-
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…)
-
Change: It just seems like aerial eschatology
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
As you might expect, I’ve received a fair number of comments to my recent post, Aviation Reality in a Post-Peak World. All of them came to me as email, using the link that is my byline at the end of my posts. Either directly or indirectly, they said the piece preached aviation eschatology, a 50-cent word meaning the end is near.
Contrary to how they read the piece, my message was far more frightening: Aviation is changing. What worked in the past will not work in the future because global resources and human demand are not what they were during aviation’s first century.
At least one reader got it, judging from his public comment on JetWhine. And he’s absolutely right in saying that those who figure out those changes and ways to capitalize on them will survive and prosper.
Most of the emailers reinforced the notion that humans don’t like change. Let’s face it, no one likes to get out of bed on a cold morning, and I’m right there with them (it was 1 degree this morning). What matters more is how we deal with it: jump out of bed thinking warm thoughts, snuggle deeper under the covers and deal with the consequences later, or develop a programmable thermostat, so we have heat when it’s needed.
-
Air Fares: Price vs. Value
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Everywhere today, talk about airline travel is pretty much the same. Flying is a commodity, so it makes good sense to search for the cheapest price, a variable that normally overrides the few other filters consumers can use, like the number of enroute stops or the time of day. Deep down inside though, what consumers really want is a good deal, something that can be pretty tough when there is little information to help with the decision process.
There is some information out there however. The U.S. DOT makes a public database available of airline arrival and departure times which airlines use to generate those figures of 68 percent or 79 percent on time often languishing in the margins on Orbitz or Travelocity. Problem is, an aircraft that departs the gate within 15 minutes of its scheduled departure time is still considered on time, with no allowance for how long it might actually take the aircraft to depart for the destination. There are only so many insights to be pulled from government data.
Addison Schonland doesn’t buy that theory believing there is much more . A self-confessed data geek currently at work on his Ph.D. in Airport Satisfaction, Schonland believes there is significantly more value hiding in those government databases (BTW, You might also know Schonland as the host of the IAG podcast series).
A Business Problem with a Simple Solution
Imagine for a moment that you’re faced with the airline travel buying decisions for your company. You know the boss wants you to save money and time lost sitting around in airline terminals is valuable, unproductive time that has been typically unquantifiable. Schonland’s company, Airport Butler.com, along with Abbott Analytics – offer a solution to that data void that gets in the way of good value-based, airline ticket purchases.
-
In Aviation, a Little Bad PR Goes a Long Way
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
I can only wonder what truly dumb move will be next from the folks running
some of the U.S. auto makers now that both Ford and GM have decided to work together for the first time. No, I’m not talking about building an F-150 Tahoe-like vehicle,
which, come to think of it, might not be such a bad idea.
Nope. In a storm of brilliant corporate strategy, the two former auto giants today – almost simultaneously – coordinated the shutdowns of their two flight departments, flight operations that had been in business providing transportation solutions to auto executives and customers for decades.
It would be easy to file last week’s appearance by the CEOs of Ford, Chrysler and GM before Congress, hat-in-hand after a quick trip from the airport where they’d been deposited aboard a company-owned airplane as simply bad PR. As much as I don’t like to defend these bozos, they were only doing what they’d always done, use the corporate airplane to save time and money on necessary transportation.
But as any good public relations practitioner will tell you, perception IS reality. And the arrival aboard corporate airplanes to ask for cash to fund more bad strategies looked like, well, just another bad strategy.