Differing reports interesting - CBS report states passengers were offered bus return to terminal as plane was parked in remote parking. That's been my Delta experience in long weather delays - opportunity to disembark but few have done that. Also snacks and water - no charge. Two reporting services, two differing stories. Possible a passenger hypes up a story, sends to a service that will give him/her media coverage? I've been in similar situations too many times to take what I first read as gospel.

(Written on 2019年08月21日)(Permalink)

EASA finding more reasons to keep the MAX grounded - with some of them being the same problems found on the A330 and A320 that did not result in grounding. Witness all of the pitch down incidents resulting from software faults. About time the FAA issued grounding of all Airbus.

(Written on 2019年07月10日)(Permalink)

If you shut off the electronics due to a fault, the mechanical wheel is still available for trim as it has been since the first 737. Without electric assist, the trim can be so difficult to adjust that one crew member needs to push the plane into a dive to relieve forces on the trim so it can be cranked. It may take several attempts to get the plane trimmed. Always has been this way. Report is the Ethiopian first officer did not have the strength to turn the trim wheel. Has not previously been an issue because there were no electronics forcing it out of trim in the first place. The question is do they need to add a power assist to trim which would be a major modification with lengthy certification.

(Written on 2019年06月22日)(Permalink)

I'll get blasted for this. The data showed that AOA was reading correctly, then suddenly went to the limit. That triggered the incident. Could a bird striking an AOA sensor do this? Possible. Should it cause a crash? No. Just like pitot icing should not cause a crash. Surely this must have been taken into consideration during the design. Reading the comments, I think people are saying they are blaming everything on a bird. I look at it as a clue as to what might have happened, should have been known as a possibility during design, and therefore puts more blame on the design.

(Written on 2019年05月22日)(Permalink)

I do not understand the self-certification process as reported. As manager of an engineering group in the EU, I supplied at least 1 engineer at all times to help create standards for our industry segment. Once published, we were responsible for meeting the EC standards. All product sold, and mine was mobile equipment ground based, not aircraft, needed the EC certification or Declaration of Conformity. We self certified and supplied a list of documentation. It was interesting to review competitor product and see how they might have differently interpreted an EC standard, a product of self certification.

(Written on 2019年05月14日)(Permalink)

If you had been following the 737 MAX development, you would know it is hardly old except for the engines. Hesitating to rely on memory, it was June, 2015 when assembly started on the new wing design, designed for the increased engine weight and also to incorporate the blended winglet. New design upper and lower skins, stringer and spars - isn't that really a new wing? Tail may look the same but Boeing states redesigned tail and tail cone. History also shows the fuselage has changed considerably from the -200, partly due to lessons learned from the Aloha incident. As a person reads the details there seems to be very little carry over except for the basic design parameters. Marketing hypes the stubby landing gear limited engineering to install an engine with a fan that has less wind resistance than the larger fan A320 so one needs to separate the marketing hype from oh darn, we're screwed on that. From project initiation in 2011 to first flight at the end of 2015 doesn't sound rush rush

(Written on 2019年04月01日)(Permalink)

I was making monthly trans-Atlantic round trips on A330s at the time of QF72 on which the passengers and cabin crew survived with injuries including some permanent only because when the system took control to force nose down to prevent stall came at an altitude from which pilots could disconnect the auto feature and save the plane.

(Written on 2019年03月27日)(Permalink)

If it is essential sales wouldn't be dropping. Planes like the 787 have done more to alleviate traffic at traffic constricted airports by being profitable flying to less congested airports. Consequently dropping 380 orders in favor of a more profitable 350. Profitability per seat mile works on a full passenger load but if half the season its only running a 50% load factor things go downhill fast. On the other hand many have said they will only fly overseas on planes with 4 burning so when the 340, 380, and 747 are gone what will be the recourse.

(Written on 2019年02月13日)(Permalink)

Did you read the report, how the blade went through the airplane damaging another engine and pieces of the plane were knocked off so it was uncontrollable? It appears they did their investigation very thoroughly and it is not the first 4 engine prop plane to crash due to loss of one propeller.

(Written on 2018年12月07日)(Permalink)

That doesn't get much, if any, coverage. I believe it was Martin Caidin's book "A Torch to the Enemy" that listed Japanese cities with the percentage of city destroyed. The fire bombing on march 9 - 10, 1945, caused the greatest loss of life in a bombing mission in human history.

(Written on 2018年08月08日)(Permalink)