LONDON'S AIRPORT

Waiting for the intense air traffic planned for the 2012 Olympic Games, many airports  are preparing to receive the many scheduled flights.

London has an excellent network of airports, five of them for scheduled and charter flights -London City, Hesthrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton- but there are a dozen, if one considers fields for executive and small charters, and about fifty counting all the small field for general aviation, within s range of 30 miles.

More airports up to a radius of 60 miles offered themselves as serving the capital, even picking up its name,with bizarre combination such as London Manston or London Ashford Lydd.

Recently the increase in traffic, and particularly the coming Olympic Games of 2012 have launched a new growth of airports as an alternative to the congested existing ones.

The point is not so much scheduled traffic as expected huge influx of executive and air taxis for thousands of athletes, politicians and VIP's that will attend.

Many smaller airports are thus building new terminals, hotels, hangars and railroad station to connect to the London rail system.

London City, conveniently located in East London, close to the Olympic Park, recently was allowed to grow from 80.000 to 120.000 movements per year. Northolt is a small former RAF base that is now operated by Jet Center of LCA, and it can accept executive jets. London Heathrow, despite its well known congestion, also has pace for general aviation. BAA Predicts that 80% of all Olympic traffic will pass through Heathrow, and is considering the construction of a temporary Olympic Terminal to accept the rush of luggage at the games' end.

London Biggin Hill has huge potential, is much used for flights coming from the US, and

East London can be easily reached. London Gatwick, the second busiest airport, can still accept General Aviation, but it lacks a dedicated parking area, on the other hand it has good connections thanks to the Gatwick Express. London Luton manages many executive flights and also has good road connections. London Stansted is basically a low cost airport, offering a few slots to executives, but one of its operators, Harrod's Aviation ,can manage aircraft up to the Boeing 747.

Farnboriugh, proud of its history, is the only airport completely dedicated to GA. TAG Aviation has invested hugely and recently the ceiling for movements was raised from 28.000 to 50.000.

Blackbushe is a former military base, now open to executive jets. Southend is the third busiest airport in the UK, it has a large investment plan, including stretching its runway and a new station was opened, connecting it to London, it aims to be an alternative during the Games, and thus has added London to its name, while Easyjet just opened its fourth base there. Oxford is some 90 km from the center, but it also added London to its name in 2009. Cambridge boasts the Marshall Business Aviation Center. Ashford Lydd, on the Southern Coast, also added London to its name, while Manston, which has a very large runway dating from the war, now calls itself Kent's International Airport.

TURBOPROP'S COMEBACK

In a general overview very uncertain, turboprop aircraft are regaining ground against most expensive jet.

The first civil turboprop flight took place in 1950, when a Vikers Viscount carried passengers from London to Paris. In the next 60 years, turboprop airline had their ups and down, many manufactures  as British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) with its Jetstream 31, 32, 41  and ATP, Dornier with Do 228 and 328, Embraer with Bandeirante and Brasilia, Fairchild with Metroliner , Fokker with F50 and Saab with models 340 and 2000 disappeared. Now there are only two major players, ATR and Bombardier. In some niche market there are attempts to revive products. like the 19 seaters segment, where Viking is re-launching the Twin Otter and RUAG the Dornier 228. The market's evolution has brought an increasee in capacity, thus the segment between 19 and 50 seaters has shrunk, while the 70 seaters are growing. Overall, the total number of turbo liners worldwide decreased from 1.700 in 2000 to 1.500 in 2006, and then it has remained stable, and deliveries are now about 100 per year.

The current comeback of props is essentially due to the growing cost and excessive fluctuation of fuel cost, while passengers are now perceiving the propeller just as safe and as modern as the jet.

The so called jet mania is over, and the smaller routes need a turboprop, instead of the more expensive jet, to remain profitable. According ATR, in the next 20 years airlines need 3.100 new turboprops, for a value of 70 billionnn dollars: 1.600 70 seaters, 1.000 90 seaters and 500 50 seaters. This trend is further confirmed by the fact that leasing companies are more and more interested in these aircraft. Currently 150 ATR airlines belong to leasing companies, 20% of the total, twice as many as two years ago.

ATR now has backlog of 223 orders, its highest ever, which represent a value of 5 billion dollars and three years of production, it has received a total of 10152 orders, 40% of them after 2005. Bombardier. on the other hand, now offer just its Q400 70seaters, which has lost its appeal, despite some recent upgrade of it interiors, A stretched version of Q400 was announced a few years ago, but then all traces of this project were lost, while the CRJ900 was stretched into the CRJ1000. The Canadian company produces also the CRJ jets and is concentrating its energies on the CSeries family. While ATR received 78 orders at the last Paris Air Show, worth 2.4 billion dollars, plus options for 32 more, Bombardier didn't sell a single Q400, and the backlog for this model stands at just 55 aircraft.

Boeing 737 begins from three

Will be ready in 2017 in the 7-8-9 configuration - from 126 to 215 seats. Consume up to 15% less than current NG and his name is MAX.

All started 51 years ago with the 737-100. At first, the 737 was called the "square" airplane because it was as long as it was wide. The new technology made the position of flight engineer redundant; the 737's two-person flight deck became standard among air carriers. 

The evolution is a new family of aircraft – 737 MAX 7, 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 9 builds on the strengths of the Next-Generation 737.

MAX7 will have 126 to 149 seats, MAX8 from 162 to 189 seats and MAX9 from 189 to 215 seats.

The 737 MAX will deliver big fuel savings that airlines will need to successfully compete in the future. Airlines will benefit from a 7 percent advantage in operating costs over future competing airplanes as a result of optimized CFM International LEAP-1B engines, more efficient structural design and lower maintenance requirements.

Boeing is evaluating two fan diameters of the CFM International Leap-1B engine: 66.1 in (168 cm) or 68.1 in (173 cm), both of which would be unlikely to require the modification of the landing gear: there is a need to maintain a 16.9 in (42.9 cm) ground clearance beneath the aircraft's engines and ground surface.

The 66 in (168 cm) diameter fan is an increase from the 61.8 in (157 cm) CFM56-7B engine on the Boeing 737 Next Generation. The updated jet is also expected to feature external nacelle chevrons for noise reduction, similar to those on the 787 and 747-8. While the 66 in (168 cm) fan will have a lower bypass ratio and higher specific fuel consumption (SFC) than the 78 in (198 cm) Leap-X and 80.7 in (205 cm) Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engine options for the A320neo, the smaller engine will weigh less and create less drag on the 737's airframe. The 66.1 in (168 cm) engine integrated on the airframe will offer an SFC improvement of 10–12% over the current 737NG CFM56-7B engine. Industry sources report that assessments are under way to revise the tail cone, natural laminar flow nacelle and a hybrid laminar flow vertical stabilizer for additional fuel burn and drag reduction.

LEAP-X

The LEAP-X incorporates technologies that CFM developed as part of the LEAP56 technology acquisition program, which CFM launched in 2005. The LEAP-X engine was officially launched on 13 July 2008. It is intended to be a successor to the CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B. Currently proposed for the LEAP-X is a greater use of composite materials, a blisk fan in the compressor, a second-generation Twin Annular Pre Swirl (TAPS II) combustor, a bypass ratio around 10-11:1, and 16% lower fuel consumption.

The manufacturer plans no modification in the flight deck as requested by customers  it wants to maintain commonality with the 737 Next Generation family. Boeing also plans to add more fly-by-wire systems but only for the spoiler. As production standard, the 737 MAX will feature the Boeing Sky Interior. The powerful appeal of the new interior comes from the most spacious cabin headroom, overhead bins that disappear into the ceiling yet carry more bags and LED lighting that brings any color into the cabin. based on the Boeing 787's interior, as well as blended winglets.

The Boeing 737 is the world's most popular and reliable commercial jet transport, with more than 9,000 orders to date. Boeing forecasts global demand for more than 23,000 airplanes in the 737's market segment over the next 20 years at a value of nearly $2 trillion.

Cockpit Chronicles: Fly Rio!

by Kent Wien 

Occasionally the airline will offer pilots the chance to fly for a month out of another base when they're short a few pilots at that city. I remember flying with one of these temporary duty (TDY) pilots who came up to Boston from Miami. I asked him what trips he usually flew out of Miami and he began to tell me all about Rio de Janeiro.

The conversation included some good pointers about the hazards of flying in Brazil.

He pointed out that there's a note in our manuals that talks about celebratory balloons near the city. Apparently, it's not uncommon for Brazilians to put together huge balloons especially at night, attach them to a pallet or some other structure and light a fire under the canopy. The Miami pilot even claimed that a propane tank has been known to be the fuel source.
Read Full Story

Airbus and Boeing are looking to ramp up production

Airbus and Boeing are looking to ramp up production of new narrowbody aircraft at a time when world financial experts are warning the global economy is headed for a massive downturn.

Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, says: “This is the most serious financial crisis we’ve seen since the 1930s, if not ever. We’re having to deal with very unusual circumstances.” King made the remarks earlier this month after the Bank of England decided to inject £75 billion ($117 billion) of new money into the economy in an attempt to stop Britain from slipping into recession. The central bank’s return to quantitative easing is also a move to try and prevent a credit crisis.

Data from Iata shows the decline in cargo traffic has been accelerating. Cargo traffic is significant because it is a bellwether for global economic activity. Iata’s figures reveal that air cargo traffic has been posting monthly year-on-year declines since May. In Aug. it fell 3.8% compared to a 1.8% drop in July, says Iata. Passenger traffic in Aug. rose 4.5%, but Iata notes that this compares to 6% in July. This is a sign that passenger traffic may be softening.

“The falls in business and consumer confidence, the unresolved financial situation in the Eurozone and the stagnation or worse in world trade are all likely to weaken air travel and freight further,” says Iata. “Slipping load factors will add to the adverse impact this will have on airline’s profitability.”

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there showing that airlines are discounting airfares to boost demand. This puts downward pressure on airline profit margins. Iata says it expects the airline industry to make $6.9 billion profit in 2011 and only $4.9 billion in 2012.

With airline profits diminishing and financial markets in turmoil, will the banks still be willing to finance aircraft on order?

During the 2008 global financial credit crisis, the banks faltered and it was the government-backed credit agencies that stepped in and saved the day. Are the European credit agencies going to be able to step up to the challenge again, considering so many European governments have their own credit problems to deal with?

Financing is also crucial to the aircraft leasing business. Lessors are already feeling the pinch. The general consensus among industry players is that the A320 segment of the lease market has become hyper competitive this year. This is partly because Chinese leasing companies and other new lessors have entered this segment, they say. 

Airbus and Boeing may take comfort from their big order backlog for A320s and 737s. But things can quickly change. American Airlines made headlines on July 20 when it announced an order for 260 A320s and 200 737s, a deal touted as being the largest order in commercial aviation history. Now American Airlines is making headlines that are rattling Wall Street. Shares of AMR Corp., the carrier’s parent, fell 33% on Oct. 3 over fears American Airlines may have to file for bankruptcy protection, because its debt levels and labor costs may prevent it from surviving another global economic downturn. The airline’s spokespeople have gone into damage control by saying American Airlines has no intention of entering into a court-supervised restructuring.

Despite the warning signs in the market, Airbus and Boeing remain optimistic. Airbus’s chief operating officer customers, John Leahy, says the European aircraft-maker is upping A320 production to 42 units per month and is considering a further increase to 44. He also says Airbus is doing a preliminary study examining what would be needed to boost production to 50 units per month. Boeing, meanwhile, is committed to increasing the 737 production rate from 31.5 per month now to 42 per month in 2014. Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO, Jim Albaugh, disclosed in late Sept. that the aircraft-maker was studying what would be required to increase production rates beyond 42 per month.

The two giants of the industry want higher production volumes so they can have higher profits and reduce customers’ waiting times for aircraft on order. But if the optimistic outlook leads to over capacity in the airline industry, then everyone ultimately suffers.

(Soure: AVIATION WEEK)

who is the best pilot.....

The question is who is the best pilot?
The airline pilot? acrobatic pilot? the general aviation pilot, ultralight pilot or the executive pilot. Is a question that many people often do.

Well, maybe doesn't exist the best pilot. The general aviation pilot is better wen he flies his PA 28, but bad and dangerous if he fly an acrobatic biplane, as a commercial pilot can be dangerous after many years of scheduled fligths would fly a C 172; just as a fighter pilot he want fly an ultralight without prior training.

So, who's the better pilot? Once isn't as it's now, commercial or military aircraft were a little similar, and any good pilot after a flight over the airfield was able to fly them. Once a time the best instructor of a fly school was an old military pilot. Today the difference is the instruments on board the aircraft, which leave little sensitivity to the pilot to fly the plane, and the difference with a military pilot and commercial pilot or a general aviation pilot is very considerable.

A modern commercial airplane is a tangle of systems that have taken off that special feeling between the aircraft and the pilot, a time needed to those who have put the controls of a plane. Now in the cockpit there are a system controllers, that a real pilot. In other words today, onboard we need a system operator, that traditional real pilots. A lot of airlines shall make available to their pilots, small aircraft for this reason. A modern aircraft is able to resume its normal flight indipendently of the position in witch it is. When the aircraft is in a unlikely flight condition, the systems remove the stick control from the hands of the pilot, and using the appropriate power, show the plane in the correct flight condition. Landing in a modern airplane, you can land in autolanding.
So the questions is...Who is the best pilot?...

WILLIAM BOEING & DONALD DOUGLAS: AERONAUTICAL PIONEERS

The history of The Boeing Company and the Douglas Aircraft Company is, in essence, the history of commercial aviation.

The year was 1915  America had not yet entered World War I, Prohibition was still four years away, and a significant but unremarked event was taking place in suburban Los Angeles:

William Boeing journeyed from Seattle for flight instruction at the Glenn Martin flying school, and Donald Douglas arrived from the East to join the Martin Company as chief aeronautical engineer.

Within five years, the two men had formed their own companies and were soon competing head-to-head in one of the most significant business rivalries of the 20th century. 

Boeing Company and the Douglas Aircraft Company is, in essence, the history of commercial aviation. The two companies led America and the world in airplane development, challenging each other decade by decade, and marking the progress of flight from open-cockpit biplanes to jumbo jets. The uniquely American spirit evinced by the two companies -- a sense of imagination and daring combined with Yankee ingenuity.

William Edward Boeing, born in 1881 and christened "Wilhelm," was one of three children, the son of an educated German immigrant. Little is known of William Boeing's early life apart from the fact that he was just eight when his father died, that he was sent to Switzerland for part of his education, and that at some point he anglicized his first name and asked friends to call him "Bill." He entered Yale University to study engineering but left one year short of graduation in 1903, bound for the Pacific Northwest.

Boeing established himself in Grays Harbor and began trading and selling timber lands on the Washington coast. Like his father before him, he swiftly made his fortune in this enterprise. In 1910, he traveled to Los Angeles to witness the first American air meet, featuring the French ace Louis Paulhan. Fascinated, Boeing tried to obtain a ride in one of the planes, but circumstances prevented it.

By 1914, he was quartered in Seattle, where he frequented the University Club, smoking cigars and discussing the issues of the day. There he met Conrad Westervelt, a Naval engineer with a strong interest in aviation who was temporarily assigned in the Northwest.

According to an interview with its founder, The Boeing Company began as a holiday lark on a hot Fourth of July morning in 1914. Boeing and Westervelt celebrated Independence Day by purchasing rides in a seaplane flown by a barnstorming pilot off Lake Washington. Flying machines were still a novelty in 1914, and their design had advanced very little from the box kite prototype the Wright brothers had launched from Kitty Hawk 11 years earlier.

Bill Boeing went first -- exchanging his rimless eyeglasses for a set of goggles and taking his position beside the pilot. The two sat on the front edge of the lower wing, in front of a backward-facing pusher propeller. Boeing braced his feet against the footrests, his hands gripping the edge of the wing. There were no seat belts.

The pilot revved the engine, the frail craft raced across Lake Washington -- then lifted off into the air. Boeing was absolutely thrilled by the experience. The plane touched down, he exchanged places with Westervelt, then immediately went back up again when Westervelt landed. The two men spent the rest of the day repeating the experience. Between flights, they closely examined the construction of the rickety airplane. By mid-afternoon, they were already planning how to design a better craft.

A reserved man with a strong sense of privacy, Boeing was nonetheless possessed of great foresight and daring, and believed utterly in the future of aviation. In 1916, when the company's first test flight was scheduled and the pilot was inexplicably late, Boeing climbed into the cockpit and took the plane up himself -- explaining later that he "did not want to endanger anyone else." When a glut of ex-military planes forced a slump in the market following the close of World War I, he depleted his personal fortune to keep Boeing workers employed.

The Boeing Company was parted from its founder in 1934, when the Roosevelt administration dictated the divestiture of aircraft companies and airline carriers. But the company retained his stamp -- daring to make great leaps forward when it introduced jetliners in the 1950s and becoming a pillar of American technological leadership in the process.

Donald Wills Douglas, born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1892, was the younger son of William and Dorothy Hagen-Locher Douglas. As a young man, his interests centered on writing verse poetry, ocean sailing, and the new science of aviation.

In 1908, only five years after Kitty Hawk, Wilbur and Orville Wright announced the trial demonstration of a flying machine built to the U.S. Army's specification at Fort Meyers, Virginia. Captivated by the news, the 16-year-old Douglas persuaded his mother to accompany him to Virginia to witness the trials. This event appears to have cemented his desire to become involved in aviation.

A banker by profession, however, William Douglas insisted on a rigid, formal education for both his sons. Accordingly, Douglas enrolled in the Naval Academy in 1909, following his brother, Harold, who was already a sophomore. The younger Douglas spent much of his free time building airplane models powered by rubber-banded propellers. In one instance, he attempted to build a rocket-powered model -- the resulting smoke causing a panic when he launched it from the window of his room.

After three years at Annapolis, Douglas resigned as a midshipman, seeking to continue his studies at an institution with a greater emphasis on aero-nautical engineering. He enrolled at MIT, finishing the four-year mechanical engineering course in two years and graduating in 1914. He remained at MIT the following year as an assistant in aeronautical engineering, working on wind tunnel design and consulting on a dirigible for the U.S. Navy.

In August 1915, at the recommendation of his instructors at MIT, Douglas accepted the position of chief engineer for the Glenn L. Martin Company in Los Angeles. He was 23 years of age.

In 1916, Douglas accepted a position with the War Department as the head of the Aeronautical Branch of the U.S. Army Signal Corps. By 1920, he had established his own company. In 1924, the U.S. Army Aviation Service mounted the first around-the-world flight, commissioning Douglas biplanes for the journey. Upon the successful completion of this feat, Douglas united his Scottish family crest -- the winged heart -- with a globe-encircling design to form the Douglas Aircraft Company logo.

A man of many interests, Donald Douglas won the silver medal in sailing (six-meter class) at the 1932 Olympics. It was his passion for flight that burned the brightest, though; he led his company by example, inspiring all who worked with him. 

Doing nothing is not an option – laser Interference Seminar conclusions 

Malicious use of powerful laser pointers to dazzle pilots and controllers is rising. Prompted by stakeholders, EUROCONTROL hosted a seminar on this issue at which participants called on the EU for stringent regulation on the abuse of lasers.

The United Kingdom had 30 instances in 2007 and there have been around 1,600 up until September 2011. EUROCONTROL’s Voluntary ATM Incident Reporting (EVAIR) had 8 reports in 2008 and 500 in 2010.

According to FAA data, there were 1,049 reports in 2010 but this year has already seen 1,503 laser interference incidents in the United States. A safety report that is about to be published notes that in 2009, there were 1,048 reported incidents in ECAC states and in 2010, there were 4,266(1).

Laser interference is growing and presents a global safety and security threat; it is not just an aviation issue.

Previous discussions centred on the legitimate uses of laser and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, developed standards to regulate on this. However, laser interference tactics have changed and a harmonised, multidisciplinary and pro-active approach is needed to counter this threat.

Prompted by stakeholders, EUROCONTROL hosted a seminar on laser interference in aviation on 10 – 11 October.

Some 160 representatives from a variety of sectors in the aviation field, regulatory, law enforcement and research institutions attended. The seminar was organised together with the European Commission, ICAO, the European Cockpit Association, IFALPA, IATA and the Association of European Airlines.

Participants at the seminar agreed that timely and effective in-flight and post-flight procedures for dealing with interference are needed – as well as training in these procedures for both pilots and air traffic controllers.

Alerting processes to the authorities have to be defined and awareness campaigns run. Guidance material for decision-making is also required. It was also felt that advances in nanotechnology filters might prove helpful in the future.

At present, only a handful of European states have state regulations on laser interference and the seminar felt that judicial measures should be taken further. The seminar concluded by calling on the European Union to develop stringent regulation on the production, distribution, purchase, carriage and use of lasers.

(Source: EUROCONTROL)

Are biofuel flights good news for the environment?

Airlines are starting to test biofuels on commercial routes, but 'sustainable' alternatives to kerosene remain controversial

Thomson Airways ran a biofuel-powered flight to the Canary Islands in October 2011.

Are biofuel flights really a good thing for the environment? How can we ever produce enough biofuels to power all flights? And won't they just consume precious land that could be used to grow food instead?

Last week saw the first commercial flight part-powered by biofuels take off from a UK airport. The TUI Travel Boeing 757 flight from Birmingham to Lanzarote took off and landed without any reported hitches. No technical modifications were made to the plane with one of its two engines powered with a 50/50 blend of conventional Jet A1 fuel and a "Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids" fuel produced from used cooking oil. TUI Travel said the fuel was supplied by a Dutch firm called SkyNRG and that the fuel was "approved as sustainable by WWF and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels".

Judging by the increasing number of airlines around the world announcing such flights, and the likely imminent inclusion by the EU of aviation within its emissions trading scheme, it would appear that biofuels are likely to play a very significant role in the future of aviation. Aviation - unlike its ground-based transport alternatives - is currently totally reliant on fuels with the energy density offered by a fossil fuel such as kerosene. So a plug-and-play biofuel substitute for kerosene seems to be the only viable alternative at present. After all, we can't electrify our planes or power them by nuclear fission (or not in a way that would be accepted by paying passengers) - and most aircraft operating or purchased today have a predicted lifespan of at least 40 years.

But just how "sustainable" are the biofuels used in aircraft? And will they only act to force up food prices? To rely solely on second-hand cooking oil seems complete folly. But the aviation industry says it is only using this source of biofuel for demonstration purposes. TUI Travel, for example, says it is looking at using biofuels made from the "purge family of plants as well as from camelina". Meanwhile, Virgin has just announced a "breakthrough" in biofuel production with a fuel produced from "reprocessed waste gases from industrial steel production". And other aviation fuel developers say they are exploring algae-based biofuels.

Or, perhaps, all this talk of biofuels is a convenient distraction: with aviation said to be the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, should we instead be concentrating on reducing the number of aircraft we send into the sky? Or is aviation so crucial to us all that it deserves a special status of exemption, as it has long enjoyed when it comes to fuel duty and VAT?

Losing an Engine on Takeoff: Abort or Floor It?

There is a little more than a mile of pavement in front of the pilots;  the flight has been cleared for takeoff.  The Captain advances the power while the brakes are held.  Engine instruments checked, automatic control of the throttles engaged, and the brakes are released.

The computer pushes the engines to maximum takeoff power, and the aircraft begins its rapid acceleration down the runway.  With over half of the runway behind it, and accelerating through 140 MPH, an engine fails.  “Is there enough runway to stop?”  “Can the aircraft takeoff on the one remaining engine?”  “Will it clear the trees at the edge of the airport?”  The crew is faced with this daunting choice, and they react quickly.  It may seem like one has to consider all these factors, or even rely on gut instinct.  But in fact, the decision has already been made.

Engine failure on takeoff is a situation that all pilots both dread and train for. In small twin-engined aircraft, when an engine fails on the takeoff roll, the remaining engine is brought to idle, and the aircraft is stopped on the runway.  If the engine quits just after takeoff, the pilot may have enough runway available to still land safely.  There is a point, based on the judgment of the pilot, that sufficient runway is unavailable.  At this point, the landing gear is retracted, and the pilot would continue to climb out on the remaining engine.  Many of these principles apply to large turbojet aircraft, though the total picture is far more complex.

Per FAA regulations, an airliner must be able to either abort the takeoff and stop on the runway, or continue with the takeoff and climb out on the remaining engine.  There is a point, or rather a speed that defines this point in which the aircraft can safely either be stopped or continue with the takeoff.  This is commonly referred to as decision speed.

Decision speed, which pilots refer to as V1, is calculated for every takeoff.  Unlike the pilot of a small piston twin who must make a judgment call when the engine quits, the Captain of an airliner relies on the science, testing, and calculations from which the decision speed is derived.

Decision speed falls within a range of speeds; the highest of this range is based on the ability of the aircraft’s brakes, which is especially relevant on older intercontinental airliners.  Passing through 160 MPH, these aircraft simply have insufficient braking capability to stop.  If the Captain were to abort above this speed, the brakes would heat rapidly, melt, and around 60 MPH, simply cease to exist.  Off runway terrain and obstructions would eventually bring the heavy aircraft to a halt.

The lowest of this range is based on the minimum speed of which the aircraft is controllable with the failure of one engine.  When an engine fails, the remaining engine will make the aircraft turn in the direction of the failed engine.  This yaw is counteracted by the pilot’s application of the rudder, which directs the airflow over the tail, counteracting the yaw from the engine.  Whereas the force of the thrust from the engine remains relatively constant during the takeoff, the amount of force the rudder can generate is entirely dependant on the aircraft’s speed.  The higher the speed, the greater amount of airflow over the tail, and thus the greater the force generated by the rudder.  There is a speed at which the force of the rudder equals the force of the yawing from the engine.  Above this speed, the pilot is able to control the direction of the aircraft with the rudder.  Below this speed, the remaining engine will overpower the rudder and the aircraft will loose directional control.  This speed, denoted as Vmcg (minimum control ground), plus a small fudge factor, define the low end of the V1 range.  If the aircraft is going to continue the takeoff, it must be controllable, thus the requirement of V1 being higher than Vmcg.

The departure runway is the primary input for the calculation of V1.  Two basic criteria must be met; the aircraft must be able to abort the takeoff and stop on the remaining runway just prior to reaching V1, or continue the takeoff with the engine failure after having reached V1.  If the takeoff is continued, the aircraft must be able to rotate, clear the end of the runway by 35 feet, and climb steeply enough to clear any trees, buildings, and other obstacles.

Other factors that go into the calculations are: engine power, atmospheric conditions, runway conditions, and aircraft weight.  If the criteria of V1 cannot be met, it is not permissible for the aircraft to depart.  To remedy this, the Captain may choose another suitable runway.  If one is not available, the only remaining choice is reduce the aircraft weight, typically by bumping passengers.  Due to the short runway and steep climb required, Washington Reagan National and John Wayne Orange County airports are places where passengers are often left behind due to V1 considerations.

The decision on when to abort the takeoff or continue on one engine is made well prior to entering the runway.  Whether the aircraft slams on the brakes and stops at the end of the runway, or continues the takeoff and returns for landing, the passengers will be returning to the gate.  Safely.

(Source: NYCAviation)

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary slams 'Heathwick' plan

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary has hit out at proposals for a fast rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick airports.

The proposed link, which would follow the route of the M25 and mostly travel underground, would enable an airport hub dubbed "Heathwick" to be created.

The Department for Transport said at the weekend the plan, set to cost a reported £5 billion, was under consideration. But speaking at a press conference in central London, Mr O'Leary, chief executive of the Irish airline, said: "This Government has no policy on aviation whatsoever.

"They have no particular expertise in tunnelling. The last one they did was the Eurotunnel, which went bankrupt even before it opened."

Mr O'Leary, who was speaking at the launch of Ryanair's new Cash Passport scheme offering passengers savings on their flights, also blasted London Mayor Boris Johnson's idea for a new airport in the Thames estuary.

He said: "What you really need to do is build three additional runways: one at Gatwick, one at Stansted and one at Heathrow, which you could actually do for about £150 million to £200 million in each of the three airports, and you would finally have addressed the major problem here in the UK, which is the massive undercapacity of airports in the South East. "But wasting multi-billions building a bloody airport in the middle of the marshes somewhere where you then have got to build motorways to it, rail transport links - it's mad."

Yesterday Mr Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "I stick to my view that we need to think big, and the place where you could create a 24-hour hub airport that would leave our competitors standing and with the minimum disbenefits to human beings is in the Thames Estuary. "Such an airport would be an astonishing motor for growth in an area that has been left behind for too long, and it would entrench London's lead, for the next 50 years, as the economic powerhouse of Europe."

Commenting on the Heathrow-Gatwick link plan at the weekend the Department for Transport said it was not Government policy but was being considered. He said: "The Government is committed to developing a new policy framework for aviation which supports economic growth while addressing the environmental impacts of flying. We plan to publish a draft aviation policy for consultation in the spring.

"As part of our work on this we are seeking views on the key issues which need to be addressed, including the importance of a UK hub airport and whether it might be possible to create a 'virtual hub' by improving connectivity between existing airports. "This proposal will form a useful contribution to the debate and will be considered alongside all other responses."

(SOURCE: THE INDEPENDENT)

Sukhoi Superjet 100 of Armavia: 1000 hours in the air

The Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) of Armavia scored 1,000 flight hours in revenue flights. The milestone was reached during the SSJ100 flight U8-151 performed on route Yerevan – Amsterdam on October 9 2011. Since entering commercial service on April 21, 2011 the SSJ100 of Armavia carried more than 21,000 passengers and covered distance more than 650,000 kilometers. SSJ100 of Armavia performs flights from Yerevan to 27 airports in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Western and South Europe and Middle East. Most flights were performed at 35000 – 39000ft altitude, at the speed of 0.78-0.8 M. 

The highest daily utilization reached 16.5 flight hours while the biggest distance exceeded 4,000 kilometers on route Yerevan – Madrid. Such perfect result of the initial phase of the commercial operation of the brand new Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircraft was achieved due to the efficient activity of Armavia’s flight and technician staff and proper support from Sukhoi Civil Aircraft and SuperJet International. “This stage showed that the SSJ100 is competitive and has a great resource for excellence. It can make the aircraft very attractive for customers and operators”, said the owner of Armavia Mikhail Bagdasarov. “We sincerely thank Armavia for great and efficient efforts on the entry of our first production aircraft in commercial operation. The SSJ100 confirmed to be suitable both to regional and to short-haul routes. We are very pleased that crews and passengers of Armavia like our aircraft. 

We believe that our fruitful relations with Armavia will be successfully strengthened and will continue to provide the airline with comprehensive support jointly with our partner company SuperJet International”, noted Vladimir Prisyazhnyuk, President of JSC “Sukhoi Civil Aircraft”. Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) is a 100 seat regional jet designed, developed and built by Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company (SCAC), in partnership with Alenia Aeronautica. On May 19th 2008 SSJ100 successfully accomplished its first flight. The Sukhoi Superjet 100 cruises at a Maximum Operating Speed of Mach 0.81 and 40.000 feet. It takes off from a 1.731 meters runway in the basic range and 2.052 meters in the long range. The operating range for the basic version is 3.048 km and 4.578 km for the long range version. 

In February 2011, the SSJ100 obtained the Type Certificate by the Russian Certification Authority IAC AR. The EASA certification is expected to follow in 2011. On April 19th 2011 first production SSJ100 was delivered to Armavia airlines (Armenia). There are currently three SSJ100s in service with Armavia and Aeroflot.

(Source: Superjet)

American Airlines' lesson: Being big isn't enough

Another dip in the economy means trouble for airlines, especially for AMR Corp., the parent of American Airlines. Like Alaska Air Group, AMR went through the tough times after 9/11 without going through bankruptcy reorganization. But the resemblance ends there. Alaska shares are trading above $60, while AMR stood at $2.73 this morning. For weeks, fears have grown that the carrier will be forced into Chapter 11.

American, once one of the nation's most innovative and service-oriented airlines, faces high labor costs, more than $12 billion in outstanding debt and big unfunded pension costs (why weren't those highly compensated executives fulfilling their duty and funding the pensions...?). Its fleet is aging, hence the recent 460-jet order split between Boeing and Airbus.

Unions have concessions but it hasn't been enough to save the airline from repeated losses and now speculation about its future. The conventional wisdom, of course, is another merger, perhaps with US Airways. That's the last thing AMR needs.

Recall that the 2001 merger with TWA was supposed to make American stronger. It didn't work. Thousands of jobs were lost to "make the numbers work," including, based on calculations at the time, some 12,000 jobs and more than $600 million in annual wages in Missouri, where TWA had its key St. Louis hub. With or without the event of 9/11, history shows that airline mergers, like most big deals, don't deliver beyond quick gratification. They do add debt, eliminate competition (even if TWA had filed for bankruptcy, it might have emerged as a healthy competitor, or been replaced by a new one) and hurt customer choices. No wonder: Management is too distracted by merging rather than focused on serving customers.

(Via The Seattle Times)

German air traffic controllers to stage walkout  this week

Germany's air traffic controllers' union reject employer's offer,and  decided Monday to stage a walkout this week which could severely disrupt flights across Europe.

The GdF union said its board has rejected the management's latest offer. However, it added that it is still prepared to comply with a request from the federal government and meet once again for talks with an arbiter.

The state-run DFS air traffic control agency had no immediate comment on the strike announcement.

The union said over the weekend that a strike could take place as early as Wednesday. A strike must be announced with 24 hours notice, and the union did not immediately elaborate whether it was planning short walkouts in a few regions, or a full-scale strike across Germany.

The DFS agency sent the dispute over pay and working conditions to arbitration in early August, but the union partly rejected the outcome a month later.

New negotiations based on the arbitration's result broke down late Friday. Both sides have accepted the arbiter's compromise of a general salary raise of 5.2 percent, but the union wants more people to be promoted faster.

The DFS agency has about 6,000 employees, coordinating about 10,000 flights a day, making Germany's skies Europe's busiest.

(VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS)