Non-Military Aviation

[Shyster]

Just awful.

[tifosi77]

Yeah, I can't watch that video.

[Shyster]

Tragic accident in Lima, Peru. A LATAM Peru Airbus A320neo taking off from Jorge Chávez International Airport as Flight 2213 from Lima to Juliaca, Peru, collided with a fire engine that was crossing the runway, killing two firefighters and injuring a third. Fortunately, 102 passengers and 6 crew aboard escaped unharmed even though the A320 lost its right engine and landing gear and caught on fire as it skidded to a stop.





It looks like the fire services were called for an emergency with another aircraft at the airport, and they entered the active runway while Flight 2213 was on the takeoff roll. This is likely going to be a communications breakdown, such as: (1) the fire trucks entered the active without being cleared or were incorrectly cleared onto the active; (2) the aircraft took off without clearance or was incorrectly cleared for takeoff. ATC recordings should answer the question pretty quickly as to what happened.

[Shyster]

Info on the Peru incident. The fire trucks were apparently rolling for a scheduled drill and not an actual emergency. The Lima airport operator said in a statement that the trucks had entered the runway as part of an emergency response drill coordinated between the operator and the air traffic authority. The confirmed start time for the drill was 15:10, and the impact with the LATAM aircraft occurred at 15:11. An representative for the government aviation regulator and ATC operator in Peru told local radio that the authorization for the drill had not included entry to the runway. So it looks like we have finger pointing between the ATC people and the operations people. It sounds like the fire people thought that since they had scheduled the drill with ATC, that meant that the runways would be shut down for the drill. The ATC people thought that permission for the drill did not mean permission to enter runways.

There is video from inside the aircraft:

[Shyster]

It's the end of an era; the 1,574th and final Boeing 747 rolled out of the Everett factory tonight, December 6, 2022. It's a 747-8F freighter that will be delivered to Atlas Air early in 2023. The first 747 rollout was September 30, 1968, more than 54 years ago. While this marks the end of production, 747 freighters will be flying for many years to come. (Passenger versions won't last nearly as long.)

[tifosi77]

I think fewer than 10% of the 7-4s still operating carry passengers. Lufthansa 457 (LAX-FRA) flies over my house late afternoon every day, but I think that's it. The rest of the 7-4s I see are all cargo.

It's cool, because they're one of the few types I can identify by ear. The other 4-bangers that might overfly (A340s and 380s, mostly) don't really sound that much different from the two-holers. But you can tell almost immediately that a 747 is overhead.

[dodint]

4-bangers and two-holers. Anyone else mildly aroused when tif talks about these sleek, sexy sky tubes?

[NTP66]

r/DontPutYourDickInThat

[Shyster]

First COMAC C919 delivered today. The C919 is a narrowbody jet intended to compete with the 737 and A320. While there are roughly 1,000 orders for the type, they all come from Chinese airlines, so unless one is flying in or through China, it's unlikely that one would ever fly on one of these. It's probably not a bad aircraft, but all reports are that it's not any more efficient or capable than the 737 MAX or A320 neo (and might actually be worse in terms of payload and efficiency), so it's doubtful that the C919 will ever see many if any orders outside of Chinese airlines, which are all at least somewhat government owned and controlled and therefore have no choice but to order the type if the government says so (which it did). It also has something like 60% of non-Chinese content, and parts like the landing gear, avionics, flight controls, APU, hydraulics, and engines come from "western" suppliers like Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, and CFM. Still, it does show that China is very serious about developing a domestic commercial-aircraft industry.

[shafnutz05]

Flying back from Boston the other night, I was having way too much fun looking at my GPS and then to the ground and identifying stuff. It does work in airplane mode, just have to put it near the window.

[Shyster]

Massive order for United Airlines and Boeing. United has ordered 100 new 787s for delivery between 2024 and 2032, has options to add 100 more 787s, exercised existing order options on 44 Boeing 737 MAX for delivery between 2024 and 2026, and placed a new order for 56 more MAX aircraft for delivery between 2027 and 2028. So firm orders for 200 aircraft and options for 100 more. United can select among the -8, -9, and -10 versions of the 787 for the 100 orders and 100 options. United now has over 440 of the 737 MAX on order, in addition to the 70+ currently in service. In addition to the huge MAX order, United does have the Airbus A321neo and Airbus A321XLR on order.

This massive order pretty well firms up United's fleet plans for the next decade or so. United currently has 127 Boeing 767s and 777-200s as well as 21 757-300s and 40 757-200s. The 767s, 777-200s, and perhaps some 757-300 routes will be replaced with the 787. The A321s and especially the A321XLRs will go to replace United's 757s aircraft on those routes that need extended range but not 787 capacity, such as some "long and thin" routes to Europe. The 737 MAX 10 will replace the 757s on shorter routes that don't need long range, and the other MAX variants will comprise United's domestic narrowbody fleet going forward.

The only aircraft without a clear replacement are United's 22 777-300ERs, which are used on the longest international routes, but those are still relatively new and won't need to be replaced for probably another 10 years. I would imagine the Boeing 777X would be in the running for those. United does have an order for 45 A350s that it inherited when it merged with Continental, but the rumors for years have been that United doesn't want them and wants to convert those orders into the A321neo.

[Shyster]

Terrible accident in Pokhara, Nepal. A Yeti Airlines ATR 72 flying from Kathmandu to Pokhara crashed on approach to Pokhara International Airport. There were 72 on board, and it doesn't look like anyone survived. There is video of the crash, and it looks like the aircraft got to low and slow and entered a spin stall. Juan Brown offers this commentary:

[Shyster]

Also in aviation news, last Friday there was a serious runway incursion at JFK where an American 777 that was taxiing for its flight to London Heathrow entered and crossed an active runway while a Delta 737 was on its takeoff roll. The Delta managed to reject and come to a stop before the intersection where the American was crossing. It was American's fault. American had been cleared to turn left onto the Kilo taxiway, cross Runway 31L (not in use at the time), and continue south on Kilo to get in the line of aircraft queuing for takeoff on 4L. Instead, the American proceeded straight ahead on taxiway Juliet and crossed 4L in front of the Delta.

[Trip McNeely]

Aviation nerds: should I be excited about Boeings Transonic Truss Braced wing? Seems like a very cool concept but will be it be functional, especially in regards to space in current airport setups?

[Shyster]

Boeing has experience with folding wingtips for the 777X. I would imagine a similar setup for a TTB aircraft would permit it to fit into current 737/A320 sized gates (I believe those are "Class C" gates). From what I've read, the NASA contribution for the project is $425M, and the Boeing contribution is $725M. My understanding is that the demonstrator aircraft will be based on a retired MD-90 with the center wing box cut out and replaced by the TTB wing.

That's a lot of money, so I would think that Boeing is hoping that the project can lead directly to a new aircraft—most likely a replacement for the 737. I wouldn't expect any actual new commercial product until the 2030s, though. That would also give enough time for a new generation of engines to be developed to maturity, such as the RR Ultrafan. The high-mounted wings of the TTB concept would give more room for larger-diameter engines, which is the direction that turbofans are clearly going.

[Trip McNeely]

Boeing has experience with folding wingtips for the 777X. I would imagine a similar setup for a TTB aircraft would permit it to fit into current 737/A320 sized gates (I believe those are "Class C" gates). From what I've read, the NASA contribution for the project is $425M, and the Boeing contribution is $725M. My understanding is that the demonstrator aircraft will be based on a retired MD-90 with the center wing box cut out and replaced by the TTB wing.

That's a lot of money, so I would think that Boeing is hoping that the project can lead directly to a new aircraft—most likely a replacement for the 737. I wouldn't expect any actual new commercial product until the 2030s, though. That would also give enough time for a new generation of engines to be developed to maturity, such as the RR Ultrafan. The high-mounted wings of the TTB concept would give more room for larger-diameter engines, which is the direction that turbofans are clearly going.

[NTP66]

Gotta admit, this is pretty cool. The final 747, en route to its delivery destination:

[Shyster]

Rolls-Royce has a new CEO, and he's painting a rather dire picture of the company's engine business, calling it a "burning platform." Problems at RR would be a far bigger problem for Airbus than for Boeing. RR is only one of two engine suppliers for the 787 (GE being the other), and no other new Boeing offers RR engines. But RR is the exclusive engine supplier for both the Airbus A330neo and the A350. There are multiple factors hitting Rolls:

- The Trent 1000 engine for the 787 has seen lower reliability versus the General Electric GEnx, and more and more airlines these days are selecting the GEnx for new 787 purchases.

- The Trent XWB for the A350 is also needing maintenance and rebuilds much more often than expected.

- RR doesn't offer an engine for narrow-body aircraft like the 737 and A320 family, which represents the bulk of commercial-aircraft engine sales. RR was part of the International Aero Engines joint venture (along with the Pratt & Whitney, Japanese Aero Engine Corporation, and MTU Aero Engines of Germany) that made the IAE V2500 engine for the Airbus A320 family and the MD-90, but there was a falling out among the participants, and the company did not try to produce an updated engine for the A320neo.

- Covid shut down a lot of long-haul flying, and those were the aircraft that Rolls does offer engines for.

- The Covid shutdown and maintenance cut deeply into RR's profits. A lot of engines these days are leased under "power by the hour" contracts. For example, All Nippon Airways buys a new 787 with Trent 1000 engines, and ANA will pay RR a certain fixed amount of money per hour of operation. If the engines need maintenance or even replacement, it's on RR to come in and do that. If the engines aren't running (say due to Japan closing its borders to international travel), then RR isn't getting paid, and if the engine needs a rebuild years before one was expected, then RR eats those costs.

[dodint]

Well done:

[Shyster]

I died at the eyebrow raise while reading the bird book.

[dodint]

Killer NOTAMS did it for me.

He is a pretty good follow. This is the first I have seen him do something this overproduced.

[Shyster]

Interesting but not unexpected development: Mitsubishi has announced that it is formally canceling its SpaceJet program. The SpaceJet was to be a roughly 80-passenger regional jet that would compete with aircraft like the Embraer E-175 and the Bombardier CRJ700. The program had two big problems. First, the FAA implemented some rule changes for aircraft design that would have required almost a complete redesign of the aircraft's wiring harness, and that would have added a huge additional expense for a program that was already way over budget and years behind schedule. Second, Mitsubishi joined Embraer is making the foolish decision to design a jet that would not meet US scope clauses.

The main US airlines all have contracts in place with their pilots' unions that contain "scope clauses" that limit the maximum size and passenger capacity for the jets flown by contracted regional airlines under the United Express, American Eagle, and Delta Connection banners. The second-generation Embraer E-175-E2 is too heavy to meet those scope clauses, and the SpaceJet M90 would have been too heavy as well. It sounds like both Embraer and Mitsubishi assumed that airlines would negotiate increases in the scope clauses to include their newer, heavier jets (largely heaver because of the new more advanced engines as compared to the original Embraer E-175, for example). Well, the pilots' unions didn't budge, and as a result the regional airlines like Republic Airways, SkyWest Airlines, Mesa Airlines, etc. that operate literally hundreds of regional jets couldn't order those new aircraft because they wouldn't be able to fly them on behalf of the majors. The Embraer E-175-E2 has literally zero orders, and without the US market, the Mitsubishi SpaceJet would just have lost more money.

This raises some interesting questions for the future of the US regional market. The Bombardier CRJ is out of production, and while Embraer is still producing the original E-175, the engines on that aircraft won't meet emissions rules that will go into effect around 2027, so it won't be able to build new ones at that point. There are around a thousand of those two types currently operating in the US, and at the moment there doesn't seem to be any next-generation aircraft that could replace them.

[tifosi77]

Don't know where warbirds rank in thread classification, but we had a newly restored P-51D (maybe on it's cert flight?) blipping over our neighborhood yesterday afternoon. That is an excellent soundtrack for doing laundry.

[Shyster]

Initial reports on the FDR and CVR data for the Yeti Airlines ATR 72 crash in Pokhara, Nepal. The following summary comes from a poster on the Air Crash Investigations Facebook group:

The take-off, climb, cruise and descent to Pokhara was normal. During the first contact with Pokhara tower the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) assigned the runway 30 to land. But during the later phases of flight crew requested and received clearance from ATC to land on Runway 12.

At 10:51:36, the aircraft descended (from 6,500 feet at five miles away from VNPR and joined the downwind track for Runway 12 to the north of the runway. The aircraft was visually identified by ATC during the approach. At 10:56:12, the pilots extended the flaps to the 15 degrees position and selected the landing gears lever to the down position. The take-off (TO) setting was selected on power management panel.

At 10:56:27, the PF disengaged the Autopilot System (AP) at an altitude of 721 feet Above Ground Level (AGL). The PF then called for “FLAPS 30” at 10:56:32, and the PM replied, “Flaps 30 and descending”. The flight data recorder (FDR) data did not record any flap surface movement at that time. Instead, the propeller rotation speed (Np) of both engines decreased simultaneously to less than 25% and the torque (Tq) started decreasing to 0%, which is consistent with both propellers going into the feathered condition. On the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) area microphone recording, a single Master Caution chime was recorded at 10:56:36. The flight crew then carried out the “Before Landing Checklist” before starting the left turn onto the base leg. During that time, the power lever angle increased from 41% to 44%. At the point, Np of both propellers were recorded as Non-Computed Data (NCD) in the FDR and the torque (Tq) of both engines were at 0%. When propellers are in feather, they are not producing thrust.

When both propellers were feathered, the investigation team observed that both engines of 9N-ANC were running flight idle condition during the event flight to prevent over torque. As per the FDR data, all the recorded parameters related to engines did not show any anomaly. At 10:56:50 when the radio altitude callout for five hundred feet was annunciated, another “click” sound was heard. The aircraft reached a maximum bank angle of 30 degrees at this altitude. The recorded Np and Tq data remained invalid. The yaw damper disconnected four seconds later. The PF consulted the PM on whether to continue the left turn and the PM replied to continue the turn. Subsequently, the PF asked the PM on whether to continue descend and the PM responded it was not necessary and instructed to apply a little power. At 10:56:54, another click was heard, followed by the flaps surface movement to the 30 degrees position.

When ATC gave the clearance for landing at 10:57:07, the PF mentioned twice that there was no power coming from the engines. At 10:57:11, the power levers were advanced first to 62 degrees then to the maximum power position. It was followed by a “click” sound at 10:57:16. One second after the “click” sound, the aircraft was at the initiation of its last turn at 368 feet AGL, the highpressure turbine speed (Nh) of both engines increased from 73% to 77%.

It is noted that the PF handed over control of the aircraft to the PM at 10:57:18. At 10:57:20, the PM (who was previously the PF) repeated again that there was no power from the engines. At 10:57:24 when the aircraft was at 311 feet AGL, the stick shaker was activated warning the crew that the aircraft Angle of Attack (AoA) increased up to the stick shaker threshold.

At 10:57:26, a second sequence of stick shaker warning was activated when the aircraft banked towards the left abruptly. Thereafter, the radio altitude alert for two hundred feet was annunciated, and the cricket sound and stick shaker ceased. At 10:57:32, sound of impact was heard in the CVR. The FDR and CVR stopped recording at 10:57:33 and 10:57:35 respectively.

As shown on the video below, on the center console of the ATR 72, the various levers are, from left to right: (1) a single lever for the parking brake; (2) two levers for engine power/throttle; (3) two levers for propeller condition; and (4) a single lever for the flaps. From the data, it sounds like when the PF called for Flaps 30, the PM reached down and pulled back the two propeller-condition levers rather than the single flaps lever, and that feathered the propellers. Flaps 30 is "all the way back" on the flaps lever, and while "engines off" is "all the way back" on the condition lever, I think there is a lockout that you have to press to get there, so that if you just pull all the way back on the condition levers without hitting the lockout, it puts the propellers in feather. So if the PM just reached down without looking and pulled the wrong levers all the way back, it would have set the engines to produce no thrust regardless of throttle position because the propellers in feather are angled to take no "bite" in the air. With no power, the aircraft would have slowed down and stalled, which is what the security video that captured the crash shows.

It looks to me like the position/angle of the condition lever for "feather" is right around the same position/angle as Flaps 30 on the Flaps lever. While the investigation is still ongoing, this sure sounds like this might have been a tragic case of pilot error.

[tifosi77]

LAX - IAD IAD in a 787, so that's neat. The windows are enormous and are tinted instead of physical pull-down shades.

Pilot just announced "very favorable winds aloft", and our expected flight time is just over 3hrs. Seems improbable.