Forbes46%

FAA Makes Way For Return Of Supersonic Flight—Minus The Boom 33%

By Suzanne Rowan Kelleher0%

6/30/2026, 1:22:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29.9% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 1,168 faulty-reasoning hits from 576 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.6% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,695 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.10% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration has taken an important step in replacing a five-decades-old ban on supersonic flight over U.S. land, claiming technological advances now make it possible to fly faster than the speed of sound without the ear-shattering boom. 
A 2016 photo of Blake Scholl and Joe Wilding, two of three co-founders of Boom Supersonic, standing in front of an early model at the company's hangar in Centennial, Colorado. 
(Photo by Helen H. 
Richardson) 
Denver Post via Getty Images 
Key Facts 
The Department of Transportation intends to replace the ban on overland supersonic flight with a noise limit, allowing aircraft to fly faster than Mach 1 over land as long as the resulting noise stays below a set level, according to a notice published Tuesday by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the Federal Register. 
This follows an executive order President Donald Trump issued in June 2025 directing the FAA to repeal its “prohibition on overland supersonic flight  establish an interim noise-based-certification standard  and remove additional regulatory barriers that hinder the advancement of supersonic aviation technology in the United States.” 
Since 1973, the FAA has prohibited civil aircraft from exceeding Mach 1 over U.S. land to prevent disruptive sonic booms. 
The FAA hopes to finalize both rules by mid-2027, according to the notice. 
Crucial Quote 
Technological advances “will eliminate the old sonic boom,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said in a statement. 
“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.” 
Why Were Planes Banned From Supersonic Speed While Flying Over Land? 
The primary reason was public opposition to loud sonic booms. 
In the 1960s, a plane flying faster than the speed of sound—about 660 mph at high altitudes—created shock waves that traveled to the ground and reached human ears as a loud gunshot-like crack or thunder-like boom. 
Tests during that decade, including the Oklahoma City sonic boom experiments, found repeated booms broke windows, damaged property and generated thousands of public complaints. 
In its 1973 ruling, the FAA stated that due to the limits of technology at that time, “a prohibition was needed to protect the public from sonic boom  by preventing operations of a civil aircraft at a true flight Mach number greater than 1.” 
Several years later, Air France and British Airways introduced Concorde, and were allowed to serve New York’s John F. 
Kennedy International Airport as long as flights remained subsonic over U.S. land. 
Notably, “the prestigious London-New York service was the only truly profitable [Concorde] route, supported by high-powered business and celebrity travel,” wrote a former British Airways network planner for Forbes in 2021. 
What Companies Are Developing Supersonic Planes Today? 
Several U.S. companies are working on a new generation of luxurious supersonic passenger aircraft with much quieter sonic booms and improved fuel efficiency. 
In particular, Colorado-headquartered Boom Supersonic says it has pre-orders from United Airlines, American Airlines and Japan Airlines for its Overture jets, which will carry 60-80 passengers. 
Atlanta-based Spike Aerospace is developing smaller Diplomat jets for up to 18 passengers. 
Both companies’ websites tout future transatlantic flights in under four hours. 
Further Reading 
Trump Clears U.S. 
For Supersonic Flights Ending +50 Year Ban (Forbes) 
What It’s Like To Fly Supersonic In 7 Different Aircraft (Forbes) 
Is The Age Of The Concorde And Supersonic Flight Returning? 
(Forbes) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 3.1%Forbes: 3.1%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.5%Forbes: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 3.0%Forbes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 2.0%Forbes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.4%Forbes: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 2.6%Forbes: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 23.6%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 11.3%Forbes: 5.8%Framing Effect23.6%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.2%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 2.9%Forbes: 0.7%Status Quo Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 21.7%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 3.8%Forbes: 3.9%Optimism Bias21.7%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.5%Forbes: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 5.5%Forbes: 5.4%Negativity Bias6.3%This article: 4.5%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.4%Forbes: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias4.5%This article: 3.5%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.0%Forbes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.2%Forbes: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.7%Forbes: 3.2%Halo Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.8%Forbes: 1.6%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 0.3%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.3%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.9%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 8.0%Forbes: 4.6%Appeal to Authority29.9%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 2.1%Forbes: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.8%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.6%Forbes: 0.2%Circular Reasoning7.8%This article: 11.1%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 6.7%Forbes: 5.7%Hasty Generalization11.1%This article: 5.4%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.4%Forbes: 0.1%Red Herring5.4%This article: 1.4%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.5%Forbes: 0.7%Bandwagon1.4%This article: 8.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 2.4%Forbes: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 12.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.5%Forbes: 1.0%Begging the Question12.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 2.4%Forbes: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.6%Forbes: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.5%Forbes: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.1%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.3%Forbes: 2.0%Anecdotal6.1%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.4%Forbes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.1%Forbes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 3.9%Forbes: 1.1%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 13.5%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 4.4%Forbes: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection13.5%This article: 5.2%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 5.7%Forbes: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice5.2%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.1%Forbes: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 0.2%Forbes: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.8%Forbes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Suzanne Rowan Kelleher: 1.2%Forbes: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.9%

576 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers47%attributed speech306writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageHelen H. Richardson • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Transportation • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) • 20 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBryan Bedford • 16 words • 100.0% coverageBryan Bedford • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageForbes • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBoom Supersonic • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSpike Aerospace • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageForbes • 8 words • 0.0% coverageForbes • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageForbes • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bryan Bedford

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words17% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bryan Bedford: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+34.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bryan Bedford: 34.0%34.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Bryan Bedford: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Bryan Bedford: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.