I believe that, as we (UK aviation CAA) have trusted our transatlantic cousins to do a good job the USA approval was taken on trust and "nodded through". It's a standard way of working in a globalised economy (why check twice?) Not any more....

(Written on 19/07/2019)(Permalink)

Reduce, re-use, re-cycle; a pragmatic resolution to a supplier problem, maintaining fleet commonality and assuring service to customers. This seems a sensible issue-mitigation step. I had forgotten how short the -700 looks (unless the article had the wrong stock photograph).

(Written on 19/07/2019)(Permalink)

Pray?

(Written on 14/07/2019)(Permalink)

Probably - yes; Habsheim in 1988 was a cascade of cockups (wrong lineup on other runway, inadequate briefing and late flight plan, very early airframe but most of all, a French driver - as in AF447 with piss-poor CRM). Any clown can fly a plane into the deck regardless of the badge on the nose. And what about the 737 rudder hard-over incidents in US airspace, with US drivers? After UA585 at Colorado Springs in 1991 (all 25 on board dead); US457 at Pittsburgh in 1994 (132 dead) and then the recoverable (higher-altitude) Eastwind Airlines flight 517 in 1996, finally the drivers and passengers lived to tell the tale. As for Germanwings; if the driver doesn't tell his employer that he's been signed off for suicidal thoughts, I don't think you could fairly pin that on any airframe manufacturer. Not even a Boeing will survive CFIT (Japan Airlines 747 on flight JAL123 in 1985 with 520 dead and four survivors) - oh hang on, that was an airframe failure because of botched repairs to

(Written on 12/07/2019)(Permalink)

Our experience of the 787 is very limited. We had our first flight in a 787 with BA; seats 1J&1K right behind the driver (the slight curve where the nose meets the fuselage). The whole cabin - on both flights - seemed to spend the entire flight creaking. "Oh yes sir, they all seem to do this." Not worrying (per-se) but irritating when you are trying to sleep on a transatlantic overnight leg.

(Written on 12/07/2019)(Permalink)

Just a polite clarification from the eastern edge of the Atlantic; "suspenders and belt" in US parlance relates to "belt and braces" engineering "over here". Suspenders have a different connotation in Old English! But thanks for brightening an slow afternoon in the home office!

(Written on 12/07/2019)(Permalink)

The FAs did exactly what was required - namely their primary role on a passenger aeroplane, preparing for an emergency and getting the self-loading cargo through the trauma and out to safety. This sounds like a classic case of "everything worked out in the end", but nowadays we have some smartphone wielding "Turkey-Lurkey" who thinks the sky is about to fall in. I still believe in the UK Royal Air Force approach: "If you walk away from it, it was a good landing."

(Written on 12/07/2019)(Permalink)

This reinforces the need for multiple suppliers to exist, competing with each other and offering "better" products to meet the needs of their customers. Not every product from manufacturer #1 will suit every customer, so manufacturer #2's product will be more attractive at times. A healthy rivalry is essential between suppliers. Customer airlines have a big role to play. 20 years ago they wanted mega-efficient large airframes for maximum efficiency on the hub-to-hub model - and Airbus developed the A380 (a plane which I regard as one of the best and quietest large flying sheds ever built). But the development of a new airliner takes time (as Boeing is learning, having delayed the NMA); by the time a product is ready, requirements may have changed. By the same token, you can only "refresh" a tired old 1960s airframe so many times before inherent flaws become insurmountable. But airframes continue in service for up to 40 years. This story will spawn new chapters over the co

(Written on 12/07/2019)(Permalink)

Dennis - I don't have an agenda; I was picking up on the Bill Babis comment about "if the CEO of every company..." post. I am interested in your "ten times more likely to be hit by lightning" comment - which decade dod you source your stats from. I ask, because the US National Weather Service publication "Storm Data" recorded a total of 449 deaths from lightning strikes between 1998 and 2008. According to the National Weather Service, lightning causes an average of 62 deaths and 300 injuries in the United States each year.

(Written on 04/06/2019)(Permalink)

* updated. I now have the stats; defining a "mass shooting as "four or more people shot"; from 01/Jan/2019 to 01/Jun/2019 inclusive, there were 149 fatalities within the USA. SO, not quite reaching the 159 killed in the Ethiopian crash and short of the 189 wiped out in the Lion Air initial Max crash. But effectively one death per day thus far throughout 2019. But by Christmas.....

(Written on 04/06/2019)(Permalink)