-
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…)
-
Does Parochialism Hinder Aviation’s Future
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Last weekend I had the honor of being a guest on Airplane Geeks, thanks to my JetWhine.com co-conspirator Rob Mark, who is one of the quartet of regulars. It was my inaugural podcast (Episode 101), and I greatly enjoyed the wide ranging aviation conversation, and I hope they invite me back.
In getting to know each other, Max Flight, the lead geek, asked about my other aviation activities. In the course of talking about the different aviation and non-aviation subjects I write about, I mentioned that writing for JetWhine was my favorite aviation gig.
The geek quartet seemed surprised at this. So I explained that this exquisite forum gives me the freedom to report and comment on the many facets of aviation I find interesting, unrestrained by the narrow editorial focus of most print and many online publications.
Pondering this self-inflicted epiphany during my celebratory post-podcast whiskey and cigar, publishing’s parochial focus makes sense in a media-rich environment. This outlook also seems to describe many who read them. If something doesn’t apply to their narrow aviation interest, they dismiss or ignore it. I wonder how this attitude has affected aviation to date. It certainly hasn’t done much for American politics.
For decades the slices have been fighting for a dominant share of the shrinking aviation pie. The conflicts are many: When it comes to paying for the national airspace system it’s the airlines versus general aviation. Airport access issues often pit business against recreational aviators. Military and civilians take sides on who can use what airspace. Things get more contentious when the mix involves helicopters, light-sport aircraft, amateur-built experimental aircraft, powered parachutes, and weight-shift trikes.
Has anyone really considered the consequences of this internecine squabbling and parochial view of the world? The “surprise” of AB-48 is, perhaps, the most recent example of what can happen when people don’t think about their connections to the outside world—and events taking place there that might affect them. (See Pay Attention to California School Regs.) The evitable introduction of UAVs into American airspace is surely the next donnybrook.
Collectively, aviation is a minority in the economic and political tableau of American life. To survive the growing challenges we all face, it makes sense that the tiny slices of aviation unite as a whole pie of mutual support to prosper in an ever demanding world. But given the entrenched narrow interests of its participants, I wonder, is this possible? — Scott Spangler
-
Are FBO Freebies on the Way Out?
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
In an era when airlines report $2.7 Billion in fresh baggage-fee revenue from work they used to handle for free, is anything sacred? Probably not.
In the U.S. though, Fixed Base Operators (FBO) still give away plenty for free and we all know it. But those days might just be coming to a end … and they probably should.
At last week’s Florida Aviation Trades Association Convention in St. Augustine, a discussion evolved not simply about how companies in a variety of other industries were learning from the airlines concept of fee for service, but that also like our friend Pogo mentioned here, we have probably to some degree wreaked this havoc as an industry on ourselves.
Imagine renting a car these days — no cheap item in Florida I might add — and telling them you’d like some cookies brought out when you arrive, along with some bottled water, ice for the first leg of your trip, newspapers to read during your next break 300 miles away and then too, perhaps a young intern to come out and vacuum the vehicle again because it’s not quite up to your standards.
They might laugh, but if they’re smart, they’ll give you everything you ask for … along with a nice little invoice for their efforts before you go.
The Way it Should Be?
I visited a swanky FBO outside London in March while I was there for a conference. Beautiful facility by almost any standards. In fact, the FBO at Farnborough is considered one of the best in the world. They’ll do anything for you. But they’ll charge you for almost every thing. Want to tanker fuel to save a buck, expect a ramp fee. Like to read the morning newspapers while waiting for the boss? Buy them. (I’ve actually watched pilots read an entire newspaper and then give it back to the girl at the desk because they were too cheap to buy it. (more…)
-
Becoming a Pilot: Is it a Relevant Choice?
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Is it karma that led NPR to broadcast a story on the dwindling number of student pilots in June? It reported an FAA estimate that this year’s number of student pilot certificates would total less than 60,000, a “10 year low.” If you remember, June 1989 was the inauguration of the annual National Learn to Fly Month, and that year the FAA issued 142,554 student certificates.
The FAA only posts 10 years of airman numbers, but GAMA’s Statistical Databook archive provides FAA numbers back to 1964, and less than 60,000 student certificates is not just a decade low but an all-time low. Student certificates peaked at 209,406 in 1968 and reached an all-time high of 210,180 in 1979. They have been in decline since then, falling into five figures in 1994.
These numbers are student certificates issued. No one really knows how many students eventually earned a pilot certificate. And no one really knows how many quit before they got their student certificate, typically just before solo. (See General Aviation Won’t Find Future Pilots in Rear View Mirror.) An anecdotal presolo dropout guesstimation is 50 to 80 percent, so adding that to the number of certificates issued means somewhere between 315,270 and 378,324 people started flying lessons in 1979.
A question more pressing than the accurate number of those who dropped out or completed training or is why are increasingly fewer Americans signing up for training? Looking at the primary factors involved, from training to recreational and career possibilities, the answer seems clear: becoming a pilot is no longer relevant to people today, especially to those who will become the next generation of professional pilots.