoke of unknown source. The crew subsequently reported they had had an active fire in the cockpit that they were unable to put out. They opened the door to the cabin to let the smoke out, the smoke subsided but they had smoke in the cabin now. They were going to stop on the runway but for now were not going to evacuate. The aircraft landed on Bangor's runway 33 about 25 minutes after leaving FL320, stopped at the end of the runway and shut both engines down. The crew requested emergency services to enter the aircraft with infrared equipment to check the interior out. Fire fighters entered the aircraft via door L1 but also could not identify the source of the smoke, there was no fire or heat.

The airline reported there was an unclear development of smoke in the most forward part of the business class. The aircraft was able to land in Bangor, there was no fire or heat detected. The aircraft is now going to checked, the airline is working to get the passengers to JFK.

The FAA reported: "Swiss International Air Lines Flight 16F safely landed at Bangor International Airport in Maine around noon on Monday, July 27, after the crew reported a cockpit fire. The Airbus A330 was traveling from Zurich, Switzerland to JFK International Airport in New York. The FAA will investigate."

https://avherald.com/h?article=53c59cc0&opt=0

Incident: Raimon E145 at Shiraz on Jul 27th 2026, temporary runway excursion

A Raimon Airways Embraer ERJ-145, flight RAI-7552 from Tehran Mehrabad to Shiraz (Iran), went off the runway temporarily while landing at Shiraz, the crew regained control and returned onto the runway centerline. The aircraft subsequently taxied to the apron. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained minor if any damage.

Shiraz's airport reported the aircraft went temporarily off the runway but returned onto the runway and taxied to the apron.

https://avherald.com/h?article=53c595ba&opt=0

Incident: Cityjet CRJ9 at Amsterdam on Jul 25th 2026, nose gear did not retract

A Cityjet Canadair CRJ-900 on behalf of SAS Scandinavian Airlines, registration EI-FPG performing flight SK-548 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Copenhagen (Denmark), was climbing out of runway 24 when the crew stopped the climb at FL050 reporting they had a gear disagree, the nose gear had not come up. The aircraft entered a hold to work the checklists. The crew reported they had the landing gear down and they were hoping nose gear steering would still work. The aircraft landed back on Amsterdam's runway 18C about 35 minutes after departure.

The flight was cancelled.

https://avherald.com/h?article=53c5822d&opt=0

Incident: Indigo A21N near Rajkot on Jul 27th 2026, cargo smoke indication

An Indigo Airbus A321-200N, registration VT-NCV performing flight 6E-1452 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Mumbai (India), was enroute at FL310 over the Arabian Sea when the aircraft descended to FL230 and diverted to Rajkot (India) for a safe landing on runway 23 about one hour after leaving FL310.

The airline reported a technical issue.

A replacement A321-200N registration positioned from Mumbai to Rajkot.

https://avherald.com/h?article=53c57edf&opt=0

Incident: Norwegian B738 near Vienna on Jul 27th 2026, cracked windshield

A Norwegian Air Shuttle Boeing 737-800, registration LN-NHA performing flight DY-1922 from Oslo (Norway) to Dubrovnik (Croatia), was enroute at FL370 about 70nm northwest of Vienna when the crew decided to divert to Vienna for a safe landing on runway 34 about 25 minutes later.

The airline reported one of the windshields had a crack.

A replacement Boeing 737-8 MAX registration LN-FGJ positioned to Vienna and continued the flight reaching Dubrovnik with a delay of about 6:50 hours.

The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Vienna about 8 hours after landing.

https://avherald.com/h?article=53c57c7b&opt=0

American Airlines Plane Diverts 3 Hours Into Transatlantic Flight After 6 of 9 Crew Members Start Feeling Ill

Flight AA719 had over 280 passengers on board when an odor on board cause the flight to make an unplanned landing

The flight was diverted to Dublin after six of nine flight attendants reported feeling dizzy or ill mid-flight

Paramedics evaluated the affected crew and one passenger upon landing and all were later released

A similar incident involving toxic odors occurred on another American Airlines flight in June, prompting a diversion

An American Airlines flight from Rome to Philadelphia was diverted to Dublin after flight attendants became ill from an odor on the plane.

Flight AA719 took off from Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport (FCO) en route to Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) on Saturday when six of the nine flight attendants on board began feeling dizzy or ill, American Airlines confirmed in a statement to PEOPLE. The odor was associated with an oven on board, per the airline.

The flight was about three hours into its transatlantic journey before being diverted to Dublin.

"Paramedics met the aircraft at the gate out of an abundance of caution and the flight attendants and one customer were evaluated and subsequently released," American's statement said. The impacted customers were provided hotel accommodations before continuing on alternative flights to Philadelphia.

This diversion comes after a similar, unrelated incident in June, in which American Airlines flight 5907 from Rochester, New York, to Philadelphia was diverted to Syracuse, N.Y., after several passengers and crew members reported toxic odors coming from the cockpit.

The pilots reported feeling "nauseated" in dispatches from the Onondaga County 911 Center, according to a syracuse.com report.

Flight 5907 landed in Syracuse without incident and an unknown number of passengers and crew members were evaluated by paramedics upon arrival.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/american-airlines-plane-diverts-3-180729521.html?guccounter=1

US warns hundreds of Boeing jets may require seat safety inspections

Regulator proposes checks on 453 US-registered jets over seats that may be incorrectly installed.

The US aviation authority has warned that seats on hundreds of Boeing 737 MAX planes could have been installed incorrectly and may require inspection.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Monday that the issue relates to 453 jets registered in the US and proposed requiring airlines to inspect the seats.

If not installed correctly, the seats could come loose during an emergency landing and “injure passengers and crew members”, the FAA said, adding that they could also “block the aisle and slow an evacuation”.

The proposed order would apply only to US-registered planes because the FAA does not regulate foreign airlines.

Regulators in other countries, however, often follow FAA orders when the issue affects aircraft operating in their markets.

A Boeing spokesperson told the Reuters news agency that the company had issued guidance to operators ‌on the matter in December 2025.

“We support the FAA making that guidance mandatory,” the spokesperson said in an email.

The warning adds to years of scrutiny of Boeing’s safety record.

A cabin panel blew off an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 in January 2024, forcing an emergency landing and prompting the FAA to ground 171 jets.

Investigators later found that the panel was missing four key bolts.

The scrutiny intensified after a spate of other accidents around the world, as well as the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett in March 2024 while he was providing evidence for a safety lawsuit against the firm.

In June 2025, the US National Transportation Safety Board said Boeing had failed to provide adequate training, guidance and oversight to prevent the Alaska Airlines incident.

There are nearly 2,300 737 MAX jets operating around the world, including 823 in the US, according to aviation advisory and intelligence firm IBA.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/28/us-warns-hundreds-of-boeing-jets-may-require-seat-safety-inspections

Emirates, Etihad, flydubai, Air Arabia powerbank rules passengers must know before flying UAE airlines ban the use of power banks during flights

Dubai: A power bank that caught fire on board a commercial flight in China has once again highlighted why airlines are tightening rules on carrying and using portable chargers.

The latest incident occurred aboard China Eastern Airlines Flight MU2421 on July 24 after the aircraft landed at Guiyang Longdongbao International Airport. According to the South China Morning Post, the power bank inside a passenger’s carry-on bag caught fire while the Airbus A320 was taxiing to the terminal.

Cabin crew quickly extinguished the flames before anyone was injured, although the aircraft sustained minor smoke damage.

Videos shared online showed smoke and flames coming from an overhead baggage compartment as crew members responded.

The incident serves as a timely reminder for travellers flying from the UAE, where major airlines have introduced strict rules governing how power banks must be carried and stored onboard.

Why are airlines concerned?

Power banks contain lithium-ion or lithium-polymer batteries. If these batteries become damaged, overheat or develop an internal fault, they can enter a process known as thermal runaway, where temperatures rise rapidly and may lead to fire.

Because of this risk, airlines require power banks to remain inside the aircraft cabin, where cabin crew can respond immediately if something goes wrong.

Several UAE carriers also prohibit passengers from using power banks during flights.

Airline Can you carry a power bank? Maximum capacity Maximum number allowed Can you use it onboard? Where must it be stored? Checked baggage?

Emirates Yes 100Wh 1 No Seat pocket or under-seat bag; not overhead locker No

Etihad Airways Yes 100Wh 1 No Seat pocket, under-seat bag or seat storage No

flydubai Yes 100Wh 1 No Seat pocket or hand baggage under seat No

Air Arabia Yes 100Wh Not specified No Seat pocket or under-seat bag; not overhead locker No

Emirates: One power bank only

Emirates introduced new power bank restrictions that came into effect on October 1, 2025, following what it described as a comprehensive safety review.

Passengers may carry one power bank with a maximum capacity of 100 watt-hours (Wh).

However, the airline prohibits:

Using a power bank to charge phones, tablets or laptops during the flight.

Charging the power bank using the aircraft's USB ports or power sockets.

Storing the power bank inside an overhead baggage compartment.

Packing power banks inside checked baggage.

Instead, passengers must keep the device in the seat pocket or inside a bag stored beneath the seat in front of them, allowing cabin crew quick access if an emergency occurs.

Emirates also requires the battery's capacity rating to be clearly visible on the device.

Etihad Airways has similar requirements.

Passengers may carry one power bank of up to 100Wh, provided the watt-hour rating is clearly marked.

The Abu Dhabi carrier says passengers must not:

Use the power bank onboard.

Charge the power bank.

Use it to charge other electronic devices.

The airline also recommends storing the device somewhere easily accessible.

Economy passengers should place it in a bag under the seat or in the seat pocket, while First and Business Class passengers should use the seat's storage compartment. Etihad advises travellers not to place power banks in overhead lockers because they may not be immediately accessible during an emergency.

Power banks exceeding 100Wh are not permitted.

According to flydubai's dangerous goods guidance, lithium batteries exceeding 160Wh or containing more than 8g of lithium are prohibited.

According to the flydubai passenger guide, travellers may carry one power bank with a maximum capacity of 100Wh in their hand baggage only. The airline prohibits passengers from using a power bank to charge devices or recharging the power bank during the flight.

The device must remain switched off throughout the journey and be stored either in the seat pocket or inside hand baggage placed under the seat in front, rather than in the overhead locker.

Power banks are not permitted in checked baggage, and batteries with a capacity exceeding 160Wh are not allowed on board.

Saudi Arabia bans charging power banks onboard flights

Air Arabia: Strict cabin-only policy

Air Arabia treats power banks as spare lithium batteries.

The airline requires passengers to:

Carry power banks in cabin baggage only.

Never place them in checked baggage.

Store them in the seat pocket or under the seat rather than in overhead lockers.

Keep them switched off throughout the flight.

Not use them to charge electronic devices onboard.

Not charge them using the aircraft's power supply.

Like Emirates and Etihad, Air Arabia permits lithium-ion power banks only if they do not exceed 100Wh.

Rule Emirates Etihad flydubai Air Arabia

Maximum power bank capacity 100Wh 100Wh 100Wh 100Wh

Maximum number allowed 1 1 1 Not specified

Carry in cabin Yes Yes Yes Yes

Carry in checked baggage No No No No

Use power bank onboard No No No No

Recharge power bank onboard No No No No

Overhead locker No Avoid No No

Seat pocket/under seat Yes Yes Yes Yes

Must be switched off Not specified Protected Yes Yes

Capacity marked Yes Yes Not specified Not specified

Bottom line for travellers

While each airline has its own detailed dangerous goods policy, the message from UAE carriers is largely consistent: carry power banks in your cabin baggage, keep them within easy reach, never pack them in checked luggage, and do not use them during the flight where prohibited.

The latest onboard fire involving a portable charger is another reminder that even everyday electronic accessories are subject to strict aviation safety rules designed to reduce the risk of lithium battery fires.

https://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/emirates-etihad-flydubai-air-arabia-powerbank-rules-passengers-must-know-before-flying-1.500622565

Virgin Atlantic Aircraft Engineer Dies After Being ‘Crushed’ While Working on Plane, Prompting Airline to Launch Safety Investigation

The engineer was a “much-loved member” of the team, Virgin Atlantic tells PEOPLE

A 23-year-old aircraft engineer who worked for Virgin Atlantic died while maintenance testing the plane at Heathrow Airport

The airline is conducting a safety investigation and working with authorities and the aircraft manufacturer to determine what happened

Virgin Atlantic expressed heartbreak over the loss and is providing support to his family, friends, and colleagues

A young aircraft engineer died after being “crushed” while performing maintenance testing on a Virgin Atlantic aircraft at London’s Heathrow Airport.

“We are heartbroken to confirm that a much-loved member of our engineering team, has passed away,” a spokesperson for Virgin Atlantic tells PEOPLE of the 23-year-old man. “Our thoughts are firmly with his family, loved ones, friends and colleagues at this incredibly sad and challenging time.”

“The safety and wellbeing of our people is always our top priority, and we are devastated by this incident,” the spokesperson says. “We are working closely with relevant authorities and the aircraft manufacturer on the investigation to establish all facts. Out of respect for those involved and while the investigation is ongoing, we are unable to provide any further information at this stage.”

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

The plane was reportedly a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, according to the Daily Mail.

The airline is conducting a safety investigation following the engineer’s death and will be working closely with relevant authorities and the aircraft manufacturer to understand what happened.

https://people.com/aircraft-engineer-allegedly-dies-after-being-crushed-while-working-on-plane-reports-12028075

Aircraft emergency closes Bangor International Airport runway

Bangor International Airport closed its runway for about a half hour Monday due to an in-flight emergency shortly before noon.

According to Swiss Air, a flight from Zurich to JFK diverted to Bangor after smoke was detected in business class.

The airline says the local fire department inspected the plane and found no signs of fire or heat.

Swiss Air says all 208 passengers and the crew are safe, and its experts are investigating what may have caused the smoke.

On Monday afternoon, it said its teams in the U.S. and Switzerland were working "at full speed to arrange onward travel for our passengers."

https://www.mainepublic.org/maine/2026-07-27/aircraft-emergency-closes-bangor-international-airport-runway

American Eagle flight from PHL to Wilmington, North Carolina, makes emergency landing in Virginia

Reports of smoke in the cabin of a flight from Philadelphia forced pilots to make an emergency landing.

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) -- Reports of smoke in the cabin of a flight from Philadelphia forced pilots to make an emergency landing.

The American Eagle flight was heading from PHL to Wilmington, North Carolina, on Monday when it diverted to Norfolk International Airport in Virginia.

It landed safely with no reported injuries.

American Airlines said the aircraft was taken out of service to be inspected by a maintenance team.

https://6abc.com/post/american-eagle-flight-philadelphia-international-airport-wilmington-north-carolina-makes-emergency-landing-virginia/19589951/

Power bank erupts in flames inside overhead bin on China Eastern flight

In a terrifying scene aboard a packed airliner, a power bank caught fire inside an overhead baggage compartment on a China Eastern Airlines flight shortly after the aircraft landed in southwestern China as cabin crew battled the flames.

The fire broke out on China Eastern Flight MU2421 after it arrived at Guiyang Longdongbao International Airport on July 24, 2026, following a domestic flight from Lanzhou.

Video posted on social media shows flames and smoke coming from the open overhead bin. A flight attendant can be seen reaching into the compartment while the crew works to bring the fire under control.

The aircraft, reported to be an Airbus A320, was taxiing toward the terminal when the power bank ignited inside a passenger’s carry-on baggage.

Cabin crew extinguished the fire before passengers disembarked. Airport firefighters also responded to the aircraft.

No injuries were reported. The aircraft sustained minor smoke damage, according to the Aviation Safety Network.

One passenger told Chinese media that travelers near the front of the cabin began shouting and moving toward the rear after the fire was discovered.

“I thought the outside of the plane was on fire, but when I looked up, I saw flames coming out of the overhead luggage rack,” the passenger said, according to a report cited by The Sun.

Another passenger said the crew remained calm and told travelers not to panic while dealing with the fire.

China Eastern allows power banks only in carry-on baggage, but its published safety rules state that passengers must not place power banks or spare lithium batteries in overhead bins.

Passengers are also prohibited from using power banks to charge electronic devices during China Eastern flights.

China introduced stricter rules for power banks carried aboard domestic flights in June 2025. The Civil Aviation Administration of China banned power banks without China Compulsory Certification markings, known as 3C, as well as recalled models and devices with unclear certification labels.

The restrictions followed several serious fires involving portable lithium batteries aboard passenger aircraft.

A power bank fire in an overhead compartment forced a Hong Kong Airlines Airbus A320 flying from Hangzhou to Hong Kong to divert to Fuzhou in March 2025. All 168 passengers and crew escaped without injury.

In January 2025, an Air Busan Airbus A321 was destroyed by fire at Gimhae International Airport in South Korea while preparing to depart for Hong Kong. Investigators identified a power bank stored in an overhead bin as a possible source of the fire.

Lithium-ion batteries can enter thermal runaway when damaged, defective or exposed to excessive heat. The reaction can produce intense heat, smoke and flames and may continue even after the visible fire has initially been suppressed.

Regulators require spare lithium batteries and power banks to remain in the passenger cabin rather than checked baggage.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/ower-bank-fire-overhead-bin-china-eastern-flight

NTSB chair urges Congress to pass aviation safety legislation

WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) – The head of the National Transportation Safety Board on Monday urged Congress to resolve a months-long standoff over competing aviation safety measures and approve significant reforms.

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said the board had “provided a clear ‌roadmap to improve aviation safety and reduce the risk of another catastrophic midair collision. Now it’s time for action that was promised months ago.”

The U.S. House of Representatives in April voted 396-10 to pass a sweeping aviation safety reform bill to address ‌dozens of recommendations issued after a January 2025 collision ⁠of an American Airlines regional ⁠jet and a U.S. Army helicopter that killed 67 people, while a rival bill known as the ROTOR Act passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in December but needed a two-thirds majority in the House to pass under fast-track rules and it fell one vote short.

The NTSB said ADS-B would have prevented the 2025 collision in the crowded ⁠airspace near the nation’s capital.

In January, the ⁠NTSB found systemic failures by the FAA led to the collision that was the worst U.S. aviation disaster since 2001.

The House legislation requires installation of collision-prevention technologies on all military aircraft by ‌2031, except fighters, bombers and drones, and establishes requirements for equipping collision-mitigation technologies for civilian airplanes and helicopters.

Talks have been ongoing between the House and Senate to resolve the differences.

The head of the Federal Aviation Administration, Bryan ⁠Bedford, told Reuters earlier this month he had provided technical assistance to Congress on the bills.

“More situational awareness faster is better than waiting for the ⁠perfect solution that might ‌not happen for six or seven years,” Bedford said, ⁠adding the FAA could move forward on ADS-B without action ‌from Congress but would prefer direction from lawmakers.

The NTSB determined the ⁠2025 accident was caused by the FAA’s decision to allow helicopters to travel close to the airport with no safeguards to separate them from airplanes and its failure to review data and act on recommendations to move helicopter traffic away from the airport.

https://wtvbam.com/2026/07/27/ntsb-chair-urges-congress-to-pass-aviation-safety-legislation/

Delayed: Cape Air’s fleet upgrade plans stall amid financial strain, pilot shortage

If you’re flying around New England this summer to lounge on the beach, eat seafood, and maybe hit a few museums, the chances are good you may be getting there aboard a museum piece — a twin-engine plane operated by Cape Air.

The bulk of the airline’s fleet is Cessnas manufactured between 1967 and 1985, making even the newest planes just over 40 years old.

Airline analysts say that well-maintained older planes can be safely flown almost indefinitely, and Hyannis-based Cape Air has a solid safety record. But a plan to bring in two new types of aircraft to replace the aging Cessnas seems to have gone off course in recent years.

With nearly 100 aircraft flying 92,000 flights a year in the Northeast, Caribbean and Montana, Cape Air is one of the country’s biggest independent regional carriers. The airline has yet to settle on a clear path forward.

Plan A was announced in 2015, when Cape Air said that it was committing to buy 102 newly designed airplanes from Tecnam, a company based in Capua, Italy. The plane was designed to Cape Air’s specifications, and it would be the first commercial operator to fly the new aircraft.

The first plane arrived in Massachusetts in 2019, with two others following in 2020 just as the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Like the Cessnas, Tecnam’s P2012 Traveller has two piston-powered engines — as opposed to turboprops or jets — and can seat nine passengers. They cost about $2.75 million each.

However, instead of acquiring 100 of the Tecnams and retiring its older planes, Cape Air bought 30 of the new planes — and then halted its purchases at the end of 2021.

Plan B emerged in 2022, when Cape Air committed to being the launch customer for Eviation Aircraft, a startup in Washington state making a battery-powered plane.

Cape Air hoped the nine-seat twin-prop plane would connect Hyannis with Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, and Boston with the islands. The company said it would buy 75 of the all-electric aircraft. Eviation said the planes would cost about $4 million each, but have much lower operating and maintenance costs than traditional gas-powered aircraft.

The plane completed its first demonstration flight in 2022, but by last year the company had laid off most of its staff, paused development of the plane and was hunting for additional funding. Its website is no longer online.

Online postings and one former Cape Air pilot suggest that the Tecnam aircraft that Cape Air acquired starting in 2019 have caused some maintenance headaches. Two of the first Tecnam airplanes that Cape Air acquired in 2019 are also up for sale.

“Maintenance-wise, we saw significant engine work almost weekly,” said Juno Kim, a former Cape Air pilot who flew the airline’s routes in Montana. “Cylinder swaps or even full engine changes were pretty common to see in the hangar. I actually had to shut one (engine) down in flight once.”

“I have no idea if any of this is why management pumped the brakes on buying more of them,” Kim said, “but the maintenance demands and reliability issues were definitely noticeable for pilots.”

Tecnam’s managing director, Giovanni Pascale Langer, wrote via email that “it is important to distinguish between individual opinions and the actual operational record.” He said that “like any brand-new aircraft entering commercial service,” the Tecnam “experienced some initial entry-into-service challenges,” which the company worked to address with Cape Air.

“Thanks to this collaborative effort, numerous product improvements have been implemented over the years,” Langer said.

Cape Air’s CEO, Michael Migliore, denied that the Tecnam aircraft have presented more maintenance issues than the older Cessnas that Cape Air flies. He said that on average, a Tecnam in the fleet is flown for about 1,000 hours a year, in part because they fly the airline’s longer routes, compared to about 500 hours on average for the Cessnas. More hours in the air means more hours of maintenance in the hangar.

As for the older Cessna aircraft, Migliore said they are “extremely reliable,” and the Federal Aviation Administration doesn’t put any expiration date on flying older planes.

“We can fly them as long as we want,” Migliore said. “The trade-off is that like a car, as they get older, it takes more to maintain them.”

He said that the Cessnas represent the bulk of Cape Air’s fleet, with 63 airplanes.

So why pause the purchases of the Tecnams at 30? Migliore said the airline is still working to return to its pre-COVID passenger levels, which has created financial strain.

There is also a shortage of pilots to fly Cape Air’s routes, he said. In 2022, the airline began exiting from the Midwest market, where it once had a hub in St. Louis, in one case citing the pilot shortage.

As for the electric plane from Eviation, Migliore said Cape Air’s order was still in place through last year, when the company laid off most of its employees and paused development of the plane. Cape Air had put down a deposit with the company, which was returned.

“It’s going to cost a lot of money to get electric aviation across the finish line,” he said. But with Cape Air’s short routes, like Boston to Provincetown, he said that he felt the airline was “the right operator” for an electric plane — at some point. He said he was following the progress of Vermont-based BETA Technologies and Virginia-based Electra, two other startups developing electric airplanes. Electra is developing a nine-passenger airplane, which for Cape Air is the ideal capacity.

Among traditional gas-powered aircraft that can carry nine people, Migliore said two options are the Cessna Caravan and the Pilatus PC-12; both are single-engine planes.

“As we grow, hopefully we’ll need to buy more airplanes,” he said. “We just want to make sure it’s the right aircraft for the right mission.”

Two summers ago, I was excited to get the chance to ride on one of the new Tecnams, on a 90-minute trip from Boston to Rockland, Maine. The company’s website promised the newer aircraft when I bought a pair of $179, one-way tickets online. But when we got down to the ramp area where the Cape Air planes load and unload passengers, an employee walked us over to one of the vintage Cessnas, without explaining the switch.

Migliore told me that of the 30 Tecnams, just 15 are based in the Northeast, with the rest flying in Montana and the Caribbean. Sometimes a Cessna is available when a Tecnam is not, he said.

Despite having to deal with the fog that frequently blankets the Rockland airport, we got there safely.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2026/07/delayed-cape-airs-fleet-upgrade-plans-stall-amid-financial-strain-pilot-shortage.html

The first woman to fly in space was not a test pilot or a scientist but a young textile worker, and in 1963 Valentina Tereshkova orbited the Earth alone for three days, longer than every American astronaut combined had managed by then

The Soviet Union sent a textile worker to space while America was still figuring out how to get its test pilots past the stratosphere.

When you picture the people who flew the first space missions, you probably picture a certain kind of person. Fighter pilots. Engineers. Men with jaws set for the recruiting poster. The Mercury Seven fit that mould neatly. The first woman in space did not. She worked as a spinner in a textile factory, and the experience that helped put her into a spacecraft was not flying but jumping out of aircraft.

Valentina Tereshkova made her first parachute jump in May 1959, at 22. That amateur skydiving is what put her on the Soviet radar. Vostok cosmonauts did not land inside their capsules: they ejected during descent and parachuted down separately, so parachuting was a formal requirement even though piloting was not.

Why they picked a textile worker

The Soviet programme screened a large field to find its female candidates. About 400 candidates were initially screened, 40 were called to Moscow for interviews and medical tests, and five were selected for training. Tereshkova emerged from that group.

She was 26 at launch, and she remains the youngest woman to fly in space. On 16 June 1963 she lifted off aboard Vostok 6. Her selection reflected the politics of the space race, but the mission itself was real, demanding and historic.

What nearly three days alone actually meant

Tereshkova’s flight lasted two days, 22 hours and 50 minutes, and she circled Earth 48 times. She flew solo. With that single mission she logged more time in space than all the US Mercury astronauts who had flown by then combined.

The early American flights were short. Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom each spent about 15 minutes in space. John Glenn and Scott Carpenter flew for just under five hours each, Wally Schirra for a little over nine hours, and Gordon Cooper for about 34 hours. Together, the six flights totalled 53 hours, 55 minutes and 27 seconds, still well short of Tereshkova’s 70 hours and 50 minutes.

On 1 September 1859 a solar storm hit Earth hard enough that auroras were seen over Cuba, and telegraph operators in Boston disconnected their batteries and kept sending messages for two hours on the current the sky was pushing through the wires.

For years the humble American penny carried a quiet embarrassment that finally ended its long run: each one-cent coin had come to cost nearly four cents to make, and in late 2025 the US Mint struck its very last circulating penny

She also remains the only woman to have made a solo spaceflight. The isolation was real: no crewmate to hand a problem to, inside a capsule barely large enough to move in, for almost three days.

The problem she said was kept quiet

Decades later, Tereshkova said something had gone wrong with her spacecraft’s automatic control programme. Recalling the mission at London’s Science Museum in 2015, she described the problem this way:

“My toothbrush was nothing compared to the fact that the spacecraft was programmed to ascend, but not to descend. Now that was a mistake.”

Ground control sent a corrected computer programme that allowed the spacecraft to return to Earth. Tereshkova also said she asked that the engineer responsible not be punished and, in return, was asked not to reveal the error. She kept it quiet for around 30 years.

This is Tereshkova’s later account. It is safest to treat the dramatic version as her recollection rather than a fully settled technical record.

What her flight was, and what it wasn’t

The uglier side of the story is the criticism directed at her afterward. The New Mexico Museum of Space History notes that Sergei Korolev was reportedly unhappy with her performance and described her as being “on the edge of psychological instability.” Tereshkova rejected that portrayal, pointing out that she completed the mission schedule and had asked for the flight to be extended to three days.

The next woman in space, Svetlana Savitskaya, did not fly until 1982, 19 years later. Nor was Vostok 6 a piloting showcase: the spacecraft was largely automated, though Tereshkova carried out observations, maintained a flight log and entered data sent by ground control.

What it was, however, was a genuine solo mission that outlasted every American who had flown, carried out by someone the usual astronaut-selection mould would never have admitted. The launch was celebrated, the programming issue was kept quiet, and criticism followed in private.

Underneath all of that remains the central fact: a former textile worker orbited Earth alone for nearly three days and returned safely.

https://spacedaily.com/m-the-first-woman-to-fly-in-space-was-not-a-test-pilot-or-a-scientist-but-a-young-textile-worker-and-in-1963-valentina-tereshkova-orbited-the-earth-alone-for-three-days-longer-than-every-american-astr/