AircraftNews.Com

There has been a deafening silence in the general press about the AF 447 tragedy of recent times. What with drones running round in various places bombing baddies with the occasional bit of collateral damage generally agreed to be regrettable by the responsible (what a way to use the word) parties and regular suicide bombings not to mention ferries turning over and NSW Cabinet Ministers being laid low by spurned lovers it does not take long for even such a monumental tragedy to fade into the background but those of us who fly are worried and will not rest until some sense can be made of it.
At present the official position is that we do not know the cause but suspect a perfect storm of events starting with a sensor failure led to a loss of control. The more time passes the more this seems pretty thin. If this could be the case then thousands are daily in danger. I expect that behind the scenes this is being taken very seriously and I also suspect that given the propensity for litigation currently prevailing loose lips sink financial ships is guiding the dissemination of information i.e. what you don’t know wont hurt you (or more accurately in some cases wont hurt the company).
It seems we have reached the point predicted frequently by experts where systems too complicated to be completely analyzed have been created and are in daily world wide service.
In the design philosophy of the Airbus et al a very serious effort has been made to build in protection by redundancy but as reports come in more and more evidence of startling failures emerges of the type which warrant drastic action.
I have collected reports of a total of 52 incidents in which malfunctions of automated flight systems with computers at their core have created situations where there was a serious risk of the loss of an aircraft and all aboard. As my research has not been exhaustive likely ther are many more. Two of these situations did lead to the loss of aircraft. In one case, the crash of a B2, the crew were able to eject but the bomber worth about $250 mil was lost while in the other case – AF 447, the aircraft and all on board were lost.
Why are we continuing to fly them? In the case of the Air force and B2s the failure was diagnosed and corrected but in the case of the AF447 it is clear that in actual fact the risks are regarded as acceptable in the face of the cost of the only rational action which is to stop using these aircraft till we understand what is going on. Or am I just just being alarmist?
Read more…

The recent tragic loss of a DHC 6 twin otter in PNG with the loss of at least 13 lives has brought out into the open all the usual suspects. The pilot a young PNG National has callously and unreasonably been dubbed inexperienced and the aircraft affectionately know to many as The Twatter described as poorly maintained. With these and other stories such as that the co pilot had been “forced” to fly on his day off all coming from no where it seems likely that after the ususal shock horror tsk tsk reaction an enquiry will be called and what is already is known will be pointed out (flying in PNG is very difficult, aviation infra structure has been allowed to decay to a point which would be unacceptable in many other places in the world etc) and then a few people will be blamed preferably I suspect people outside PNG such as Australia or the EU and nothing will change.
I surely hope not. It is technically possible to avoid such incidents and relatively cheap and simple so to do. Augmented GPS approaches and rotary wing transport would transform such operations as the Kokoda one with a much lower level of risk. The Augmented GPS component of this solution is available now and should be put in place with dispatch. I suppose there will be a fight over who will pay for it. Couldn’t the interested parties do it now and decide on final distribution of costs later? It would cost much less than a Stealth bomber or an AWAC.

Those with attention spans longer than a gnat will well remember the triumphant announcement of the Dreamliner was it a century ago? Well the last century anyway. Those who do may well have thought there was a little hubris in it. Now even Boeing must have the message. Did someone break some mirrors or have they not paid enough attention to Feng Shui?
In the words of the Australian sage tell em they’r dreaming. And maybe ask what they were smoking.

Boeing shares fell 9% after the company admitted tests show signs of stress in the aircraft body and the the maiden flight of its Dreamliner aircraft was delayed yet again today after the discovery.

The first airborne test of the 787 had been planned for next week and Boeing had been insisting everything was on schedule as recently as last week’s Paris Air Show.

But the company said today it had identified an area on the side of the aircraft where the new model had shown signs of stress in a static test. It now has to reinforce the aircraft to make it ready for its first flight and delivery, the schedule for which will not be available for several weeks.
Read more…

Some years ago (maybe 30) I read in Flight that the time was coming when a latest generation Combat aircraft was going to take the entire GDP of a small nation. At the time I took it seriously and though it a bit of an exaggeration but as time has worn on it seems they were joking at the time using delightful British irony but that they had unwittingly hit the nail on the head. That day is here with the F22 that the US wont sell to any one because it cost them so dear and mega Airliners taking many Billions to create and 100s of millions to buy.
As the financial crisis looms and doomsayers prattle away I wonder whether now is the time for a paradigm shift. Skip the A380 and A350 and B787 etc and go for a highly standardized no frills blended body well and truly subsonic alternatively powered (fuel cells and props?) solutions that will halve the cost per kg per kilometer (Note I use metric as I am talking of the future)
Anyone with the courage to do it should (?!) clean up.

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — The only inkling passengers had that something was wrong on the Continental Airlines flight over the Atlantic Ocean was when an announcement came over the loudspeaker asking if there was a doctor on board.

Otherwise, flight attendants continued to serve snacks. Passengers read magazines and watched movies. And the flight kept on its schedule.

But in the cockpit, the 60-year-old captain had died of a suspected heart attack and two co-pilots took over the controls. The 247 passengers aboard did not learn what had happened until the flight from Brussels landed safely Thursday and was met by fire trucks, emergency vehicles and dozens of reporters.

Read more…

Here in Oz we have recently introduced compulsory drug testing for people involved in aviation.
At first sight this might seem like a good thing and a sort of Motherhood matter. Who could object to it?
On second thought I am not so sure.
Firstly what is the rationale for it? Do we really think people are flying and working in aviation under the influence? Where is the evidence?
If there are individuals so irresponsible and I do fear there are would anyone so irresponsible be liable to change their behaviour in the face of possibly being confronted with a blow in the bag or lick the stick man?

I rather suspect not.
How much does all this cost and where is the cost benefit analysis?
Having observed Aviation for quite a long time I have a very uneasy feeling that the reality here is that this is a feel good exercise for box tickers which will as is becoming usual lead to much of the effort and a large slab of the cost being handed on to the aviation community so bureaucrats can be seen to be doing good stuff.
Aviation is, perhaps inevitably, highly regulated but recently I have noticed increasing mountains of paper all in the name of compliance and safety with entities such as the SMS (Safety Management system) becoming required and yet in practice becoming more like a distracting burden. There is only so much time people can give to such things before they actually subtract from the time and attention available to Aviate safely.
Maybe there should be a requirement for a regulation to be removed before another can be applied?
I would be very intersted in the views of others on this.

Safety experts testifying about a plane crash near Buffalo, N.Y., that killed 50 people say pilots should be warned earlier about dangerously slow aircraft speed.
An alarm that would warn pilots earlier of dangerously slow aircraft speed could have helped prevent a plane crash that killed 50 people in February, safety officials told an investigative panel Thursday.

National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman raised the idea on the third and final day of a hearing into the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407, which went down near Buffalo, N.Y., killing all 49 people aboard and one person on the ground. She said the current warning system, which violently shakes the pilot’s control stick, goes off too late.
“I think this crew went from complacency to catastrophe in 20 seconds,” Hersman said. “The room is on fire at that point.”

NASA scientist and cockpit safety expert Robert Dismukes agreed, saying the evidence collected by the aircraft’s voice data recorder showed that pilot Marvin Renslow and co-pilot Rebecca Shaw were distracted. However, he said a better speed warning system would be “well worth looking at.”

Fatigue was also a factor in the crash, said safety expert Rory Kay of the Air Line Pilots Assn. Kay said the Federal Aviation Administration’s “duty and rest” rules were outdated, remaining nearly unchanged for 60 years.
The regulations say crew members must receive eight hours of rest within a 24-hour period, but evidence collected by the NTSB shows that Renslow and Shaw each had little or no sleep the night before the doomed flight. Both had commuted to Newark, N.J., their base for Colgan Air and where the flight originated. Renslow lived in Florida and Shaw in Washington state.

“An overhaul is absolutely past due,” Kay said.

Hersman also voiced concerns about regional pilots’ low salaries and companies’ relocation plans, which force crew members to commute long distances because they can’t afford to live closer to their base.

Kay said airlines should consider the human cost of their business decisions. He said pilots were treated “like migrant workers, moving around and chasing bases.”

To read the originla report see the L A Times 15 May

Boeing has unveiled details of its next-generation 737 to drum up business among airlines – including Air New Zealand – as demand for planes is hit by global recession.

The planemaker has seen its first-quarter profit drop by half in the first part of this year, but says demand for its 737, the world’s most popular passenger plane, remains strong despite “market dynamics” with a backlog of 2203 aircraft.

The next-generation aircraft is due to be delivered to airlines in 2011. In an international launch yesterday for media in Seattle and elsewhere via video conference, Boeing plugged the features of the new model, including reduced fuel consumption of up to 2 per cent through airframe and engine improvements and a remodelled interior. Read more…