Researching the Special Condition A350-900 Airplane; Lightning Protection of Fuel-Tank Structure To Prevent Fuel Tank Vapor Ignition - plus additional exemptions for Airbus due to composite wing construction - use nitrogen gas inverting. Airbus received an exemption from the FAA - Boeing appears to have used the Airbus exemption to reduce their complexity to that of Airbus. Why FAA approved Airbus but now is coming back and saying we shouldn't have allowed Boeing to do that is beyond comprehension. It makes good news for a reporter known to be anti-Boeing and unwilling to research the Federal Register.

(Written on 12/12/2019)(Permalink)

One needs to look at the timeline. Boeing is the one who determined the parts are unacceptable and notified the FAA. Spirit Aerosystems is the company that tried to get an exemption for supplying parts they had installed being notified after installation they were defective. Spirit's engineers apparently felt the parts, although not meeting spec, were adequate (happens often). They submitted their analysis to Boeing who disagreed and asked Spirit to submit the paperwork that would get the parts removed. It took Spirit from October to February to do something that should have been completed within a day. Yes, Boeing needs to clamp down on their supplier, but if Boeing was only concerned with cost they would have okayed the defective parts like Spirit recommended. Instead they need to replace the defective parts paying customers to do the work, and pay a fine for not cracking the whip on their supplier chain. It is right for Boeing to get the fine, but the problem only was identified by B

(Written on 10/12/2019)(Permalink)

Is their revenue measure by actual passengers flown or by revenue seats available? Do airlines actually make numbers available outside their company as to profitability? Super for Qantas an AA if Qantas can fill every A380 with high revenue fliers. In the past I have seen some really attractive Qantas prices through non-Qantas sites so are discounted fares taken into consideration, discounted in order to fill?

(Written on 29/10/2019)(Permalink)

Differing reports interesting - CBS report states passengers were offered bus return to terminal as plane was parked in remote parking. That's been my Delta experience in long weather delays - opportunity to disembark but few have done that. Also snacks and water - no charge. Two reporting services, two differing stories. Possible a passenger hypes up a story, sends to a service that will give him/her media coverage? I've been in similar situations too many times to take what I first read as gospel.

(Written on 21/08/2019)(Permalink)

EASA finding more reasons to keep the MAX grounded - with some of them being the same problems found on the A330 and A320 that did not result in grounding. Witness all of the pitch down incidents resulting from software faults. About time the FAA issued grounding of all Airbus.

(Written on 10/07/2019)(Permalink)

If you shut off the electronics due to a fault, the mechanical wheel is still available for trim as it has been since the first 737. Without electric assist, the trim can be so difficult to adjust that one crew member needs to push the plane into a dive to relieve forces on the trim so it can be cranked. It may take several attempts to get the plane trimmed. Always has been this way. Report is the Ethiopian first officer did not have the strength to turn the trim wheel. Has not previously been an issue because there were no electronics forcing it out of trim in the first place. The question is do they need to add a power assist to trim which would be a major modification with lengthy certification.

(Written on 22/06/2019)(Permalink)

I'll get blasted for this. The data showed that AOA was reading correctly, then suddenly went to the limit. That triggered the incident. Could a bird striking an AOA sensor do this? Possible. Should it cause a crash? No. Just like pitot icing should not cause a crash. Surely this must have been taken into consideration during the design. Reading the comments, I think people are saying they are blaming everything on a bird. I look at it as a clue as to what might have happened, should have been known as a possibility during design, and therefore puts more blame on the design.

(Written on 22/05/2019)(Permalink)

I do not understand the self-certification process as reported. As manager of an engineering group in the EU, I supplied at least 1 engineer at all times to help create standards for our industry segment. Once published, we were responsible for meeting the EC standards. All product sold, and mine was mobile equipment ground based, not aircraft, needed the EC certification or Declaration of Conformity. We self certified and supplied a list of documentation. It was interesting to review competitor product and see how they might have differently interpreted an EC standard, a product of self certification.

(Written on 14/05/2019)(Permalink)

If you had been following the 737 MAX development, you would know it is hardly old except for the engines. Hesitating to rely on memory, it was June, 2015 when assembly started on the new wing design, designed for the increased engine weight and also to incorporate the blended winglet. New design upper and lower skins, stringer and spars - isn't that really a new wing? Tail may look the same but Boeing states redesigned tail and tail cone. History also shows the fuselage has changed considerably from the -200, partly due to lessons learned from the Aloha incident. As a person reads the details there seems to be very little carry over except for the basic design parameters. Marketing hypes the stubby landing gear limited engineering to install an engine with a fan that has less wind resistance than the larger fan A320 so one needs to separate the marketing hype from oh darn, we're screwed on that. From project initiation in 2011 to first flight at the end of 2015 doesn't sound rush rush

(Written on 01/04/2019)(Permalink)

I was making monthly trans-Atlantic round trips on A330s at the time of QF72 on which the passengers and cabin crew survived with injuries including some permanent only because when the system took control to force nose down to prevent stall came at an altitude from which pilots could disconnect the auto feature and save the plane.

(Written on 27/03/2019)(Permalink)