-
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…)
-
What Was AirVenture’s Most Interesting Airplane?
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
For about a month that follows EAA AirVenture, the most popular question posed by friends and acquaintances is What is the most interesting airplane you saw? This has always been the question since I attended my first Oshkosh convocation in 1978, and I’m sure it will continue until I can no longer perambulate the flight line.
Answering the question is an exercise in subjectivity, so every individual’s answer is based on their aviation interests. Over the years I’ve developed a system, 3 Rs & U. To determine the most interesting airplanes, it has to be Rare, like the world’s only flying Douglas A-20 Havoc.
Or it has to be Renowned, like the B-52, which made its second trip to Oshkosh this year. And it can be Resurrected, which put the renowned D-Day leading C-47 That’s All Brother, which Basler Turbo Conversions is now restoring for the CAF, ahead of two homebuilt designs from the 1970s.
But surpassing all of these is any older aircraft that was previously Unknown to me after a lifetime consumption of everything aviation. That makes the Boeing YL-15G Scout the most interesting airplane of AirVenture 2017.
-
Essential Feedback: How Are We Doing?
by
[sc name=”post_comments” ][/sc]
Feedback is an essential nutrient to our emotional well-being because humans, as a group, all embody some degree of insecurity. This is especially true in activities where inconsistent variables provide challenges unique to every attempt of an activity. Landing on an aircraft carrier is a good example. Another activity on the spectrum is every post of JetWhine.
Certainly our creative challenges are not as life threatening as those faced by an aviator who’s just called the ball on final to the boat—especially at night in rain roiled seas—but this aviator is one up on us because every trap is evaluated by a critical audience. And in the ready room there are no questions of how those aviators performed because the flight is not over until the evaluators itemize what they did well, what needed improvement, and—supremely important—how they could improve.
Feedback is not a required component of the creative process of publication. And looking at it over the past 30 years or so, it seems to be going the way of paper charts in a pilot’s flight bag. As JetWhine Publisher Rob Mark and I were discussing this reality and brainstorming solutions, I suggested that our best option was also the simplest: Just ask the readers.
So, how are we doing?
Because we all are drowning in media and information, answering such an open-ended question can be daunting. Unsure of where to begin, many of you will likely take time to think about it, until something more pressing and concrete takes its place. So here are some specific questions you can answer by clicking the comment button on this post, or you can share them with a wider audience on JetWhine’s Facebook page.
What story first comes to mind when you think of your favorite JetWhine post, and why was it so meaningful?
And which one did you absolutely detest, and why did you hate it? Did it offer an opinion you disagree with, or did it speak to something in which you have absolutely no interest?
If we missed the concentric circles that define your aviation interests, what are those subjects or topics?
Finally, because we don’t want to consume too much of your time, what is your primary JetWhine access, the blog itself, an email subscription that delivers new stories to your inbox, or the Facebook page?
And because we’re curious, do you share the JetWhine stories that you like or detest with others who don’t subscribe but might agree (or disagree) with your evaluation of our performance?
We appreciate your time and attention in this matter because, like an aviator trapping at night, our desire is to be better on our future attempts. — Scott Spangler, Editor