-
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…)
-
The Pilot Shortage: A New Perspective
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Every so often Jetwhine is lucky enough to unexpectedly receive an important work of prose from another professional mind. Today we have one from Frank Froman, a St. Louis psychologist, a man with a secret dream, but a man who also knows how to solve a problem when he’s confronted with it. It’s men like Frank that just might hold some of the solutions the airlines are seeking … maybe!
“It was quite an adventure, American Airlines Flight 2020A from St. Louis to New York,” Frank wrote us recently. “I think the cabin announcement went something like this…
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to flight 2020A flying today from St. Louis to New York’s airport, whichever one we can get into. We hope this is a comfortable trip for you.
And do we have a pilot on board? No? Ouch.
Anyone who has ever flown a 737 here maybe? (more…)
-
Close Call in ABQ Center Airspace Raises Questions
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
If you’re a pilot and and watch the AOPA video of the rocket-run the F-16 pilots ran on a couple of civil airplanes in March, you’ll probably lose your lunch. A Beech Premier and a PC-12 were transiting a Military Operations Area (MOA) that the ABQ Center controller obviously realized was active when the fighter decided to make the two civil pilots aware they were not wanted.
The aircraft came so close that the Traffic Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS) on the Premier generated first a Traffic Alert (TA) to warn of the impending conflict, quickly followed by a Resolution Alert (RA) demanding the pilot climb at a rate in excess of 3000 fpm to get out of the way. At cruise airspeed, that meant the Beech pilot probably squashed his passengers into their seats to avoid the fighter.
Pilots in both airplanes demanded FAA controllers offer up a way for them to complain about the shenanigans of the F-16 pilot when they realized the move were deliberate. My guess is the incident probably ruined the controller’s day too.
At lunch today with a bunch of other pilots I learned people don’t all understand MOA operations and what both pilots and controllers are expected to do. Question is, who’s correct?
Can you legally fly through an MOA on an IFR flight plan if the area is hot? Is it the controller’s responsibility to tell us the area is hot if we’re headed in that direction, or are is the pilot supposed to know and ask for avoidance? Whose airspace is the MOA, center’s or DoD’s? This all seems a bit gray to me and gray in Positive Control Airspace is not cool at all.
AOPA says FAA and the DoD are looking into the matter and that the F-16 pilot was whacked across the hands for the incident. What do you think?
Technorati tags: ATC, ABQ Center, air traffic control, FAA, Military Operations Area, TCAS, AOPA, Jetwhine.com, Beech Premier, Pilatus PC-12 -
Fuel Prices & Aviation Safety: Are They Related?
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Talking to friends, flight schools, and FBOs it is clear that I’m not the only one who isn’t flying as much as I used to. With avgas going for roughly $6 a gallon or more, depending where you live, direct operating costs are climbing faster than the airplanes they fuel. This begs an important question: will general aviation’s accident rate increase as flight time declines?
This subject arose during a recent lunch with Jason Blair, the new executive director of the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI). A designated pilot examiner and designated sport pilot examiner, he is a NAFI Master Instructor, owner of Dodgen Aircraft, which offers training and aircraft maintenance, and manager of the Allegan, Michigan, airport. Pilots are still flying, he says, but a growing number are only flying enough to meet pilot-in-command and rental currency requirements.
Common sense suggests that flying four hours a year–an hour every 90 days to log the requisite landings–does not a current, safe pilot make. But is this sense common?