-
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…)
-
NIFA Challenges Pilots Past Bare Minimums
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Discussion over the state of professional pilot training is continuing several weeks after we posted Pro Pilot Training Evolving to Industry Needs. Proficiency-based training has been a central theme, as has educating pilots past the bare minimums set forth by the FAA. I knew examples of this existed, but I couldn’t remember where until an online article by the Terra Haute, Indiana, Tribune-Star, ISU Hosting Annual National Intercollegiate Flying Association’s National Competition, jogged my memory.
If you’ve never heard of NIFA, it “was formed for the purposes of developing and advancing aviation education; to promote, encourage and foster safety in aviation; to promote and foster communications and cooperation between aviation students, educators, educational institutions and the aviation industry; and to provide an arena for collegiate aviation competition.”
NIFA members are extra-curricular flight teams at 77 two- and four-year collegiate aviation programs nationwide. They are in 11 regions, and the top finishers in the regional Safety and Flight Evaluation Conferences are this week (May 17-22) competing in the 90th annual national Safecon. In the 1990s I reported on a half-dozen of them, and seeing that the event rules are relatively unchanged, it is still my opinion that these aeronauts are aviation’s best hope for the future. Looking at NIFA’s sponsors, from Cessna and Sporty’s to NBAA and name-brand regional and major carriers, the industry seems to think so, too.
The most concise explanation why this is true is that these students, most of whom are just a year or two into their aeronautical educations, embody the “beginner’s mind,” as defined by Michael Maya Charles in his exquisite book, Artful Flying. For them, the minimum performance parameters spelled out in the FAA’s Practical Test Standards are not a final exam but a place to start.
-
The Future of Aviation, LaHood Style
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
OK, I might as well just come out and say it right from the start … I’m pretty miffed. But I’ve actually been angry since the NBAA convention in Florida last fall when I heard Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists, speak to the crowd on opening day. He explained that he’d been trying to convince President Obama to stop in at Wichita for a visit of the vast general and business aviation manufacturing arm that been there for 50 or 60 years. So far, the President hasn’t yet made the trip.
It’s not the President’s lack of attention to business aviation that has me upset this time though. Nope, it’s this silly Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced in March that really burns me.
The committee will focus principally on five issue areas: ensuring aviation safety, ensuring a world-class aviation workforce, balancing the industry’s competitiveness and viability, securing stable funding for aviation systems, and addressing environmental challenges and solutions.
The DOT last week announced the 19 members who will make up the panel. The cast of characters is pretty much whom you’d expect, Patricia Friend, president of the flight attendants union, CEOs Glenn Tilton from United, David Barger from JetBlue and Robert LeKites from UPS, not to mention a few airport CEOs like Paul Regalado from Nashville and Thella Bowens from San Diego, not to mention Nicole Piasecki from Boeing.
There’s really only one guy who seems the odd man out. That’s Cessna’s CEO Jack Pelton. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with Jack. Quite the opposite in fact. He’s a personable, bright guy who’s had aviation blood running through his veins since he was a kid. And, of course, he just happens to run a company that produces more business aviation airplanes each year than any other on the face of the Earth.
-
Modern Conflict & the Future of Fighters
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Several days ago I read a New York Times Op-Ed piece, Leading With Two Minds. In it, David Brooks described how the US Army, in five short years, had reshaped itself to fight insurgencies with something other than overwhelming force.
Thirty-five years ago I was on the USS Blue Ridge. It was steaming toward its San Diego homeport after serving as the command ship for the evacuation of Saigon, the true end of a decades-long conflict which proved that insurgency works.
Then I saw the Orlando Sentinel story about the cost overruns on the new F-35 strike fighter. Given the changing face of international conflicts—insurgent forces don’t have air forces—and the 57 percent increase in the F-35’s cost, it seemed to me that it may well be America’s last dog fighter.
Even the Defense Department tacitly agrees that there is little need for a dogfighter. Like the F-18, the F-35 is a strike fighter. In other words, because it is unlikely to meet an airborne foe, other than a missile, air support of ground troops is its primary mission.