Non-Military Aviation

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:01 pm

Big 737 order announced. Southwest and Boeing announced an order for more than 100 additional MAX-7 aircraft, which also switches some of the aircraft already on order from the -8 to the -7 model. This order brings Southwest up to nearly 400 MAX models either on order or already delivered. Given the problems with the MAX and the ongoing pandemic, I would imagine that Southwest got a great price on these orders. There had been some rumors that Southwest might have been looking at the Airbus A220, but this order means that Southwest will be staying an all-737 shop for years to come.

Southwest operates from a lot of smaller airports (such as Chicago Midway vs. O'Hare), so it's always leaned on the smaller size for aircraft orders, which bucks the trend of other carriers preferring the larger models like the 737-900 and the A321. Southwest by far will be the largest operator of the MAX-7, which hasn't attracted many orders from other carriers.

NTP66
Posts: 60630
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:45 pm

Dozens of Boeing's 737 Max plane, which was involved in two fatal crashes, have another issue.

The company said Friday that some of the planes are facing "a potential electrical issue." As a result, the plane-maker recommended 16 airlines immediately ground their affected models so that the issue can be resolved.

tifosi77
Posts: 51455
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:48 pm

Yup, I'll be specifically ticketing myself away from MAX aircraft.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:13 pm

Meh. It's a minor issue that involves checking to make sure that a ground wire is property attached and screwed in place. This issue is likely only hitting the news because it involves the MAX.

If anyone thinks I'm being a Boeing fanboy or something, the FAA issues these sorts of supplemental ADs all of the time. The FAA has issued more than a hundred ADs in the last 60 days alone, and just in the last week alone there were ADs for Airbus including: (1) potentially bad parts in certain A318, A319, A320, and A321 front landing-gear assemblies; (2) cracked oxygen hoses in certain A330s; (3) mandatory modifications to the electrical power supply of the air generation system (AGS) ram air outlet door actuators for certain A350s; (4) erroneous values in the data files that are used for performance computations on certain A330 models. You can see all of the recent ADs here:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... irectives/

tifosi77
Posts: 51455
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:41 pm

It's not that this one thing is a minor issue. The aircraft program seems to have some sort of structural defect that's allowing a lot of things to slip through the cracks. The second house we bought, in Encino, was a flip. After living there for a few months, it was clear that there were a lot of small attention-to-detail things that we should've noted at the outset that would've flagged the property as a bit of a dud. Things like out-of-square door frames, crooked switchplates, an attic access point that was left in the primary bedroom closet and not relocated during the renovation (house was internally stripped down to the studs). Just a whole bunch of little things that individually don't really mean much, but in aggregate tot up to a subpar whole. That's how I see the MAX.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:41 pm

This issue was introduced by a change to the assembly process, so it's less of a design defect and more of a production issue. I will agree that Boeing seems to be having a lot of reports of QC problems recently, and those reports cover more than the MAX. Boeing was having a lot of quality reports coming out of the 787 assembly line, for example. I think the whole company needs to take the pandemic slowdown as an opportunity to "reset" its approach to quality control.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:28 pm

This was a random YouTube recommendation:


Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Sat May 15, 2021 12:44 am

Breeze Airlines has announced that Pittsburgh will be one of its first cities, although the exact routes have not been announced. Breeze is a startup airline from David Neeleman, who is the founder of JetBlue. It's going for direct flights on under-served routes or city pairs where travelers currently have to make a layover, and the goal at first is to be more of a leisure airline with a "rust belt to sun belt" focus. It's initially operating subleased Embraer E190 and E195s from Azul Brazilian Airlines, which will eventually be superseded by the 60+ Airbus A220-300s on order. Other launch cities are Tampa, Charleston, Nashville, and New Orleans, and the first official route will be between Tampa and Charleston. Good luck to this new airline.

shafnutz05
Posts: 50339
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby shafnutz05 » Mon May 17, 2021 1:09 pm

This will leave a bit of a mark.


dodint
Posts: 59088
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Non-Military Aviation

Postby dodint » Tue May 18, 2021 12:09 am

His concern for the camera annoys me for some reason.

Also, the...short sleeve....quasi uniform....with epaulettes.....flying alone in a 172. **** this guy.

shafnutz05
Posts: 50339
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby shafnutz05 » Tue May 18, 2021 7:10 am

His concern for the camera annoys me for some reason.

Also, the...short sleeve....quasi uniform....with epaulettes.....flying alone in a 172. **** this guy.
:lol:

I noticed that too. The epaulettes during flight school... Uhhh ok buddy.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Tue May 18, 2021 8:35 pm

I think one of the YouTube pilots I followed commented on that landing. Way too fast and unstable on the approach, floated the landing, and didn't have control. Everything from the very start of the video is saying "Go around," but the pilot fails to do so. He needs to restart flight school from the beginning, at least.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Wed May 19, 2021 6:49 pm

Crazy


Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Wed May 19, 2021 7:35 pm

The report says the crash occurred at night in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions), which means that the weather/visibility was too poor for visual flight, and ceilings were as low as 600 ft. That unfortunately sounds like a recipe for spatial disorientation. The report says the pilot was flying an instrument approach and was instrument rated, but we don't know how experienced he was at instrument landing at night, and if he was hand-flying that approach he could have flown into low clouds and become disoriented.

The lack of a distress call is not all that surprising, although the media often points to that. Pilots are trained that if anything goes wrong, the main priorities are, in order:

1. Aviate - Fly the aircraft, and if its not straight and level, get it straight and level.
2. Navigate - Okay, I'm straight and level. Where am I and where am I going? Is there any terrain I need to worry about?
3. Communicate - Alert ATC of the emergency.

Communicating is thus only the third and lowest priority for any emergency.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Mon May 24, 2021 1:22 am

Breeze Airways' initial routes have been announced. Pittsburgh gets four destinations: Providence, Hartford, Norfolk, and Charleston. Tampa, Charleston, Norfolk, and New Orleans are the first four focus cities. Other destinations are Huntsville, Bentonville/Fayetteville, Louisville, Akron, Columbus, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Richmond.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Mon May 24, 2021 1:24 am

Breeze Airways' initial routes have been announced. Pittsburgh gets four destinations: Providence, Hartford, Norfolk, and Charleston. Tampa, Charleston, Norfolk, and New Orleans are the first four focus cities. Other destinations are Huntsville, Bentonville/Fayetteville, Louisville, Akron, Columbus, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Richmond.

@Tomas You aren't getting Dallas, but XNA is getting flights to San Antonio, New Orleans, and Tampa.

Tomas
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:28 am

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Tomas » Mon May 24, 2021 4:27 pm

Breeze Airways' initial routes have been announced. Pittsburgh gets four destinations: Providence, Hartford, Norfolk, and Charleston. Tampa, Charleston, Norfolk, and New Orleans are the first four focus cities. Other destinations are Huntsville, Bentonville/Fayetteville, Louisville, Akron, Columbus, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Richmond.

@Tomas You aren't getting Dallas, but XNA is getting flights to San Antonio, New Orleans, and Tampa.
XNA is getting crazy about Florida! Direct flights to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Destin.
New Orleans is a nice addition, though. Slowly getting back to the pre-COVID 20+ direct destinations.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Mon May 31, 2021 11:09 pm

Oopsie.


tifosi77
Posts: 51455
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:05 am

So a Cessna landed on the 101 freeway not too far from my neighborhood tonight, at the exit to get to the pharmacy where I got my COVID shots. So that's fun.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:57 am

Neat. Wonder if there is ATC audio. Might see it on VASAviation.

tifosi77
Posts: 51455
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:25 am

It was a student training flight, oil pump failure 5 minutes after takeoff. Haven't seen ATC yet, but there are YouTube clips.




Local Fox affiliate had video captured by the student pilot where they're on the roadway cruising towards the exit. Cars are passing them, and it's...... hysterically goofy.

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19632
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Non-Military Aviation

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Thu Jun 03, 2021 10:50 am

Stopgap until we get suborbital commercial passenger rockets?
United Airlines Holdings Inc. is jumping into the potential market for supersonic travel with the first firm order for Boom Technology Inc.’s Overture aircraft, wagering that business flyers will pay top dollar for speedier trips across oceans.

The airline will buy 15 of the supersonic jets, which are expected to carry passengers in 2029, the companies said in a statement Thursday. At $200 million a plane, the deal is valued at $3 billion at list prices and Boom doesn’t offer discounts, said Blake Scholl, the aircraft developer’s founder and chief executive officer. United also took purchase options for 35 more planes.

United plans to be the debut operator of the Overture, which will be able to seat as many as 88 people. The airline’s coastal hubs in leading business-travel markets make the jet “uniquely useful” for United, said Mike Leskinen, vice president of corporate development. While supersonic flight is banned over land in the U.S., United sees three and-a-half hour jaunts to London from Newark, New Jersey, and six-hour trips to Tokyo from San Francisco.

“It has a tremendous amount of value for a big chunk of our high-end business customers,” Leskinen said. “We’ve got our eyes firmly on New York to London for inaugural service and we will evaluate opportunities beyond that.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f=a2d7LMhq

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:13 pm

I'd certainly like to see the return of supersonic passenger flights, but I'm dubious. Supersonic flight is way more expensive and far less efficient in terms of fuel consumption, and I don't think many people would consider the reduction in time for trans-Atlantic flights to be worth the much higher ticket price, especially since supersonic aircraft have to be narrow and compact (so no big cushy First Class suites). How many here would pay thousands of additional dollars in order to take a six-hour flight down to three hours? I wouldn't.

Supersonic trans-Pacific flights would be a different matter due to the longer flight times, and I think more people would be willing to pay extra to cut a 12+ hour flight down to five or six. But then the problem is that supersonic aircraft can't carry enough fuel. The article above mentions "six hours to Tokyo," but the published specs for Boom Overture's proposed jet put its maximum range at 8,300 km, which is just barely above the actual 8,246 km air distance from San Francisco to Tokyo. Seattle to Tokyo would work, but Los Angeles to Tokyo would be out of at range at 8,800 km or so, and forget about other destinations like Singapore or Hong Kong. If you want to go to Singapore but you have to connect through another airport, the total travel time might be as long or longer than just hopping on a 777 or A350 at SFO or LAX and just flying direct.

tifosi77
Posts: 51455
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:44 pm

Depending on the winds aloft, SFO-SIN non-stop is 17.5 hours in the air. That'd be one helluva connection layover in Honolulu to top that.

I think the biggest impediment to developing a new SST is that they currently can't be operated as such overland in the US or Europe. So they're strictly limited to trans-oceanic routes.

Shyster
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:09 pm

Supposedly the new aircraft being developed may be quiet enough to fly over land, but I'll believe that when I see it. I'll also believe the aircraft when I actually see them fly. For example, Aerion Corporation had also been working on a supersonic "boomless" aircraft for years, and it had been working with major companies like Airbus, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin and even had an engine design in work (the General Electric Affinity) , but Aerion just went bankrupt and closed and the end of May.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests