The aviation industry has always been a fertile ground for innovation, but history shows that even the most ambitious programs can falter. Failed aviation initiatives often stem from technical, operational, and strategic missteps. By examining the errors of past aircraft programs, aerospace and defense companies can uncover critical considerations that inform better planning, execution, and risk management for future initiatives.
Failed Aviation Programs: What Went Wrong?
Boeing 737 MAX 9
Boeing’s 737 MAX program, once viewed as a strategic and competitive response to Airbus’s A320neo, has faced repeated challenges over the years. After two crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people, the program underwent significant design changes and regulatory scrutiny. However, incidents continued, including a fuselage panel blowout in January 2023. These events have prompted deeper questions about the program’s overall safety and long-term viability. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a stern warning, stating, “This incident should have never happened, and it cannot happen again.”

Boeing 737 Max in flight. Image by Boeing
In 2024, the Justice Department and Boeing agreed on a settlement including a $243.6 million fine, a $500 million fund for victim compensation, and nearly $1.8 billion to airlines whose Max jets were grounded for nearly two years.
The program’s challenges centered on critical design and software decisions. To compete with Airbus quickly, Boeing opted to modify the existing 737 design rather than developing a new aircraft, which would have required a longer certification process. This decision led to compromises, such as the implementation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). The MCAS software, which aimed to prevent stalls by adjusting the aircraft’s nose automatically, relied on data from a single angle-of-attack sensor and lacked sufficient redundancy. Moreover, its functionality was not fully disclosed to pilots or regulators, significantly increasing risks.
The flaws in the MCAS system, combined with insufficient pilot training and lack of communication, contributed to the crashes and regulatory fallout. Boeing has faced scrutiny over the balance between cost, time efficiency, and safety measures, underscoring the challenges of maintaining rigorous safety standards in a competitive industry.
Airborne Aircraft Carrier
The idea of a flying aircraft carrier emerged as a bold concept during the early 20th century, aiming to revolutionize military operations by providing mobile platforms for reconnaissance and defense. The USS Akron (which costed $5.3M) and its sister ship, the USS Macon (which costed $2.4M), represented the Navy’s most ambitious attempt to bring this vision to life. These rigid airships, filled with helium and capable of operating independently, carried small scout planes that could be deployed using an innovative skyhook mechanism.

USS Macon in flight. Image by Airship.net
While the concept was groundbreaking, operational challenges quickly became apparent. The USS Akron’s service was marred by mishaps, including a tragic crash off the New Jersey coast in 1933 that claimed the lives of 73 crew members, including Rear Adm. William Moffett. The USS Macon, despite being equipped with enhanced safety measures, met a similar fate when excessive winds caused its upper fin to fail, leading to its loss in 1935. These disasters brought the Navy’s experiment with airborne aircraft carriers to an end.
Later in the 20th century, major aircraft Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) attempted to revive the flying aircraft carrier concept. Lockheed’s CL-1201 envisioned an enormous 1,120-foot wingspan aircraft powered by modified General Electric (GE) engines utilizing nuclear energy, while Boeing’s 747 AAC was a modified 747-200 designed to store ten fighter jets and serve as a refueling tanker. Despite their innovative designs, neither project advanced beyond the concept stage due to their impracticality and immense costs.
Fairchild Republic T-46 “Thunderpiglet”

Fairchild Republic T46 in Flight. Image by FLYING
Designed in the 1980s as a next-generation jet trainer for the U.S. Air Force, the T-46 “Thunderpiglet” was a $3.5 billion program intended to train student pilots. The aircraft featured a side-by-side seating configuration, twin tails, ejection seats, pressurization, and two turbofan engines. Despite promising performance during test flights, the program encountered significant challenges.
In addition to the cost and manufacturing challenges, there were multiple design faults such as too high of a drag, inadequate stall warning, trim problems with the primary flight controls, and unacceptable buffet levels created by the speed breaks.
Ultimately, the Reagan Administration’s decision not to allocate funds for the T-46 in the 1987 fiscal budget sealed its fate. The service stated in a statement, “schedule delays and manufacturing problems, coupled with lack of affordability, made this decision necessary.”
By the time of its cancellation, only three prototypes had been produced.
Key Considerations for Successful Aviation Programs
Developing and delivering a successful aviation program requires careful attention to detail, stringent adherence to standards, and strategic partnerships. Below is a comprehensive breakdown of the critical considerations:
Planning, Design, Development, and Testing
Inadequate Planning – Planning is the foundation of a successful aviation program. Without a clear roadmap, projects are prone to delays, cost overruns, and unforeseen risks. Effective planning includes:
- Defining scope and deliverables.
- Risk assessments with mitigation strategies.
- Building realistic timelines with clear milestones.
- Allocating resources optimally, including personnel, materials, and finances.
Compliance with Industry Standards- The aviation industry is heavily regulated to ensure safety and reliability. Key standards to adhere to include:
- DO-178C: Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification.
- DO-254: Design assurance for airborne electronic hardware.
- ARP4754A: Guidelines for systems development.
- AS9100: Quality management systems for aviation, space, and defense.
Non-compliance can lead to certification delays, costly redesigns, or program failure.
Requirements Analysis – Poorly defined or ambiguous requirements often result in rework and missed objectives.
- Engage all stakeholders early to capture detailed requirements.
- Use a systems engineering approach to break down requirements into manageable components.
- Validate and prioritize requirements to ensure feasibility and alignment with program goals.
Configuration Management – Aviation programs involve numerous components and iterations. Effective configuration management ensures:
- Controlled and documented changes across design, testing, and production.
- A clear audit trail for certifications and traceability.
- Prevention of versioning issues that could compromise safety or quality.
Verification and Validation (V&V) – Testing is non-negotiable in aviation programs to ensure safety and compliance. V&V activities should include:
- Early and continuous testing through the development lifecycle.
- Bench, simulation, and in-flight testing for real-world validation.
- Robust processes for defect tracking and resolution.
Rapid Prototyping – Iterative prototyping helps to:
- Quickly test design assumptions and gather user feedback.
- Identify and resolve potential issues early, reducing development costs.
- Adapt to changing requirements while staying within budget and timelines.
Lack of Traceability – Traceability is crucial for maintaining accountability and meeting regulatory requirements:
- Map requirements to design, testing, and validation to ensure alignment.
- Establish digital tools for managing traceability (e.g., requirements management software).
- Provide transparency for certification bodies and stakeholders.
Documentation and Change Management – Proper documentation supports accountability, continuity, and compliance:
- Maintain comprehensive documentation of designs, tests, and certifications.
- Implement change management processes to evaluate the impact of modifications and communicate changes effectively to all stakeholders.
Choosing the Right Partner
A successful aviation program often hinges on the capabilities and reliability of the chosen partners. Selecting the right software, hardware and manufacturing partner can significantly enhance program efficiency, innovation, and outcomes.
Proven Expertise – Aviation is a high-stakes industry where experience matters. Partnering with a provider that has a proven track record ensures:
- Deep domain knowledge across aerospace and defense sectors.
- Familiarity with certification processes and regulatory standards.
- Ability to navigate complex challenges, such as advanced avionics or integration of emerging technologies (e.g., AI, quantum).
Tailored Solutions – Aviation programs often face unique challenges and constraints. A successful partner should:
- Offer adaptable and customized solutions that align with your program’s specific needs.
- Provide flexibility to scale resources or capabilities as requirements evolve.
- Deliver innovative approaches to solve technical or operational bottlenecks.
Comprehensive Provider – Efficiency and integration are critical in aviation programs. A comprehensive provider should offer end-to-end capabilities, including:
- Systems Engineering: Holistic approaches to system design and integration.
- Software & Hardware Development: Expertise in safety-critical systems and next-gen avionics.
- Manufacturing & Quality Testing: Advanced manufacturing processes coupled with rigorous testing protocols.
- Certification Expertise: A streamlined approach to achieving compliance under one roof, reducing delays.
On Time, On Budget Delivery – Aviation programs are often constrained by tight schedules and budgets. A reliable partner should demonstrate:
- Established processes, methodologies, and project management frameworks to mitigate risks and delays.
- Continuous communication and transparency to keep stakeholders informed of progress.
How Performance Can Help
At Performance, we embody the technical and partner-related considerations outlined above. We leverage decades of safety-critical expertise to deliver tailored, high-quality solutions that address the unique challenges of aviation programs.
- Comprehensive Software Solutions: We develop end-to-end safety-critical software solutions that meet the industry’s rigorous standards, ensuring reliability and compliance.
- Full-Lifecycle Hardware Development: Our hardware solutions meet DO-160 and DO-254 standards, ensuring top-tier quality, safety, and reliability from design to certification.
- Expert Manufacturing Support: As an AS9100-certified provider, we specialize in low-volume aviation manufacturing tailored to your specific needs. Our unwavering focus on quality, compliance, and on-time delivery empowers your vision and ensures precision at every step.
- Performance Testing Solutions: Our comprehensive avionics simulation suite provides rapid, customizable, and cost-effective testing capabilities.
Our commitment to excellence has established us as a trusted partner and preferred supplier for aviation projects around the globe. We look forward to collaborating on your next safety and mission-critical programs.
Contact us today to discover how Performance can service your next safety-critical project.