-
Making the Brazilian ATR-72 Spin
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Note: This story was corrected on August 10th at 10:23 am, thanks to the help of a sharp-eyed reader.
Making an ATR-72 Spin
I wasn’t in Brazil on Friday afternoon, but I saw the post on Twitter or X (or whatever you call it) showing a Brazil ATR-72, Voepass Airlines flight 2283, rotating in a spin as it plunged to the ground near Sao Paulo from its 17,000-foot cruising altitude. All 61 people aboard perished in the ensuing crash and fire. A timeline from FlightRadar 24 indicates that the fall only lasted about a minute, so the aircraft was clearly out of control. Industry research shows Loss of Control in Flight (LOCI) continues to be responsible for more fatalities worldwide than any other kind of aircraft accident.
The big question is why the crew lost control of this airplane. The ADS-B data from FlightRadar 24 does offer a couple of possible clues. The ATR’s speed declined during the descent rather than increased, which means the aircraft’s wing was probably stalled. The ATR’s airfoil had exceeded its critical angle of attack and lacked sufficient lift to remain airborne. Add to this the rotation observed, and the only answer is a spin.
Can a Large Airplane Spin?
The simple answer is yes. If you induce rotation to almost any aircraft while the wing is stalled, it can spin, even an aircraft as large as the ATR-72. By the way, the largest of the ATR models, the 600, weighs nearly 51,000 pounds.
Of course, investigators will ask why the ATR’s wing was stalled. It could have been related to a failed engine or ice on the wings or tailplane. (more…)
-
How the FAA Let Remote Tower Technology Slip Right Through Its Fingers
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
In June 2023, the FAA published a 167-page document outlining the agency’s desire to replace dozens of 40-year-old airport control towers with new environmentally friendly brick-and-mortar structures. These towers are, of course, where hundreds of air traffic controllers ply their trade … ensuring the aircraft within their local airspace are safely separated from each other during landing and takeoff.
The FAA’s report was part of President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act enacted on November 15, 2021. That bill set aside a whopping $25 billion spread across five years to cover the cost of replacing those aging towers. The agency said it considered a number of alternatives about how to spend that $5 billion each year, rather than on brick and mortar buildings.
One alternative addressed only briefly before rejecting it was a relatively new concept called a Remote Tower, originally created by Saab in Europe in partnership with the Virginia-based VSATSLab Inc. The European technology giant has been successfully running Remote Towers in place of the traditional buildings in Europe for almost 10 years. One of Saab’s more well-known Remote Tower sites is at London City Airport. London also plans to create a virtual backup ATC facility at London Heathrow, the busiest airport in Europe.
A remote tower and its associated technology replace the traditional 60-70 foot glass domed control tower building you might see at your local airport, but it doesn’t eliminate any human air traffic controllers or their roles in keeping aircraft separated.
Max Trescott photo Inside a Remote Tower Operation
In place of a normal control tower building, the airport erects a small steel tower or even an 8-inch diameter pole perhaps 20-40 feet high, similar to a radio or cell phone tower. Dozens of high-definition cameras are attached to the new Remote Tower’s structure, each aimed at an arrival or departure path, as well as various ramps around the airport.
Using HD cameras, controllers can zoom in on any given point within the camera’s range, say an aircraft on final approach. The only way to accomplish that in a control tower today is if the controller picks up a pair of binoculars. The HD cameras also offer infrared capabilities to allow for better-than-human visuals, especially during bad weather or at night.
The next step in constructing a remote tower is locating the control room where the video feeds will terminate. Instead of the round glass room perched atop a standard control tower, imagine a semi-circular room located at ground level. Inside that room, the walls are lined with 14, 55-inch high-definition video screens hung next to each other with the wider portion of the screen running top to bottom.
After connecting the video feeds, the compression technology manages to consolidate 360 degrees of viewing area into a 220-degree spread across the video screens. That creates essentially the same view of the entire airport that a controller would normally see out the windows of the tower cab without the need to move their head more than 220 degrees. Another Remote Tower benefit is that each aircraft within visual range can be tagged with that aircraft’s tail number, just as it might if the controller were looking at a radar screen. (more…)
-
Commercial Curiosity Reveals High-Flying Volunteer Space Program
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Curiosity often costs me a lot of sleep. Tonight I saw that TV commercial about the guys who captured some cool, outer space video using a weather balloon. So Google and I went looking for them. I found JP Aerospace. I don’t know if they did the commercial, but the volunteer-based, do-it-yourself space program offered a lot of cool video and stills on its website.
Here the JPA Tandem Airship maneuvers at 95,085 feet on 10.22.2011.This is part of JP’s ATO—Airship to Orbit—program. It’s a cool, innovative three-part program that promises low-cost, bulk access to space. Part I is the atmospheric airship that climbs to 140,000 feet.
This work is going on now. Related to it are the PongSat missions, which carry student experiments that fit inside a ping pong ball. Since 2002, JP Aerospace has flown more than 4,000 PongSats to the edge of space at no cost to the 12,000 students (or their schools) who created them.
Part II is the crewed Dark Sky Station, parked at 140,000 feet. These way stations to space will be the construction facility for the large orbital vehicle. Part III is a huge “airship/dynamic vehicle” that reaches orbit directly.
When constructed, the initial test item will be 6,000 feet long. Its buoyancy will carry it to 200,000 feet. From there, electric propulsion, several generations advanced from the system shown above, will slowly increase it speed, causing it to climb to orbit over several days.
This is, without a doubt, the coolest aerospace project I’ve come across in years, and it restores my hope for the future. They may not reach their ultimate goal in seven years, but they are going for it, and working within real-world constraints.
If you’re wondering what product the TV commercial was advertising, I’m afraid I can’t help you because I don’t remember anything more than the flight of the suborbital airship. But if you need to lift your aviation spirits, check out JP Aerospace. — Scott Spangler
-
AA Pilots: Bankruptcy is YOUR Fault
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
From Paris —
There’s no small amount of irony that AMR, parent of American Airlines and American Eagle, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection — a move certain to save the carrier millions over the next few years — only a day before 2,000,000 million British public sector workers walked off the job to protest pension cuts in the UK.
Gerald Arpey stepping down as American’s CEO is just a tad late though since the airline lost billions in six of the eight years he ran the place. The union’s hated him so it was no surprise management told everyone that the straw that pushed the carrier over the edge was the inability of AA’s 11,000+ pilots to agree on productivity cuts in the upcoming contract.
You bad pilots.
The greedy Allied Pilots Association’s Master Executive Council, in fact, reportedly refused to even present management’s last offer to the rank and file. Clearly, just as in Britain, fault clearly rests with labor. Here we are in the worst recession/depression in a century and these damned pilots still want stuff. The nerve of these pilots trying to outmaneuver management.
Now American’s filed bankruptcy because those greedy employees went out and blew their huge bonuses again with no thought for tomorrow. Oh wait a minute … that’s right … it was just management who picked up those bonuses wasn’t it. Oh whatever.
Obviously those stupid pilots don’t realize the corner they’ve put management in. Those poor fat cats are down to their last $4.1 B in cash too. That doesn’t leave much for anyone else for god’s sake.
C’mon you American pilots. Times really are tough. Can’t you just take one more for the team … just once more? Management’s got your back this time … really.
“Oh Paaaleazzzze!” But a common philosophy that labor and management are natural enemies is also ridiculous. That antagonism was born from too many layers of airline management losing touch with the pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and ground personnel who actually perform the work.
-
Unmanned & Automated Aircraft: Are We Getting Too Smart for Our Own Good?
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Serving the military in AfghanistanAccording to the The Daily Planet, the blog of Air & Space Smithsonian, in November troops in Afghanistan will likely be resupplied by the K-Max, an automated cargo helicopter. The video is from a test earlier this year where the unmanned helo exceeded the Navy’s requirement to carry at least 6,000 pounds of cargo per day for five days. Over that period, the K-Max delivered 33,400 pounds of cargo to different locations on a single flight, and nearly 3,500 pounds on one mission.
Not the Navy’s only unmanned aircraft project, its carrier-based stealth UAV, the X-47B, made its first flight earlier this year. I think most will agree that flying a helicopter, especially in squirrely mountain winds, and carrier ops are two of aviation’s more difficult challenges.
So what future do you see for more prosaic forms of flight now that machines are taking over from humans in military operations? And before you dismiss the question, consider this headline in the November 27 Los Angeles Times: Idea of Civilians Using Drone Aircraft May Soon Fly with FAA.
A more pressing question should be, even though we can do this, should we? Have we gotten too smart for our own good? On one hand, the technology and its capabilities are really cool. But what are the consequences, and have we considered them, especially for civilian applications? If history offers us a clue, the answer is clearly a nope.