Civil

The crash of United Airlines Flight 173 led the airline industry as a whole to adopt Crew Resource Management (CRM). United Airlines was the first to use this in 1981, and over the years after that, airlines worldwide have done the same.

On Dec. 28, 1978, United Airlines Flight 173 scheduled to fly from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City to Portland International Airport in Portland, Oregon, with a scheduled stop in Denver, Colorado, ran out of fuel while troubleshooting a landing gear problem and crashed in a suburban Portland neighborhood near NE 157th Avenue and East Burnside Street, killing 10 on board.

‘As the plane [a Douglas DC-8 60 series registered N8082U] was approaching Portland airport in Oregon, there was a landing gear problem in which the crew members in the cockpit couldn’t determine if the right main landing gear had come down properly. So they decided to fly a holding pattern near the airport to make sure the landing gear was in the correct position,’ Russell Vallec, an aviation expert, says on Quora. ‘After about an hour in the hold, the plane was burning a lot of fuel and was getting dangerously low.

‘The flight engineer was giving hints to the captain that the plane was going to run out of fuel. The flight engineer never really spoke up about the fuel situation because the captain wanted to know what was going on with the landing gear. When the captain and the copilot realized how low on fuel they were, they declared an emergency and tried to land at the airport as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the plane ran out of fuel and crash-landed in a neighborhood. Of the 181 people onboard, ten people lost their lives.’

Vallec continues;

‘In the aviation industry, the captain was usually looked up to. Whatever decision a captain would make would be final without question from the copilot or flight engineer.

‘This crash led the airline industry as a whole to adopt Crew Resource Management (CRM). United Airlines was the first to use this in 1981, and over the years after that, airlines around the world have done the same. This method teaches the captain, copilot, and other crew members to communicate during flight. This would lead to less errors and more efficiency between the crew members.’

Vallec concludes;

‘United Flight 232 in 1989 [a DC-10 that crash-landed after suffering a catastrophic failure of its tail-mounted engine, which led to the loss of many flight controls] was a perfect example of CRM in action. The captain and the other three members in the cockpit worked very well together to crash land a doomed aircraft in Sioux City. If not for this method, everyone would have died on that flight.’

Photo by Clint Groves via Wikipedia

An ejection seat is an emergency, last-ditch, all-else-has-failed alternative to death.

In aircraft, an ejection seat is a system designed to rescue the pilot or other crew of an aircraft in an emergency. In most designs, the aircraft canopy comes off and the seat is propelled out of the aircraft by an explosive charge or rocket motor, carrying the pilot with it. Once clear of the aircraft, the ejection seat deploys a parachute. In two-seat aircraft, the seats are ejected at different angles to avoid a collision.

Before ejection seats, pilots would have to remove the aircraft canopy manually to climb and jump out.

Ejection seats can save lives. However, they are not used in commercial passenger aircraft. Why?

‘OK… there are a few things that you aren’t aware of when it comes to ejection seats,’ says Jeff Chatterton, Communications Consultant to 7 Aviation Companies, on Quora.

‘a) Most pilots, IF they ever eject from a plane, will eject ONCE in their life.

‘An ejection seat is an emergency, last-ditch, all-else-has-failed alternative to death. That’s about it. It’s not at all uncommon for ejected pilots to suffer massive spinal damage, broken limbs, and road rash… the list of injuries that can occur as a result of ejection are numerous.

‘Having spinal damage sucks. But it beats dying.

‘b) Most pilots are healthy, 20–35-year-old males.

‘Can you imagine the consequences of ejecting an 85-year-old grandmother? What about a 4-year-old boy? What about lap infants?

‘c) An ejection seat is a bomb.

‘When that handle gets pulled, the seat literally explodes out of the plane. In the space of microseconds, explosive bolts rip open the canopy above the pilot’s head, and then a rocket under his seat ignites, launching the pilot into the air. The pilot is braced for impact and in the proper launch position.

‘Now imagine filling a commercial jetliner with 300+ of these things. Heck – TSA gets upset if I bring scissors onto a plane…

‘d) They’re INCREDIBLY expensive and heavy.

‘Remember – this is a bomb. Fighter pilots can use it because they only need to eject 50 feet into the air… and fighter jets have nothing but thrust. A fighter jet is basically an engine with wings to steer it. Fighter jets can handle the weight. On a commercial jetliner where every pound of cargo requires extra fuel, this simply isn’t possible.’

Chatterton continues;

‘e) It’s not necessary.

‘For every accident like Ethiopian Airlines, we’d have 10 ‘inadvertent detonations.’ (And now that we’ve punched a giant hole into our fuselage at altitude, we’ve got a host of other problems.)

‘A passenger airline is incredibly safe. Can you imagine what would have happened to US Airways 1549 if Chesley Sullenberger ordered everyone to eject? This was the infamous ‘Miracle on the Hudson.’

‘Instead of pictures like this, with a bunch of alive passengers, we’d have stories of Grandma hanging in a chute off the Empire State building… Babies getting run over by taxi cabs… people smacking into the side of buildings and falling to their death… people landing in the Hudson and drowning because they’re on their own and unable to be assisted…

‘f) The public would REVOLT.

‘People already complain about lack of legroom or flight attendants getting snarky about the seatbelt sign. Now imagine taking a 6-hour flight where you’re strapped into this?

‘No. Let’s keep everyone where they’re safest. Inside the plane.

‘g) A high-speed, high-altitude ejection would rip your clothes off.

‘(And you’d need oxygen for the entire descent.) Let’s just leave the oxygen issue aside. Let’s assume that through modern magic, you can breathe from 40,000 feet. But look around you after you’ve ejected… remember that 280-pound sales guy with bad breath? He’s hanging under a chute… naked. The old lady who tried to poach your seat? Hanging out beside you, naked. The teenage boy with acne and confidence issues has his clothes in shreds hanging off him…’

Chatterton concludes;

‘Oh – by the way, even if you can breathe… it’s well below freezing.’

Photo by U.S. Air Force, Greg L, and Sandstein via Wikipedia

The XB-1 is now set to complete its ongoing, extensive ground test program before heading to Mojave, California in 2021 for a flight test.

Taken on Oct. 7, 2020, the video in this post features the unveiling of the XB-1, history’s first independently developed supersonic jet and supersonic demonstrator built by Boom Supersonic, the aerospace company building Overture, the world’s fastest airliner.

To design and build XB-1, Boom recruited a team of experts from around the industry, forged relationships with key suppliers, and built a strong safety culture. XB-1 is slated to fly for the first time in 2021 and will undergo a 100% carbon-neutral flight test program. Boom’s innovations include developing one of the highest-efficiency civil supersonic engine intakes ever tested, demonstrating Boom’s ability to deliver a breakthrough in propulsive efficiency for Overture.

“Boom continues to make progress towards our founding mission—making the world dramatically more accessible,” said Blake Scholl, Boom founder, and CEO in the company press release. “XB-1 is an important milestone towards the development of our commercial airliner, Overture, making sustainable supersonic flight mainstream and fostering human connection.”

On the morning of Oct. 7 at 11 AM MDT, the world saw XB-1 fully assembled for the first time and heard from the team that designed, built, and is currently testing the aircraft. Boom’s XB-1 virtual rollout highlighted some of XB-1’s notable features include:

• Shape: XB-1’s 71-foot-long fuselage has been optimally shaped for high-speed aerodynamic efficiency.

• Materials: The carbon-composite airframe maintains its strength and rigidity, even under the high temperatures and stresses of supersonic flight.

• Wing: The delta wing balances low-speed stability at takeoff and landing with high-speed efficiency.

• Propulsion: Three J85-15 engines, designed by General Electric, provide more than 12,000 pounds of thrust, allowing XB-1 to fly at breakthrough supersonic speeds.

• Cockpit ergonomics: Guidance and feedback from XB-1’s test pilots played a key role in cockpit design, which was the product of hundreds of hours of human factors and usability testing.

• Forward vision system: XB-1 leverages a high-resolution video camera and cockpit display to give pilots a virtual window through the nose, providing superior runway visibility for landing.

Boom shared the virtual presentation stage with a number of aerospace leaders, Boom partners, and investors including:

• NASA Leaders and Astronauts: Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr, USMC (Ret.), 12th NASA Administrator and Capt. Robert “Hoot” Gibson, USN (Ret.)

• Chief Concorde pilot for British Airways, Captain Mike Bannister

• Supersonic: The Design and Lifestyle of Concorde author Lawrence Azerrad

• USAF Brig. General Ryan Britton.

The XB-1 is now set to complete its ongoing, extensive ground test program before heading to Mojave, California in 2021 for a flight test. At the same time, the company will finalize Overture’s propulsion system and conduct wind tunnel tests to validate aircraft design. When XB-1 breaks the sound barrier in flight, Boom will be finalizing the design of Overture, whose own rollout is on track for 2025.

Photo by Boom Supersonic

On Jun. 3, 1973, at the 1973 Paris Airshow, the flight crew on a Tu-144 attempted to perform an impressive steep climb maneuver to wow spectators, but they overstressed the airframe while pulling their plane out of a dive and it broke up in mid-air.

Taken on Jun. 3, 1973, at Paris Air Show the horrific video in this post features the crash of Russia’s Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic transport aircraft (SST).

The Tu-144 (Russian: Tyполев Ту-144; NATO reporting name: Charger) is one of only two SSTs to enter commercial service, the other being the Anglo-French Concorde. The aircraft (that looked so much like the Concorde that Western observers dubbed it “the Concordski”) was conceived during the Cold War by Tupolev design bureau, headed by Alexei Tupolev, and manufactured by the Voronezh Aircraft Production Association in Voronezh, Russia.

Despite being less technologically advanced, less reliable, more fuel-hungry, and louder than Concorde, the Tu-144 had more powerful engines.

The Tu-144 had a top speed of ≈2,500 km/h (≈1,510 mph) compared to Concorde’s ≈2,179 km/h (≈1,354 mph), making it the fastest supersonic airliner ever.

The Russian jet performed its maiden flight on Dec. 31, 1968, two months earlier than Concorde, and became the first supersonic commercial airliner to take flight.

On Jun. 3, 1973, at the 1973 Paris Airshow, the flight crew on a Tu-144 attempted to perform an impressive steep climb maneuver to wow spectators, but they overstressed the airframe while pulling their plane out of a dive and it broke up in mid-air. The crash killed all 6 crew members aboard plus 8 people on the ground while injuring 28 others.

The crash delayed the Tu-144 development. The aircraft in fact was introduced into passenger service on Nov. 1, 1977, almost two years after Concorde. In May 1978, another Tu-144 (an improved version, named Tu-144D) crashed on a test flight while being delivered, and the passenger fleet was permanently grounded after only 55 scheduled flights. The aircraft remained in use as a cargo plane until 1983. The Tu-144 was later used by the Soviet space program to train pilots of the Buran spacecraft, and by NASA for supersonic research.

Photo by Screenshot from video and Isaac Low via Quora.

Skiathos International Airport’s 5,341-foot runway is able to accommodate aircraft up to the size of a Boeing 757-200.

Filmed by our friend Dafydd Phillips, the cool video in this post was taken during a recent trip to Skiathos International Airport that according to Phillips ‘bagged some incredible take-offs and landings (and some dangerous jet blasts) from the famous end-of-runway view area.’

Skiathos Alexandros Papadiamantis Airport (IATA: JSI, ICAO: LGSK) is an airport on the island of Skiathos, Greece. Its 5,341-foot runway is able to accommodate aircraft up to the size of a Boeing 757-200. The runway is characterized as ‘short and narrow’.

Because of the uneven terrain on the island of Skiathos, Skiathos Airport was created by reclaiming land from the sea between Skiathos island and the smaller island of Lazareta (a former leper colony) effectively joining the two islands into one larger island. It is named after Alexandros Papadiamantis, a Greek novelist who happened to be an island local.

The airport’s short runway and its proximity to an adjacent public road have made it a popular destination for planespotters. It is often compared to Princess Juliana International Airport in Saint Maarten since both airports offer the public the ability to legally experience landing approaches and takeoffs at very close range.

The impressive video in this post was taken after a six-and-a-half-hour drive to Preswick airport in Scotland to capture the Antonov An-225.

Filmed by our friend Dafydd Phillips on Aug. 4, 2020, the impressive video in this post was taken after a six-and-a-half-hour drive to Preswick airport in Scotland to capture the Antonov An-225. The world’s biggest plane and the only one in existence, it was fuel-stopping from Bangor, Maine, USA before flying on to Chateauroux in France.

Some basic stats are featured in the clip.

The Antonov An-225 Mriya (Ukrainian: Антонов Ан-225 Мрія, lit. ‘dream’ or ‘inspiration’; NATO reporting name: Cossack) is a strategic airlift cargo aircraft that was designed by the Antonov Design Bureau in the Ukrainian SSR within the Soviet Union during the 1980s. It is powered by six turbofan engines and is the heaviest aircraft ever built. It also has the largest wingspan of any aircraft in operational service. The single example built has the Ukrainian civil registration UR-82060. A second airframe with a slightly different configuration was partially built. Its construction was halted in 1994 because of a lack of funding and interest, but revived briefly in 2009, bringing it to 60–70% completion. On Aug. 30, 2016, Antonov agreed to complete the second airframe for the Airspace Industry Corporation of China (not to be confused with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China) as a prelude to commencing series production.

The Antonov An-225 was an enlargement of the successful Antonov An-124 that was initially developed for transporting the Buran spaceplane. The only An-225 airplane was completed in 1988. After successfully fulfilling its Soviet military missions, it was mothballed for eight years. It was then refurbished and re-introduced and is in commercial operation with Antonov Airlines carrying oversized payloads. The airlifter holds the absolute world record for an airlifted single-item payload of 189,980 kilograms (418,830 pounds), and an airlifted total payload of 253,820 kg (559,580 lb). It has also transported a payload of 247,000 kg (545,000 lb) on a commercial flight.

The largest aircraft routinely operated by the U.S. military is the C-5 Galaxy which is smaller than the An-225 and slightly smaller than the An- 124.

Photo by Dafydd Phillips

In 2002, a C-130, call sign Tanker 130 owned by Hawkins & Powers Aviation of Greybull, Wyoming, and operated under contract to the United States Forest Service, had its wings fall off mid-flight as it was fighting northern Californian wildfires.

In 2002, a C-130, call sign Tanker 130 owned by Hawkins & Powers Aviation of Greybull, Wyoming, and operated under contract to the United States Forest Service (USFS), had its wings fall off mid-flight as it was fighting northern Californian wildfires. It rolled, inverted, and crashed into the forest below, killing all three crewmen (pilot Steve Wass, co-pilot Craig Labare, and flight engineer Michael Davis) aboard.

The NTSB investigated the crash and determined that the accident was caused by a structural failure that occurred at the wing-to-fuselage attach point, with the right-wing failing just before the left. The investigation disclosed “evidence of fatigue cracks in the right wing’s lower surface skin panel, with origins beneath the forward doubler. 

Cy Birr, a Retired USAF pilot after 24 years flying the C-130, adds some interesting details about the accident on Quora.

‘The 2002 Walker, California crash of C-130A, N130HP, Tanker 130 has often been attributed to structural failure (the simplest ‘correct’ answer), a design flaw (partially correct), and human factors (incorrect when referring to this crew). Like most accidents simple answers only are sufficient for the simple,’ Birr says.

‘This C-130’s history is an important part of the story. Specifically, it was one of the original 1957 production models and among only a few still considered airworthy in 2002. Tail 56–0538, the original USAF designation, had seen service in Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Americas. Like all USAF aircraft, it possessed a detailed flight and maintenance history in the archive that accompanied the aircraft throughout its service life. Except… in the late 1960s the aircraft’s library showed a break in record keeping of over four years. 56–0538 had been released from the USAF to a program that “partnered” with “industry”. The particular company for this partnering, Southern Air Transport. Southern Air Transport was a front company for the CIA.

‘This aircraft spent four years without any documented details on its maintenance history. There is nothing available as to the use, environment, and employment of the airframe. It is unknown if the aircraft experienced overloading, over-g, or any other potential airframe compromising damage or use.’

He continues:

‘Once returned to the USAF the plane was placed in the USAFR inventories and used by a number of squadrons. Maintenance was performed and documented but this was during the “hollow force” era and attention to detail was not as much of a priority for understaffed and underfunded units. Deferments of depot-level activity and other heavy work occurred. Add to this the arrival of the C-130H models, the presence of C-130E models, and the attention to the C-130A simply wasn’t there. This was most obvious in the USAF’s decision to not replace the center wing box of the A-models when Lockheed advised it as a recommended upgrade (the late 70s, early 80s). C-130E and H1 were modded but not the A-models. Most of the A-models were turned over to the boneyard by 1988.

‘56–0538 was sold as surplus to other USG entities in 1986. Renamed N130HP it was taken on by the General Service Administration and released to the Department of the Interior after modding for fire suppression. It was successfully used for years. Crews performed many, many water drops using established procedures without complaint.

‘That all changed on 17 June 2002. Tanker 130 had completed the water release and was pulling up when the wing-to-fuselage connection (center wing box) failed. The NTSB determined structural fatigue from decades of use caused a fatal propagation of cracks associated with rivet holes. These cracks compromised the stringers (think ribs of a reinforced box) and resulted in catastrophic failure at a g-load well within designed parameters. The crew was found to have had no part of the blame.’

Birr concludes:

‘The reason I brought up the CIA period of service is another C-130A associated with Southern Air Transport showed higher degrees of compromise than the C-130A that had remained in the military. We will never know if improper use and loading by Southern Air Transport contributed to the failure.

‘Like most tragedies, some good came out of it. The DoD implemented a fleet-wide examination of C-130 wing boxes of all types. The inspections found multiple problems. Some similar, some only by coincidence. But the result was significant programmed maintenance changes and use restrictions until changes were accomplished.’

On Jul. 18, 2002, another aircraft owned by Hawkins & Powers Aviation and operated under contract to the  (USFS), a Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer crashed near Estes Park, Colorado. Both crewmen were killed in the crash.

These crashes prompted a review of the maintenance and use of the entire U.S. large air tanker fleet. 

The crashes occurred in one of the worst fire seasons in the last half-century, one in which 73,000 fires burned 7.2 million acres (29,000 km2) of land.

The following horrific video features the 2002 Tanker 130 crash.

Photo by  KOLO-TV Reno via The Sacramento Bee and Armen Woosley from La Grande, USA via Wikipedia

The incredible video in this post captured the skillful maneuver that led to the successful touchdown of the world’s largest passenger plane.

Taken on Feb. 16, 2020, at London’s Heathrow airport, the incredible video in this post captured the skillful maneuver that led to the successful touchdown of the world’s largest passenger plane.

Two pilots flying an Etihad A380 in fact pulled off a dangerous crosswind landing as Storm Dennis battered the UK.

Extraordinary footage captured Winds of up to 50mph were recorded at the capital’s main airport after severe weather warnings were issued across the UK and Ireland.

According to SkyNews, dozens of flights were canceled at Heathrow, but the Etihad pilots managed to land with one attempt, directing the 573,794kg (1.26 million lb) plane across the runway to carry out a “crab” landing – a highly skilled maneuver where pilots fly the plane into the wind, perpendicular to the runway as they land.

The footage shows the landing gear’s wheels eventually touching down, pointing across the runway instead of forwards, before the aircraft swings around to face the right way.

One person has been killed and flood alerts have been issued across the country as Storm Dennis brought strong winds and heavy rain over the weekend.

The A320 diverted safely to Russia’s nearby Khmeimim military air base.

An Airbus A320 airliner carrying 172 passengers was nearly shot down on its approach to the Syrian capital, Damascus, shortly after 2 a.m. on Feb. 6, 2020, after Syria fired anti-aircraft missiles in response to an Israeli Air Force (IAF) strike, according to a Russian Air Force spokesman, RIA Novosti reported Friday.

The plane diverted safely to Russia’snnearby Khmeimim military air base, he said.

Syrian state media said that on Thursday, IAF F-16s launched airstrikes at targets in southern Syria. A claim was confirmed by Russian Air Force spokesman Igor Konashenkov who pointed out that the incident followed airstrikes launched by four Israeli F-16 fighter jets.

IAF fighter jets fired eight missiles at targets near Damascus early Thursday and Syria forces fired anti-aircraft missile defense systems, Konashenkov said. He added the plane that narrowly avoided being hit was traveling from Tehran to Damascus.

The Washington Post reported that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based monitoring group, said airstrikes Thursday hit the positions of Iran-backed militia, killing 23 people, including Syrian and Iranian fighters.

In recent weeks Syrian forces backed by Russian airstrikes and Iran-backed fighters have mounted attacks in the northwest of the country in a bid to crush the last stronghold of opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The incident comes a month after an SA-15 surface-to-air missile (SAM) fired by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down a Boeing 737-800 airliner belonging to Ukraine International Airlines killing all 176 people aboard.

The Boeing 737 was hit in the wake of the American MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a powerful Revolutionary Guards commander.

Photo by Flightradar / Oleksiy Naumov and Master Sergeant Kevin J. Gruenwald / U.S. Air Force