The Aviation Insider

How to pick your flights

2014-08-03T16:55:00.002-04:00

There have been a lot of plane accidents recently. A lot! Malaysia Airlines, Air Algerie, TransAsia Airways, and - you guessed it - Malaysia Airlines again. While this is tragic, I am not surprised by at least a few of the recent crashes and accidents. Pretty much all of the airlines that crashed this year I would not have flown. Why, you may ask. Malaysia Airlines was recently ranked one of the best airlines, according to, well, some ranking. I am not a big fan of most airline rankings. What they rank is mostly service, not safety. An airline can have the best service in the world, if they are not safe, I would never fly them. And neither should you.

A few friends have asked me recently how I pick my flights. In this post, I'd like to offer a few suggestions and personal guidelines. That doesn't mean that the flights I pick are absolutely safe. Flying is a very unnatural thing for human beings. It means we have to rely on the abilities and judgements of the pilots. We have to trust the people who maintain the planes. All these people are human beings and human beings make mistakes. So flying will never be 100 percent safe. But there are a few things you can do to be just a little bit safer in the air.

Here is my personal checklist for picking a flight:

Never fly with an airline that is based in a country which is not known for having an eye for detail. Ask yourself this question: Do people in this country do a good job at avoiding problems or does the culture prefer to deal with problems when they occur? People in most Western countries generally try to avoid problems. That's why we have our cars checked regularly. That's why we go to the doctor once a year for a check-up. However, there are cultures on this planet that usually deal with problems as they occur. They don't necessarily try to avoid them or prepare for them. Most of these countries are in Africa and Southeast Asia. When you're in the air, you don't want your pilots to deal with issues as they occur. You want them to fly a plane that is well maintained and won't force them to deal with problems in the air. Examples of these countries are Zimbabwe, Algeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia.
Try to avoid flying airlines from countries, where it is not common for a "lowly worker" to express his opinion to his superior. If you're the co-pilot and your "superior" pilot makes a mistake, you need to be able to confront the pilot. That's the whole reason why there are still two people in the cockpit - redundancy and checks. An Asiana 777 crash-landed in San Francisco last year because a co-pilot didn't dare point out an error to a pilot. So avoid airlines from most far-eastern countries like Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan.
This is a quick and obvious rule - don't fly with an airline that has been reprimanded repeatedly by authorities because of insufficient or improper maintenance. Examples of these airlines are Southwest Airlines, Onur Air, and Iran Air.
When you choose a flight, also check what plane you will be flying. Try to avoid planes that are decades old and will be disposed of by the airline soon. The airlines are generally not interested in investing a lot of money in these older planes. Try to avoid planes that have crashed a lot or have been involved in many accidents (there's obviously a reason for that!). Planes to avoid are all MDs, everything that starts with "DC," pretty much all Russian planes, and I personally try to avoid propeller planes. Also avoid the 707, 727, and the 737 versions 100 to 600. If your plane is not on the following list, you shouldn't fly it: Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A380, Boeing 737 (versions 700 - 900), 747 (versions 400 and 8), 757-300 (some 200 are okay too), 767-400 (some 200 and 300 are okay too), all 777s, all 787s, Embraer 160 and up, Canadair RegionalJet 700 and up. Try to avoid flying on a plane that just entered the market. Give it a year before flying on it (e.g., Boeing 787, Airbus A350).
Last but not least, generally try to avoid regional airlines that fly propeller planes, Embraer 120-series planes, or small Canadair RegionalJets. The pilots sometimes make $30,000 a year and are often those who have been rejected by the bigger airlines (probably for a reason).

I've been following this list as best as I can for years. It doesn't always work - for example, I sometimes have to fly regional airlines because no other airline is flying to my destination. Most of the time, this checklist is a very good guide though. I would not have been on any of the planes that crashed recently just because of this list. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

What happened to Malaysia Airlines flight MH 370?

2014-03-08T22:31:00.001-05:00

The Malaysia Airlines 777-200ER that went missing.

I went to cnn.com last night around 8:10 p.m. ET for my evening news update and was shocked to see that a Malaysia Airlines jetliner disappeared in the afternoon (U.S. Eastern Time). Flight MH 370 was en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and operated on a Boeing 777-200ER.

Quite a few people have asked me since yesterday what I think happened. When you read the following, please keep in mind that I am not a pilot and everything I share here is based on information that is publicly available. So these are just my thoughts.

The first thing that came to my mind was, "Oh god, it's Air France flight 447 all over again!" (AF 447 crashed over the Atlantic in June 2009.) So let's start with that thought. Yes, there are a few similarities with AF 447, but there are important differences as well. What are the similarities? In both cases, a modern two-engine airplane disappeared in-flight, out of the blue, with no distress signals. Both flights were piloted by fairly experienced flight crews. Both planes crashed over the ocean.

However, there are striking differences. The Malaysia Airlines jet was a Boeing 777, which does have fly-by-wire avionics, but - on a 777, in contrast to the Airbus A330, which was used for AF 447 - the pilots can override the system on the 777. So in the case of MH 370, the possibility of a flight computer going bananas and crashing the plane is close to impossible (for AF 447, that was the speculation in the beginning). Another major difference is that MH 370 did not traverse an area of violent weather like the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ). The weather over the South China Sea was very calm, with no thunderstorms, not even a lot of clouds. So MH 370 did not - like AF 447 - have to maneuver around thunderstorm cells and cumulonimbus clouds. The pilots of MH 370 did not report any severe turbulence. Also, MH 370 did not send any error messages - as AF 447 did - to Boeing or Malaysia Airlines before the crash, so the on-board systems seemed to be working just fine.

So what do we know about MH 370? We know that the flight had reached its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, which is the safest phase of every flight. It was about 40 minutes into its flight and, until then, no anomalies had been reported. The contact to MH 370 was lost just when it was supposed to make contact with Ho Chi Minh Control Center in Vietnam. According to Chinese sources mentioned in The Aviation Herald, "radar data suggest a steep and sudden descent of the aircraft, during which the track of the aircraft changed from 024 degrees to 333 degrees." This is a pretty significant change in flight direction. Some Tweets last night speculated that MH 370 wanted to turn around or toward land, but I doubt that is true. The same speculations were made for AF 447 back in 2009. I think the turn was already part of the steep descend during the crash and was not controlled.

Now comes the mysterious part, and you can make of this whatever you want - two of the passengers on board MH 370 were traveling with stolen passports. I think we need to be careful what this means. It could just be two people traveling with fake passports, a coincidence. Or it could mean there was something wrong with these two people and there's a relationship to the crash.

Let me be pretty blunt here - a 777 does not just fall out of the sky. Especially not when the flight has reached its cruising altitude. Also, the kerosene traces found on the ocean point to the fact that MH 370 did not explode. It looks like the fuel tanks were intact when the plane hit the ocean (obviously, this is only correct if the oil traces were in fact caused by MH 370). Given all this - no explosion, no error messages, no bad weather - the options of what could have happened are fairly limited. A few people have speculated about a terrorist attack. I think that is highly unlikely as well. Terrorism only works by creating fear and claiming responsibility. So far, no terrorist organization or individuals have claimed responsibility for the crash. So terrorism is really not a realistic scenario here.

But what are realistic scenarios? To me, there are only two possibilities at this point:

1) The two people with the stolen passports were involved. Somehow, they took control of the cockpit and crashed the plane. Maybe they wanted to divert the plane, but the pilots didn't cooperate. They could have removed the pilots from the cockpit (or killed them) and tried to fly the aircraft themselves. As sophisticated as the 777 is, it's close to impossible to fly without experience. A similar scenario would be that one of the pilots wanted to commit suicide. You think this is unrealistic? Then check out this Wikipedia entry.

2) The only other option is that some technical or mechanical failure happened and the pilots were too busy figuring out what was going on to radio mayday or send a distress signal. That was the case with AF 447. If the Chinese reports are true and MH 370 did descend quickly and steeply, that could point to a deep stall, just as what happened with AF 447. All reasons for why this ultra-modern 777 went into a stall, are, however, pure speculation at this point. There are a thousand things, at least, that can go wrong. However, it is very, very unlikely that one single error or failure caused this crash. It could very well have been a technical/mechanical issue, combined with a serious of misjudgments by the pilots.

I guess the final answer can only be given when the flight and data recorders of MH 370 are found. The only good news is that the water where the plane crashed is not nearly as deep and mountainous as in the Atlantic, where AF 447 went down. And, following all the updates today, it looks like authorities have a pretty good understanding of where to look for the wreck.

To me, this is indeed a very mysterious and disturbing crash. Especially since I'm a big fan of the Boeing 777 and its reliability. We'll soon know who or what was to blame.

Bhoja Air 737 Crashes in Pakistan

2012-04-20T11:11:00.000-04:00

Pakistan's Civilian Aviation Authority has confirmed that a Bhoja Air Boeing 737 has crashed close to Islamabad's international airport. Authorities do not expect any survivors. Weather conditions at the airport may have contributed to the crash. Fox News reported that it was the maiden flight for Bhoja Airlines which had been discontinued for more than ten years.

To read the CNN article, please click here.

New Speculation About American-US Airways Merger

2012-04-20T10:43:00.001-04:00

CNN Money just reported that three American Airlines unions support a potential merger with rival US Airways.

To read the full article, please click here. Also watch out for an Aviation Insider blog post this weekend about why this merger may be great news for Airbus.

What's Wrong with JetBlue?

2012-04-02T14:04:00.011-04:00

Since its inception more than ten years ago I have been a big fan of JetBlue. Whenever I have the choice of flying JetBlue or another airline, I pick JetBlue. I like the airline's culture, its fleet and its service. It's just fun to "jet" with JetBlue. Their fleet consists of the newest planes in the North American market, operating only A320s and Embraer 190s - two of my favorite aircraft.

However, on a flight from JFK to Vegas last week, at least one person on board flight 191 did not seem to have too much fun - the A320's captain, Clayton Osbon. According to various media reports, the pilot suffered some kind of mental breakdown while flying the A320. According to media reports, first officer Jason Dowd noticed Osbon's weird behavior shortly after take-off. Dowd asked Osbon to leave the cockpit and then locked the door, so the confused pilot could not re-enter. According to CNN, Osbon said "Pray f***ing now for Jesus Christ" and mumbled about Jesus, September 11, Iraq, Iran and terrorists. Eventually, a group of passengers could subdue Osbon and the flight was diverted to Amarillo, Texas. Luckily, there was another JetBlue A320 pilot on board who took over (which would not have been totally necessary, but it's always easier to fly and land a plane with two people in the cockpit).

This is not the first time a JetBlue cabin crew member has acted weird on board one of the airline's planes. Remember the weirdo JetBlue flight attendant at JFK airport in 2010? The one who said "I've been in this business 20 years. And that's it, I'm done!" over the speakers and then activated the emergency slide and left the plane on the tarmac? What is it with JetBlue that encourages its employees to go nuts? Well, honestly, this is not really a JetBlue-only problem. Just recently, an American Airlines flight attendant said funny things about the plane crashing and the 9/11 attacks. Everybody who has been on a Southwest Airlines flight would agree that some of their flight attendants are crazy, but at SWA, it's integrated into their job - they rap over the speaker phones, dance, etc.

We should never forget that pilots and flight attendants are human beings like everyone else. They have personal problems, work long hours and don't really make a lot of money. So let's be realistic - four or five such incidents over the last couple of years are not really that disturbing. I am a bit surprised things like this don't happen more often. Whenever I'm stuck between two 200-kilo people on a plane I want to go crazy. I can't imagine dealing with all these stupid passengers every day.

I don't even think Osbon should go to prison for this. He had a mental breakdown. I really don't think he did this intentionally. I'm not sure he should ever fly a plane again, but this man was ill and he needs treatment, no prison.

Japan Airlines Receives First 787

2012-03-27T13:17:00.005-04:00

Stemming from their "bad conscience" about World War II and military as well as economic collaborations with the United States, the Japanese have been very enthusiastic about American airplanes over the last decades. Japanese airlines are well known to be suckers for Boeing planes and have generally been among the first to order new American built aircraft. Even though the Japanese aviation market would be ideally suited for the A380, no major Japanese airline has ordered any of the European super jumbos (Skymark being the only exception).

So it just makes sense that, after delays of more than three years, Japan Airlines (JAL) today received its first 787 - the second airline in the world to operate Boeing's Dreamliner, after main competitor ANA. Japan Airlines announced it would operate the 787 on routes to the U.S. (Boston, San Diego) as well as Europe (Helsinki, Moscow) and closer markets in Asia (Beijing, Singapore, New Delhi). In contrast to ANA, JAL's routes appear to make much more sense for the long-range 787. ANA's first Dreamliners have been flying mostly to nearby cities as the planes were much heavier than originally announced, reducing the aircraft's range immensely.

To read more about JAL's 787, please click here to read an article in Bloomberg Businessweek.

Southwest Airlines Receives First 737-800

2012-03-22T09:38:00.004-04:00

In an effort to transport even more passengers on board its all-737 fleet, Southwest Airlines received its first 737-800 this March. So far, Southwest only operated smaller versions of the 737, such as the 300, 500 and 700 versions. According to the Orlando Business Journal, Southwest's 737-800 will feature 175 seats, 38 more than the airline's other 737s. Southwest will add an additional flight attendant to the 800s, of which the Texas-based airline ordered a total of 73, to accommodate for the additional passengers. The 800s will be ETOPS configured upon delivery.

Southwest will likely use the 800s on routes originating or arriving in the Northeast where additional slots are either unavailable or very expensive, such as at New York's LaGuardia airport. The airline could also use the ETOPS 800s on longer and over-water flights to places like Hawaii, Canada or the Caribbean.

In December 2011, Southwest also placed an order for 150 737 MAX 8 (and/or 7) planes, with the option of receiving an additional 150. They are slated to enter service in 2017.

AF 447 Likely Crashed Because of Pilot Error

2011-05-29T13:54:00.008-04:00

The first thing I did Friday morning was to go to BEA's website and read the most recent note about AF 447. For the first time the investigators published excerpts from the voice recorder of the downed A330-200. After reading the note it was pretty clear to me that major errors by the pilots caused this tragic accident in June 2009.

As already known, the pitot probes failed during the Airbus's flight through the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). Experts believe that super cold water hit the tubes and froze on contact. The tubes failed and the Airbus suddenly did not have any reliable speed data. Consequently, the auto pilot and auto thrust disengaged. The A330 switched into alternate mode, giving the pilots full control of the plane. According to the transcript, the two first officers in the cockpit tried to call the captain, who was resting at the time, but he did not respond. Even though at least one of the first officers was pretty experienced on the A330, they failed to correctly interpret the computer's error messages. They were too consumed by figuring out what all the error messages meant to just focus on flying the plane.

Finally, the captain was back in the cockpit, but the situation worsened. The first officer pulled the plane up and it climbed from 35,000 feet to 38,000 feet, which was too high for the current situation in the ITCZ. Climbing also slowed down the plane and signals went off indicating that the Airbus was about to stall. At an altitude of 35,000 feet, the speed of a plane has to be within a very narrow limit, otherwise it will stall if the angle of attack is not adjusted. A difference of only 20 knots can cause a plane to stall. However, the first officers did not react correctly. The plane was still too slow and turbulence was rocking the plane to the sides.

With the fly-by-wire's envelope system down the first officers pushed the sidesticks too hard and the plane began to roll. Normally, the A330's fly-by-wire system would prevent that, but since it was down, there was no automatic protection anymore. However, and contrary to earlier reports, the Airbus was completely controllable. No primary flight systems failed. The envelope system was down, but the fly-by-wire system was still intact. The pilots had 100% control over the plane.

The first officers were not able to stop the stall. With very high vertical speed, the A330 shot toward the Atlantic. Ironically, one first officer increased thrust to 100%, increasing the plane's speed even more as it was heading toward the water. Pretty soon, the first officer realized he was not able to regain control of the plane. At 10,000 feet, he handed the controls over to the second first officer in the cockpit, who only had a few months flying experience on the A330. They must have realized they were doomed. Ironically, the pitot tubes worked again after less than one minute. The last words in the cockpit were "go ahead, you have the controls," when the first officer handed the controls over to the second first officer. A few seconds later they hit the water and were dead. And with them all 225 people on board flight AF 447.

So what happened? First, the Airbus's systems did not fail. The only thing that did fail were the pitot tubes. This is not really cause for a crash if pilots are well trained in these situations. Pitot tubes have frozen over before and never did a plane crash because of it. In this case, a chain of unfortunate events caused the accident. The following is a list of all the errors and issues that led to this terrible accident:

1) Instead of focusing on flying the plane, the two first officers were too focused on the computer's error messages. Flying the plane at an angle of 5 degrees with thrust at 85% would have been enough to fly without working pitot probes.
2) The first officers made the plane climb to 38,000 feet instead of descending. This decreased speed and caused the stall.
3) They were not well trained to regain control of the stalling plane. This had not been part of their pilot training.
4) They were not trained to realize that the frozen pitot tubes caused these problems.
5) The most experienced captain was not at the controls when the problems started.
6) At 10,000 feet - the most crucial phase of the accident - the least experienced first officer was in control of the plane.

In my opinion, well-trained pilots should have been able to handle this situation. In a BBC documentary from 2010, pilots encountered the exact situation in a simulator and managed the situation very well. Of course a simulator is not a real plane and the pilots in the simulator knew what was happening, but I strongly believe that all pilots should have the training to handle such a situation and a stall.

I am convinced that the crash of AF 447 will result in lots of troubles for Air France and Thales, the manufacturer of the pitot tubes, as they will be charged with manslaughter. Air France will be blamed for not training its pilots well enough and Thales will be blamed for building faulty pitot probes, even though the company claimed that they are able to handle all real-world challenges.

For Airbus, this is a result they can live with. The A330's fly-by-wire system was working and the plane is not to blame for the crash. But that's the only good news...

First Clues in AF 447 Crash

2011-05-17T20:02:00.003-04:00

About a month and a half ago I wrote on this blog that I was hoping the search teams would find the black boxes of downed Air France flight 447. To my own surprise, they recovered both boxes last week. Yesterday, investigators were able to have a first look at the data stored in one of the black boxes, but the voice recorder still needs to be analyzed. The families of the people who died in the crash as well as the public will finally know what happened to the A330-200 on June 1, 2009. French investigators confirmed they will be able to fully understand the causes of the crash.

In my opinion, the most surprising development was a telex Airbus issued to all A330 customers today, which stated that there are no recommendations for Airbus's highly successful widebody aircraft. Many of us asked ourselves today: What does that actually mean? And this is the sensational part of today's news - it means that AF 447 did not crash because of any technical difficulties or errors with the fly-by-wire system. This is shocking news. In a good way though for Airbus and everybody who believes in and trusts Airbus's fly-by-wire technology.

After AF 447 crashed almost two years ago, many people - and even experts - believed the jet crashed because of a "stroke inside the plane's computers," as Germany's Der Spiegel wrote in 2009. They assumed the plane's fly-by-wire system shut down, following the icing of the Airbus's pitot tubes, rendering the pilots unable to fly the plane manually. I never believed in this theory as my earlier blog posts about the topic pointed out. Many aircraft have had issues with iced pitot tubes and none of them crashed. It was just not a good reason for a modern, state-of-the art airliner to crash.

But this brings us to the next question: Now what caused AF 447 to go down in early June 2009? Well, it is still too early to know that. We now know more about what didn't cause the crash, but we still do not yet know what caused it. The investigators mentioned today it would take until this summer to come to a final conclusion. There is still a list of numerous reasons for the crash, among them pilot error. Indeed, errors by the crew now seem to be the likeliest possibility. Listening to the voice recorder will answer a lot, if not all, of these questions. While today is a good day for Airbus and the A330, there are still no good answers for the families of those who died on June 1, 2009.

Why I Don't Fly Southwest...

2011-04-05T19:54:00.003-04:00

Usually, I don't use this blog to post my opinion as bluntly as I am doing now. The thing is - I am not a big fan of Southwest Airlines. Not at all. I have never been on one of their planes and have no intention to do so in the future. Not only does Southwest have the ugliest color scheme of any U.S. airline, I also believe that the company does not do a good job maintaining its aircraft, which is the main reason I am not flying them.

Several times in the past incidents occurred on Southwest flights that caused me to question their thoroughness in checking and maintaining their planes. The fact that a gaping hole appeared in-flight on a Southwest flight a few days ago confirms my suspicions. And Southwest has a long history of poor aircraft maintenance. In 2008, FAA inspectors submitted documents to the U.S. Congress, alleging that Southwest allowed 117 of its aircraft to fly carrying passengers despite the fact that the planes were "not airworthy" according to air safety investigators. This is the worst hit the airline has every experienced to its reputation. In 2009, a Southwest plane was grounded because of a hole in its fuselage. And now there's a similar story. I just don't believe it's a coincidence this happened to Southwest.

My recommendation: Don't fly Southwest until they have their safety issues figured out. I don't want my hair to get ruined by a gaping hole at 900 km/h. Can you imagine that kind of wind?

United A320 Makes Emergency Landing in New Orleans

2011-04-05T19:28:00.007-04:00

I am sure it must have been a very unpleasant landing for the passengers (and crew) on board a United A320 that made an emergency landing in New Orleans yesterday.

United flight UA 497 was on the way from New Orleans to San Francisco when it encountered severe technical difficulties. Apparently, there was smoke in the cockpit and the pilots "lost all instruments" according to a Bloomberg article. Other reports mentioned that the Airbus's primary flight computer wasn't functioning.

As U.S. media love to do (see Sullenberger Hudson landing), the pilots were quickly portrayed as heroes. Big U.S. broadcasters described this landing as a "blind landing," which is a very misleading term as non-experts may believe the pilots didn't see anything. This is not true - blind landing means that the pilots do not have any working navigational instruments. They can still see when they look out of the cockpit.

United's A320 was still functional and returned to New Orleans. With help from the folks in the tower, UA 497 performed a visual landing, which pilots do every single day at airports across the world (e.g., at DC's Reagan Airport). The plane's fly-by-wire system worked, the flaps were retracted and the landing gear worked as well. Pilots should be trained to handle situations like these.

The incident was likely caused by a cable that was heating up and starting to burn, causing the instruments to black out. This has nothing to do with Airbus's technology, flight computers or fly-by-wire system and could have happened on any plane.

To read the Bloomberg story, please click here.

AF 447 Found in Atlantic

2011-04-05T18:14:00.004-04:00

To be honest, I was not very hopeful that we would ever hear anything again about AF 447. So you can imagine how surprised and excited I was when I read the news two days ago about a submarine finding parts of the downed A330-200.

AF 447 was en route from Rio to Charles de Gaulle when it crashed into the Atlantic after passing a bad weather front in the ITCZ in June 2009. The emphasis here is on AFTER, not during - contrary to many media reports. Almost two years after the accident, even experts are still unsure about what happened to F-GZCP.

A popular theory is that the Airbus's fly-by-wire system, including all flight computers, broke down, rendering the pilots unable to fly the plane. Based on the automated messages AF 447 sent to the Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, this is not very likely. Another theory is that the pilots did not know the aircraft's exact speed, because the pitot tubes were jammed with ice (the plane was flying through a very moist bad weather front) and the Airbus did not receive any consistent airspeed data anymore. The automated messages confirm that this happened. However, this alone cannot be the cause of the crash. Yes, the pilots may not have had exact airspeed data, but they still had over-ground speed information based on GPS. This is not exact, but enough to fly the plane safely in a situation like this.

As in most cases, I strongly believe that many causes led to this fatal accident: Pilots who probably were not very familiar with the aircraft's computers and technology; a stressful and highly demanding situation they were not well trained for and never experienced before; multi-system failure; and it was in the middle of the night, so the crew probably couldn't see anything (contrary to earlier reports, the A330 has a manual horizon, so the crew always knew where up, down, right and left were).

Two years later, important questions remain, which make this accident so mysterious: Why didn't the crew radio to other planes traveling the same route that they were experiencing difficulties? They still had electricity and another Air France jet was directly behind them. A Lufthansa plane directly in front of them. Why did the Airbus hit the water belly first if the crew couldn't control it? Why was the captain not in the cockpit if it was a tricky situation?

Hopefully, in a few weeks from now, we will have answers to these questions. Fingers crossed that the search teams will find the black boxes!

The New York Times: Boeing and Airbus Waver on Reworking Planes

2010-11-16T15:54:00.004-05:00

I just stumbled over this very interesting New York Times article from today. It basically states what I already wrote here in my post on July 30th.

Boeing and Airbus Waver on Reworking Planes
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JAD MOUAWAD

The latest high-stakes maneuvering by Boeing and Airbus does not involve their top-of-the-line models, the 787 Dreamliner and the A380 jumbo jet, but instead their aging smaller workhorses.
The two companies have long been defined by their willingness to take big risks. But perhaps because of all the problems and costs involved with the bigger planes, they have turned more cautious in responding to pressure from the airlines to develop more fuel-efficient substitutes for their smaller planes, the 737 and A320.

Aviation experts say breakthroughs in engine technology offer a rare chance to re-engineer the two companies’ narrow 737s and A320s, which make up three-fourths of the fleets at the largest airlines. But while the new engines could save the airlines hundreds of millions of dollars a year, Airbus would have to invest $1.5 billion to $2 billion — and Boeing possibly twice that — to test and install them on the jets.

To continue reading, please click here.

Qantas Grounds all A380s

2010-11-04T20:52:00.004-04:00

For decades, Australian flag carrier Qantas was known for great service, a young fleet and an unparalleled safety record. In the history of Qantas, one of the oldest airlines in the world, not one single plane has crashed. However, Qantas has had a lot of minor and even major incidents lately: 2008 - a Qantas 747-400 suffered rapid decompression after an explosion in air; 2008 - A330 suffered a rapid loss of altitude in two sudden uncommanded pitch down manoeuvres causing serious injuries; and, finally, November 4, 2010 - a Qantas A380 (the first A380 that was delivered to the airline) suffered an engine failure shortly after taking off from Singapore's Changi Airport.

Only a few minutes after take-off the inner left engine of the A380 with the tail number VH-OQA lost parts of its shell that slammed into the wing, causing a hole of several centimeters. Passengers reported they heard a slamming noise, followed by shaking of the plane. At this point, it is not clear, whether an explosion caused the engine shell to fall off or if the part that fell off caused the explosion by ripping apart cables and fuel injectors. The cockpit crew decided to dump fuel and circled above the Indonesian sea for over an hour before returning back to Singapore. Flight QF 32 safely landed at Changi about an hour and fifteen minutes after it took off to Sydney.

Soon after the incident, Qantas announced it would ground its entire Airbus A380 fleet indefinitely. In my opinion, this is not a very smart move and casts a negative light on Airbus and the A380 specifically, which they do not deserve. Obviously, the issue resulted from a problem with the engine and Airbus does not build aircraft engines. Experts agree that Airbus and the A380 did not really play a role in today's incident. The manufacturer of these engines, Rolls Royce, will have to play a major role in the upcoming investigations. There have already been several issues with these types of engines.

I also need to add here that the media totally blew up this story. The plane landed safely, nobody was really injured and three of the four engines were still running perfectly fine. There have been instances when planes crossed the entire Atlantic with only three out of four engines working. The plane was still in the air more than an hour after the incident! Had this been an emergency like the media pretended it was, the plane would have returned to Changi right away, without dumping fuel. At no point was there any chance the plane would crash. Obviously, it was very scary and uncomfortable for the passengers on board, but their lives were not in danger...

CNN: Secrets Pilots Won't Tell You

2010-10-21T20:40:00.005-04:00

I was very excited today when I read the headline "Secrets Pilots Won't Tell You" on cnn.com. When I read through the article, I was very disappointed. I expected them to report on how, for example, fly-by-wire technology limits pilots in what they can do, or on poor maintenance or pilot salaries. Some "real" secrets. The secrets CNN mentions, however, are:

1) Pilots are tired and have 16-hour days. Who would have thought? Not a real secret to me! This is especially true for U.S. pilots, not so much for European ones. Is that really scary though? Just think about all the doctors in our hospitals who work 24-hour shifts.

2) Accommodations are bad. Apparently, some U.S. airlines let their pilots sleep in cheap hotels in bad areas. That is indeed something I did not know. But is that really such an important secret? Some pilots may actually live in bad areas or in neighborhoods that are loud. Again, I know that crews from European airlines usually stay at nice hotels.

3) Planes do not carry enough fuel. Well, this is something I would argue with. With fuel being the heaviest "item" on a plane on most flights, of course airlines need to carry as little reserves as possible. This is not a secret, but simple physics. If I fly from Miami to Orlando, I do not need to carry fuel for all the way up to New York with me! Landing a fuel-packed plane is much more dangerous and difficult than landing a light plane with hardly any fuel left.

4) Pilots like compliments about their performance. Really? For god's sake, please do NOT clap when a pilots lands a plane. This is ridiculous. It's his job! Do you applaud a teacher after your English course? Probably not. I do understand clapping after a really challenging landing during strong winds though (and have done it myself).

I think CNN should have titled this piece "U.S. airlines treat their pilots poorly compared to non-U.S. airlines" or something like that. There are no real secrets in this piece. It could have been such a nice article had they focused more on REAL secrets (power of fly-by-wire, flying through strong winds and how modern planes handle that, lightning, etc.). This article is just dull...

Southwest Airlines to Merge with AirTran

2010-10-10T17:24:00.004-04:00

As you have probably learned already, Southwest Airlines is set to acquire AirTran for $1.4 billion. On September 27, Southwest Airlines announced the friendly take-over. Interesting is the fact that, for the first time, Southwest will then offer flights to destinations outside of the U.S. (continuing AirTran service to Mexico and the Caribbean).

The deal is in general an interesting move by Southwest, which has shied away from acquisitions for most of its 39-year history. The timing is also well chosen - since Continental's and United's stakeholders just approved their merger a few weeks ago. But why did Southwest consider the merger in the first place? Well, the two airlines competed at around 30 airports and the merger will give Southwest more access to important markets, such as New York, Orlando and Boston. It also gives Southwest more slots at Atlanta, Delta's main hub.

The fact that AirTran owns Boeing 717s as well as 737s will be a huge disadvantage and I would bet my money that Southwest will get rid of AirTran's 717 shortly. One of the key strategies of Southwest is owning only one aircraft type - the 737. This means that all pilots can fly all planes, all parts are the same for all planes and training for crew members is really simple. If they suddenly have two different planes, the costs will go up.

All in all, I think the merger will be good for the U.S. airline industry, but bad for most customers, since I predict that ticket prices will go up...

To read the Wall Street Journal Article, please click here.

Take-off in Thunderstorms Orlando

2010-10-10T17:19:00.003-04:00

First of all, I need to apologize for not posting anything in almost a month. I moved from New York to Florida and started a new job, so I didn't have the time yet. But I promise to blog regularly again from now on. Below is a video from my take-off from MCO en route to CLT on a US Airways A321. It was a beautiful flight. There were thunderstorms all around us. It wasn't crazy bumpy, but it was great watching the sunset, the lightning and the city below.

Beautiful Landing at LaGuardia

2010-09-23T22:10:00.003-04:00

My brother shot this beautiful video landing at LaGuardia on a US Airways Dash 8-100 last week:

Another Embraer E190 Overshoots Runway in China

2010-08-27T22:03:00.003-04:00

Hardly anyone in the West even heard about this news: Within 24 hours of the Embraer E190 accident in Yichun, China, another E190 overshot the runway on Wednesday, this time in Nanning, in the southern Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of China. The Tianjin Airlines aircraft was en route from Xi'an in the northwestern Shaanxi Province to Nanning and was about to head for Haikou in the southern island province of Hainan.

Though authorities have published no investigation results, Chinese aviation experts have taken the accidents as an alarm for the country's rapidly expanding, yet immature, regional aviation market.

To read the news.cn story, please click here.

U.S. Justice Department Clears United-Continental Merger

2010-08-27T21:52:00.003-04:00

Good news for all fans of the United-Continental merger - the U.S. Department of Justice today cleared one of the last obstacles in the way to an on-time merger in early October of this year. The antitrust probe was closed after Continental and United agreed to transfer take-off and landing rights as well as other assets at Newark Liberty Airport to Southwest Airlines, the Justice Department said in a statement

The combined company, which will fly under the United name and the Continental logo (see picture on above), would be larger than Delta Air Lines, which became the country's largest airline when it merged with Northwest Airlines in 2008. The new United is expected to serve more than 144 million passengers per year and fly to 370 destinations in 59 countries.

Now, only the two airlines' shareholders will need to approve the merger. The vote will take place next month.

To read the CNN Money story, please click here.

JetBlue A320 Hard Landing in Sacramento

2010-08-27T21:31:00.005-04:00

Passengers of a JetBlue A320 experienced a pretty hard landing yesterday when the plane blew four tires while landing at Sacramento airport. Four people suffered minor injuries during landing and about a dozen were injured while leaving the plane. JetBlue flight 262 was en route from Long Beach in south California to the state's capital with 86 passengers and five crew members on board when the cockpit crew reported problems with the plane's brakes.

What happened? Apparently, the brakes of the A320 were locked and wouldn't release. This means that the tires did not move/roll when the plane touched down on the runway. In turn, that caused the tires, and the air within, to heat up very quickly (because of friction) and, eventually, lead to the bursting of the tires (since air expands when it gets hot). The friction also caused minor flames on the tires and the brakes, so all passengers left the plane through emergency slides before the fire could spread to other parts of the plane (which would have been unlikely though).

The Aviation Insider will keep you posted on what the mechanical problem here was.

To read the CNN story, please click here. The followings is a video from a local FOX station:

Old, But Amazing Video

2010-08-27T21:28:00.001-04:00

My brother just sent me this amazing (probably very old) video. What a crazy-a** pilot! Look how close the wingtip is to the ground. Either a very stupid pilot or an amazingly good one. Just wow!

Embraer E190 Crashes in China

2010-08-24T14:10:00.003-04:00

For the first time ever, an Embraer E190 crashed at Yichun Lindu Airport in China today. The crash occurred at 10 pm local time. Henan Airlines flight 8387 departed from Harbin in northern China and was en route to Yichun (only approx. 360 km away) when the plane crashed upon approach into Yichun airport.

The plane had 91 passengers and 5 crew members on board. At this point, at least 47 people have been rescued. Why the fairly new plane crashed is not yet clear. CNN reports the Embraer 190 jet overshot the runway and caught fire when it was landing. However, heavy fog may have contributed to the crash. Yichun Lindu Airport is not equipped with ILS, making it even harder for pilots to land in foggy conditions.

The Aviation Insider will keep you posted on further developments.

To read the CNN story, please click here.

Did Lightning Really Bring Down a 737 in Colombia?

2010-08-17T18:49:00.006-04:00

An AIRES 737-700 broke apart upon hitting the ground in San Andres, Colombia, yesterday night around 1.49 am local time. Flight 8250, which departed Bogotá's El Dorado International Airport at 0.07 am, did not report any problems during the flight.

The Boeing 737-700 with the tail number HK-4682, was built in 2003 and was originally delivered to European low-cost carrier EasyJet. AIRES took over the plane in March of this year. This is the first time ever a 737-700 needs to be written off because of an accident. Contrary to some reports, the plane did not "crash" into the runway. It made contact with the ground a few dozen meters before the runway started, but it later broke apart on the runway.

The question - as always - now is: What caused the accident? The two most prominent theories at this point are: A severe downdraft "pushed" the plane onto the ground or a lightning strike caused the accident. As usual, reporters and experts are cautious to blame the pilots. However, all signs point to the downdraft theory, together with poor reactions by the two pilots. A lightning strike as the cause of the accident can totally be ruled out in my opinion. And experts agree with that. To read why lightning cannot possible have caused the crash, please read this CNN interview with an expert. It is almost ridiculous that reporters over and over again claim that an airplane crashed because of lightning. They said that about the Air France A330 that crashed into the Atlantic last year, they said it about the Ethiopian 737 that crashed off of the coast of Lebanon in January and they are saying it again now. However, no commercial plane has crashed because of a lightning strike since the 1960s. Planes are built to withstand lightning strikes. Period!

In my opinion, this 737 crashed because of a very strong downdraft right in front of the runway and the pilots were not prepared to handle such a situation. The weather was pretty bad during the approach and changing wind directions make it hard to land in situations like these. However, pilots should be well trained to handle these tough approaches. But the pilots of this AIRES 737 apparently weren't. Severe downdrafts are not extremely rare events. They happen quite frequently and I have experienced them myself during landings several times. Whenever pilots need to land in stormy conditions they need to take possible downdrafts into consideration. And it's not like a plane is totally uncontrollable when it flies through downdrafts. The laws of aerodynamics still apply, the pilots just need to react quickly. And when they are only a couple of meters from the ground they need to react even more quickly. Sadly, the AIRES pilots did not do that.

According to a CNN story, at least one of the pilots still does not know what happened. He said: "We were caught in a great sinking as we reached the runway, as our wheels touched down. It threw us out. It threw us out. Nature is very strong. It grabbed us with everything it had. I said, 'Landing' and cut, and when I was cutting, I started to level off, and I felt that the plane was going straight (down). I pulled [on the yolk]. I pulled. I pulled. And the plane kept on going, kept on going. It was when we said, 'Landing.' When there's nothing left to do."

As tragic as this accident is, it shows us that pilots need better training. Planes are built to withstand the forces of nature pretty well. If a 737 can fly through a storm of more than 300 km/h (as several did during hurricane Kyrill in Europe a couple of years ago) without any damage, it can very well endure severe downdraft. However, the pilots need to be trained to handle that. If the pilots don't even know what's going on, how can they react properly?

Should Airbus and Boeing Update their Narrowbody Planes or Develop Completely New Aircraft?

2010-07-30T14:38:00.005-04:00

It is a hard decision to make. But by the end of this year, Airbus and Boeing will have to make up their minds: Will they update their A320 series and 737 planes with more fuel-efficient engines and add-ons (such as winglets, better wings, etc.) or will they stop investing in those planes and rather pursue the launch of completely new narrowbody aircraft? With rising competition, such as Embraer's E jets and Bombardier's upcoming C series, the two plane manufacturers have to keep up with rising (fuel) efficiencies to remain competitive.

According to reports in Aviation Week, both plane makers are not sure yet, what to do. It almost looks like one is waiting for the other to make the first move. And it is indeed a tricky game. The A320 series and the 737 are already fairly fuel-efficient planes. They can, however, not compete with lighter and, thus, even more fuel efficient models, such as the upcoming Bombardier C series. And with more players in the narrowbody market, it will be harder for Airbus as well as Boeing to stay at the top of the game. Just look at the success of Embraer's E jets - since the launch of the plane in 2002, more than 600 craft of that type have been sold. Hardly anyone would have predicted that.

But what are the options at this point? The idea is to keep the A320 models and the 737 basically as they are, but make some changes so they become more fuel efficient. This means: changing the structure of the wings (to increase lift and reduce weight), use more fuel efficient engines (to be outsourced to third-party manufacturers, such as Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney) and add certain fly-by-wire systems (for the 737). This is basically it. The goal is to reduce fuel consumption by 6 to 12 percent.

That was option 1. Option 2 is to not pursue the updates at all but rather come up with completely new narrowbody models. Say, an Airbus A360 or a Boeing 797. Those planes would not be based off of the A320 series or the 737, but engineers at Airbus and Boeing would start from scratch, maybe using completely new light materials, totally different shapes for the fuselages and so on. Obviously, this would be the more time-consuming option and would cost a lot of money. A LOT of money! The question though is: Will airlines want new models at this point? Looking at the orders for the A320 series and the 737, you can argue if there is a need for new models in the short run as both Airbus and Boeing are currently boosting their production rates for the A320 and the 737 to cope with increased demand.

So what should they do? My opinion is that - at this point - there is no need for completely new narrowbody planes. The demand for the A320 planes and the 737 is still there and I am convinced it is a wiser choice to update the current models than to come up with new models. Also, engineers are already swamped with Boeing's 787 and the 747-8, as well as with Airbus's A350. It would be very hard to make time to start new models from scratch right now. Updating current models wouldn't be that much of an effort and is way more efficient at this stage.

I also believe that Boeing should make the first move here (even though they appear to be more reluctant than Airbus). The simple reason is - the technology of the 737 is already outdated. Even the "Next Generation" 737s do not have fly-by-wire (fbw) systems. So just comparing the current models of the 737 with the A320 shows that there is a greater need for an update of the 737 than there is for the A320 aircraft (which all have fbw). Additionally, it has been a better year for the A320 series so far than for the 737. Airlines around the world slightly prefer the A320 over the 737 already, maybe because of its more advanced technology.

As mentioned above though, Boeing seems to be more reluctant to start with the updates of its 737. Experts hypothesize that Boeing is waiting for Airbus to make the next move. If the European aircraft manufacturer announced sometime this year they would start updating the A320 series, then Boeing could just say: Hey, we will not be updating the 737, but come out with a totally new, state-of-the-art plane in 5 years! The rationale is: Why would an airline buy updated versions of the A320 series planes when Boeing is coming out with a brand new, better and even more fuel efficient plane five years later? The hopes are that nobody would order the next-generation A320 planes, but wait for the new Boeing aircraft.

Still, I believe the best thing to do now is update the A320 series and the 737. Airlines haven't really voiced their demand for new narrowbodies yet. With the E jets already on the market, the C series coming out soon and the continued demand for the A320 and the 737, it is just smarter to update current models than create new ones. And if the updated versions are really 6 to 12 percent more fuel efficient, then it will be hard to come up with all-new models that can top this. In my opinion, Airbus and Boeing should listen to what the market wants and I honestly do not see a high demand for all-new narrowbody planes right now.