Andra and Philippe started a regular segment to share the latest in aviation human factors as part of the Human Factors podcast. This week they talked about supersonic flights coming back in the U.S. We share the video recording and their transcript to your benefit.

(Phil) Thanks Nick and Barry. This is Phil from the Aerospace Systems Technical Group at HFES. Quick update on the show—Elena is deep into writing her thesis, so she’s taking a short break from the podcast. In the meantime, I’m really glad to be joined by Andra Mahu.

(Andra) Hey, thank you for having me, I’m happy to be here. There’s actually a lot happening right now around supersonic flight in the U.S., so we thought it’d be a good moment to bring everyone up to speed.

(Phil)  Right. So, in March of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to lift the ban on supersonic flight over land—a ban that’s been in place since 1973. If the Senate also approves it, the legislation would give the FAA about a year to establish rules allowing civil aircraft to exceed Mach 1 over land, as long as no sonic boom reaches the ground.

(Andra) Right, and speaking of the ban, it was put in place because sonic booms generate loud and intense shock waves that startle people and can cause damage to buildings, such as breaking windows. And since the plane is flying faster than the sound, people onboard don’t hear the boom, but everyone else in range does.

(Phil) That original ban goes back to a pretty controversial set of sonic boom tests in Oklahoma City. For about six months, starting in February 1964, supersonic aircraft flew over Oklahoma City multiple times a day—sometimes up to eight sonic booms daily—to study both structural impacts and public reaction.

The outcome was… not good. There were close to 10,000 complaints about property damage—things like broken windows and cracked plaster. But more importantly, public reaction was strongly negative. Around 15,000 residents filed complaints, lawsuits, or protest letters. The FAA’s mishandling of communication didn’t help either; many felt their concerns were dismissed. Political support eroded quickly, and that ultimately led lawmakers to ban supersonic flight over land.

(Andra) But wait—what about Concorde? It was flying to New York until the early 2000s. Wasn’t that supersonic?

(Phil) It was—but only part of the way. The ban applies specifically to overland flight in the U.S. So Concorde would go supersonic over the Atlantic, then slow down to subsonic speeds before reaching the U.S. coastline. And just to be precise—civilian supersonic flight isn’t completely prohibited today. It’s allowed under a Special Flight Authorization from the FAA, but that’s granted on a case-by-case basis rather than for routine operations. 

(Andra) And this is why the new supersonic aircraft currently in development are looking at ways to reduce the sonic boom. The most exciting program right now is built by NASA and Lockheed Martin. The experimental aircraft is called the X-59 QueSST, which stands for Quiet SuperSonic Technology. This program has 2 goals: build an aircraft that is able to fly faster than the speed of sound without generating a sonic boom, and the second is to fly it over several U.S. communities to measure how people actually perceive that sound. Using this data, regulators can set new noise limits for supersonic flight, which could open the doors for commercial cargo and passenger travel. Flight testing began in October 2025. They are actively undergoing flight tests in California, and have completed 10 flights. So far, the X-59 has only flown subsonically reaching .95 Mach, but are targeting 1.4 Mach for their mission.

(Phil) But how can the aircraft reduce the sonic boom? Did they shrink engines?

(Andra) The answer is the unusual shape of the aircraft. The aircraft’s thin needle-like nose accounts for almost a third of its length and helps break up the shock waves that would usually result in a sonic boom. From the ground, the sonic thump will be in the range of 60-75 db, which is similar to a car door closing when you are 20ft away.  Due to the unusual aircraft configuration, the cockpit is located almost halfway down the length of the aircraft and doesn’t have a forward-facing window. Instead, the Quesst team developed the eXternal Vision System, a series of high-resolution cameras feeding a 4K monitor in the cockpit.

 (Phil) Wait… You mean that the pilot cannot look outside?

(Andra) That’s right! There is no forward-facing window! The 4K monitor serves as the central window and allows the pilot to safely see traffic in their flight path, while also providing additional visual aids for airport approaches, landings and takeoffs. This monitor displays the video feed from two cameras outside the aircraft combined with terrain data from an advanced computing system. 

(Phil) Wow, that’s so surprising! I remember from my time at Bombardier working on flight deck design—one of the core human factors tasks was verifying the pilot’s forward field of view – that was called regulation 25.773. There’s guidance material that comes with that, with these diagrams showing the volume of space the pilot needs to see from their eye position. And it’s not small—it’s actually a pretty wide and deep field of view, especially forward and downward toward the runway environment.

That requirement is a big reason why cockpit windows are as large as they are. But those large windows come with trade-offs. They affect the aerodynamics, and one consequence is that the peak wind noise tends to sit right above the pilot’s head. If you could shrink the forward window, you’d actually push that noise source further aft, which would improve the acoustic environment in the cockpit.

But of course, doing that would normally reduce the pilot’s direct outside view—and that’s where you run into certification constraints. So traditionally, you’re balancing visibility, aerodynamics, and comfort, all within those regulatory limits.

So when you look at something like the X-59, which essentially replaces the forward window with a synthetic vision system… that’s a pretty fundamental shift. So what are pilots saying about flying like that—basically relying on a 4K display instead of a direct out-the-window view?

(Andra) Actually, pilots have grown comfortable using it! NASA conducted a lot of flight testing to compare their video technology to actual forward windows to ensure that it provides performance and safety levels equivalent to, or better, than forward-facing windows. NASA quotes one of its pilots saying that, in the unlikely event of a display failure, “he can even land the airplane with the system turned off”,  relying on his vision through the aircraft’s side windows. 

(Phil) And NASA isn’t the only one pushing into this new generation of supersonic aircraft. You’ve also got Boom Supersonic, which is developing a commercial airliner designed to carry about 60 to 80 passengers, with a target entry into service toward the end of the decade.

Their demonstrator, XB-1, has already completed flight testing, including supersonic runs where no sonic boom was heard at ground level—taking advantage of what’s known as “Mach cutoff,” where atmospheric conditions refract the shockwaves away from the surface.And on a different front, there’s Hermeus, working on the Quarterhorse Mk 2. It is designed as the first remotely piloted, supersonic aircraft.