-
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…)
-
Proverbs for Powered Flight’s Second Century
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Aviation is all about change, and it makes rapid advances in short spurts of time. World War I was once such spurt, and World War II was another. Capabilities soared and crew size shrank as progress took the place of navigators and radio operators.
The latest, and still burgeoning spurt, started about the time powered flight celebrated its centennial. Pondering the changes it has wrought, which seem more revolutionary than the evolutionary, has inspired a Wright moment, Steven, not Wilbur or Orville.
Most pilots who learned to fly with steam gauges learned a number of proverbs of aviation safety from their flight instructors. Preeminent among them was, when things started circling the drain, “First, Fly the Airplane.”
Remember that one? Does it still apply when the autopilot does most of the flying? And what about the little blue button marked LVL in the Cirrus Perspective system? Should spatial disorientation strike, pressing the little blue button engages the autopilot, which establishes straight-and-level flight, allowing afflicted pilots to cage their inner ears.
Hmm. Perhaps its time to rewrite First, Fly the Airplane. How about, Always Fly the Autopilot?
But how does that affect our beloved logbooks, which we lovingly care for as the repository of our enumerated experiences? FAR 61.51 says that the “sole manipulator of the controls” gets to log pilot-in-command time. Before powered flight, everyone pretty much agreed that those “controls” were the stick, rudder, and throttle. Now they are buttons, knobs, and switches.
Do we need a new column in our pilot logbook? Maybe there should be a column for the programmer in command.
-
When the Feds Revoke Your Pilot’s Certificate
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
You NEVER, EVER want to receive a letter like this one from the FAA telling you that all your months or years of hard work and effort to win your pilot’s certificate have just gone up in smoke. After flying past Minneapolis a few weeks back, the FAA pulled the certificates of both of the Air Transport rated pilots aboard NWA 1588 as you can read in this letter from the FAA shared with me by a Jetwhine reader.
Read it and commit today that you’ll never let this happen to you because you were derelict in your duty as the Pilot in Command (PIC) of a flight, whether that’s as the pilot of a Boeing 777 or a Cirrus SR-20.
This incident never should have happened, but it did. One reader said it simply and succinctly, “I don’t care what they say they were doing, they weren’t doing what they should have been doing.”
These two pilots paid dearly for their mistakes – with their careers, in fact – which, as our certificates say was a privilege anyway.
Rob Mark, editor
Technorati tags: Northwest Flight 1588, Pilot privleges, flight training, air safety, airline pilots, GA pilots, FAA, pilot license revocation -
Warning! Read Technology’s Fine Print
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Preparing for my first encounter with a new (to me) integrated avionics system, I dove into the system’s reference guide with eager anticipation. With a PFD, MFD, and FMS keypad this baby had all the bells, whistles, and databases that qualify it as a primary source of navigation and flight information. It is designed to guide me safely to a destination and deliver needed information, from weather to terrain and traffic avoidance, at the press of a button.
And then I started reading. Being anal retentive, especially when learning a new system, I always start on page one. (I quickly pass over pages empty of information, other than the note that they are supposed to be blank. But with that note, they aren’t really blank, are they?)
After the title page and table of contents I come to 3.5 pages of Warnings, Cautions, and Notes. Most of that space filled with red-flagged warnings, with the pertinent parts highlighted. A number of them make perfect sense: “Do not use outdated database information” and “XM Weather should not be used for hazardous weather penetration” and the system’s “operational procedures must be learned on the ground.”
But many of the other warnings seem to eviscerate the system’s benefits. Like all such warnings given by all manufacturers, they were surely written by the lawyers to give their employers a loophole in the event of a liability lawsuit. Still, I wonder how many pilots have read these warning notes. In no particular order, these got my attention: