Delta Air Lines planning to purchase hundreds of new aircraft

by B. N. Sullivan

Big news today: Delta Air Lines plans to acquire hundreds of new aircraft.  According to a Bloomberg article about the planned aircraft purchase, Delta "plans to order 100 to 200 narrow-body jets and seek options for 200 more, a possible record purchase."

Presumably the new planes will replace Delta's older DC-9, Boeing 757-200, and Airbus A320 aircraft.  The new planes would be used on domestic routes.

From the Bloomberg article:

Delta will consider “large, medium and small” narrow-body jets, Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said yesterday in a separate weekly recorded message to employees.

“It’s important we take a very long-term view of our fleet,” Anderson said.

Speculation is that Boeing, Airbus, and Bombardier all may be asked to submit proposals for the order.  This could be the largest single aircraft purchase to date by any commercial airline.

Qantas Flight 32: Crew response to the emergency

by B. N. Sullivan

This is the third in a series of posts about Qantas Flight 32, an Airbus A380 (registration VH-OQA) that experienced an uncontained failure of one of its four Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines during flight on November 4, 2010.  The information here is based on a preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), issued On December 3, 2010.

As mentioned in the previous post, there were five flight crew on board Qantas Flight 32: the Captain (PIC); a First Officer (FO), acting as co-pilot; a Second Officer (SO); a second Captain, who was training as a Check Captain (CC); and a Supervising Check Captain (SCC), who was training the CC.  This post details how they responded to the emergency following the uncontained engine failure that damaged the aircraft and a number of its systems.

Early in the emergency, given that the aircraft was controllable, the crew decided to hold their present altitude while they processed the plethora of ECAM messages that immediately followed the engine failure.  [See previous post.]  They contacted Singapore ATC and asked for an appropriate holding position, ultimately requesting "to remain within 30 NM (56 km) of Changi Airport in case they should need to land quickly."  ATC vectored the aircraft into a holding pattern east of the airport  at 7,400 ft.

As the crew went through procedures associated with the ECAM messages, the SO went into the cabin to try to visually assess the damage to No 2 engine.

As the SO moved through the cabin a passenger, who was also a pilot for the operator, brought the SO’s attention to a view of the aircraft from the vertical fin mounted camera that was displayed on the aircraft’s in-flight entertainment system.  That display appeared to show some form of fluid leak from the left wing.

The SO then went to the left side of the aircraft's lower deck and observed the wing damage and fuel leak.  He saw a fuel trail about 0.5 m wide that appeared to be coming from underneath the wing.

Later, the SCC and SO returned to the cabin "on numerous occasions to visually assess the damage on the left side of the aircraft, and to inspect the right side of the aircraft, and to provide feedback to the cabin crew and passengers."

Meanwhile, up on the flight deck:

The flight crew reported that, during their assessment of subsequent multiple fuel system ECAM messages, they elected not to initiate further fuel transfer in response to a number of those messages, as they were unsure of the integrity of the fuel system.  In addition, the crew could not jettison fuel due to the ECAM fuel jettison fault and they were aware that there was fuel leaking from the left wing.  The crew also recalled an indication that the aircraft’s satellite communications system had failed.  They also received an aircraft communications and automatic reporting system (ACARS)message from the aircraft operator that indicated that multiple failure messages had been received by the operator from the aircraft.

It took about 50 minutes for the crew to complete procedures associated with the many ECAM messages.

They then assessed the aircraft systems to determine those that had been damaged, or that were operating in a degraded mode.  They considered that the status of each system had the potential to affect the calculation of the required parameters for the approach and landing.  The crew also believed that the failure may have damaged the No 1 engine, and they discussed a number of concerns in relation to the lateral and longitudinal fuel imbalances that had been indicated by the ECAM.

The FO and the SCC performed several calculations to determine the landing distance required for their overweight landing.  They determined that landing on Changi's runway 20C  "was feasible, with 100 m of runway remaining," and advised ATC to that effect.

Approach and Landing

Prior to leaving the holding pattern, the crew carried out a number of manual handling checks at holding speed to assess the controllability of the aircraft.

As the crew started to reconfigure the aircraft for the approach by lowering flaps, they conducted further controllability checks at the approach speed and decided that the aircraft remained controllable.  As a result of the landing gear-related ECAM messages, the landing gear was lowered using the emergency extension procedure and a further controllability check was conducted.

The landing performance application indicated a required approach speed of 166 kts.  The flight crew reported being aware that: reverse thrust was only available from the No 3 engine, no leading edge slats were available, there was limited aileron and spoiler control, anti-skid braking was restricted to the body landing gear only, there was limited nosewheel steering and that the nose was likely to pitch up on touchdown.  An ECAM message indicated that they could not apply maximum braking until the nosewheel was on the runway.  The wing flaps were extended to the No 3 position.

Singapore ATC vectored the aircraft to a position 20 NM (37 km) from the threshold of runway 20C and provided for a progressive descent to 4,000 ft.  The PIC was aware that accurate speed control on final would be important to avoid either an aerodynamic stall condition, or a runway overrun. Consequently, the PIC set the thrust levers for Nos 1 and 4 engines to provide symmetric thrust, and controlled the aircraft’s speed with the thrust from No 3 engine.

The autopilot disconnected a couple of times during the early part of the approach as the speed reduced to 1 kt below the approach speed.  The PIC initially acted to reconnect the autopilot but, when it disconnected again at about 1,000 ft, he elected to leave it disconnected and to fly the aircraft manually for the remainder of the approach.  Due to the limited landing margin available, the CC reminded the PIC that the landing would have to be conducted with no flare and that there would be a slightly higher nose attitude on touchdown.

Cabin crew were briefed to prepare the cabin for a possible runway overrun and emergency evacuation.

The aircraft touched down, the PIC applied maximum braking and selected reverse thrust on the No 3 engine.  The aircraft came to a stop with about 150 meters of runway remaining.

After Landing

The crew shut down the remaining engines, however the No 1 engine continued to run.  The crew recycled the engine master switch to OFF, but the engine still did not shut down.  The crew then tried using the emergency shutoff and fire extinguisher bottles to shut down No 1 engine, but to no avail.  Activating a series of circuit breakers in the aircraft's equipment bay, and efforts to starve the No 1 engine of fuel also were unsuccessful.  Ultimately, "the decision was taken to drown the engine with fire-fighting foam from the emergency services fire vehicles," but this did not happen until about 2 hours and 7 minutes after the aircraft landed!

Meanwhile, passengers disembarked on the right side of the aircraft via stairs.

The crew elected to use a single door so that the passengers could be accounted for as they left the aircraft and because they wanted the remainder of the right side of the aircraft to be kept clear in case of the need to deploy the escape slides. They also decided to have the other doors remain armed, with crew members in their positions at those doors ready to activate the escape slides if necessary, until all of the passengers were off the aircraft.

It took about an hour for all passengers and crew to leave the aircraft. There were no injuries reported among the five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers on board Qantas Flight 32.

[Photo Source]

Click here to view all posts about Qantas Flight 32 on Aircrew Buzz.

Qantas Flight 32: Uncontained engine failure and damage to the aircraft

by B. N. Sullivan

This is the second in a series of posts about the events on board Qantas Flight 32, an Airbus A380 (registration VH-OQA) that experienced an uncontained failure of one of its four Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines during flight on November 4, 2010.  The information here is based on a preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), issued On December 3, 2010.

There were five flight crew on board Qantas Flight 32: the Captain (PIC); a First Officer (FO), acting as co-pilot; a Second Officer (SO); a second Captain, who was training as a Check Captain (CC); and a Supervising Check Captain (SCC), who was training the CC.

In a media briefing on the day the preliminary report was released, ATSB Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan praised the crew of Qantas Flight 32, stating that the A380 "would not have arrived safely in Singapore" were it not for the actions of the flight crew.   Reading through the ATSB report, it is clear that the entire crew really had their hands full.

Engine Failure

The ATSB report says that the first sign of trouble came during the climb out of Singapore when the crew heard two "almost coincident" loud bangs.  The PIC immediately selected altitude and heading hold on the autopilot control panel, and the aircraft leveled off, however the autothrust system did not reduce power to the engines as expected.  When it became clear that the autothrust system was no longer active, the PIC manually retarded the thrust levels to control the aircraft's speed.

The Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) system displayed an "overheat" warning message for the No 2 engine.  Then all hell broke loose on the flight deck.

Within seconds, the overheat warning changed to a fire for the No 2 engine.  The crew decided to shut down No 2 engine, and "after they had selected the ENG 2 master switch OFF, the ECAM displayed a message indicating that the No 2 engine had failed."

The crew discharged one of the engine's two fire extinguisher bottles, but did not receive a confirmation that it had discharged.  They repeated the procedure and again did not receive the expected confirmation.  They attempted to discharged the second bottle; again they did not receive confirmation that the second bottle had discharged.

The crew reported that they then elected to continue the engine failure procedure, which included initiating an automated process of fuel transfer from the aircraft’s outer wing tanks to the inner tanks.

The crew also noticed that the engine display for the No 2 engine had changed to a failed mode, and that the engine display for Nos 1 and 4 engines had reverted to a degraded mode.  The display for the No 3 engine indicated that the engine was operating in an alternate mode as a result of the crew actioning an ECAM procedure.

Shortly afterward, a flood of ECAM messages began to display.  Quoting from the ATSB report:

The flight crew recalled the following system warnings on the ECAM after the failure of No. 2 engine.

• engines No 1 and 4 operating in a degraded mode
• GREEN hydraulic system -- low system pressure and low fluid level
• YELLOW hydraulic system -- engine No. 4 pump errors
• failure of the alternating current (AC) electrical No. 1 and 2 bus systems
• flight controls operating in alternate law
• wing slats inoperative
• flight controls -- ailerons partial control only
• flight controls -- reduced spoiler control
• landing gear control and indicator warnings
• multiple brake system messages
• engine anti-ice and air data sensor messages
• multiple fuel system messages, including a fuel jettison fault
• center of gravity messages
• autothrust and autoland inoperative
• No. 1 engine generator drive disconnected
• left wing pneumatic bleed leaks
• avionics system overheat

Damage to the Aircraft

Unbeknown to the crew at that time, the No 2 engine's intermediate pressure (IP) turbine had failed.  The turbine disc, blade and nozzle guide vanes separated, ruptured the surrounding casing, and damaged the engine's thrust reverser.  A number of components were ejected, which struck the aircraft.

The leading edge of the left wing was penetrated, resulting in "damage to the leading edge structure, the front wing spar and the upper surface of the wing."

The left wing-to-fuselage fairing also was penetrated, "resulting in damage to numerous system components, the fuselage structure and elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring."

Damaged were "elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring that affected the operation of the hydraulic system, landing gear and flight controls; a number of fuel system components; and the leading edge slat system."

The left wing's lower surface was impacted, "resulting in a fuel leak from the Number 2 engine fuel feed tank and the left wing inner fuel tank."

[Photo Source]

Click here to view all posts about Qantas Flight 32 on Aircrew Buzz.

Qantas Airbus A380 uncontained engine failure: ATSB preliminary report

by B. N. Sullivan

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has released its preliminary report regarding its investigation of the November 4, 2010 uncontained failure of a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on a Qantas Airbus A380 aircraft over Batam Island, Indonesia.  The aircraft (registration VH-OQA), operating as Qantas Flight QF32, was en route from Changi Airport, Singapore to Sydney with five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers on board.  No one on board was injured, but the aircraft sustained substantial damage.  Two people on the ground sustained minor injuries due to falling debris.

The abstract of the ATSB report provides this brief summary of what happened:

Following a normal takeoff, the crew retracted the landing gear and flaps.  The crew reported that, while maintaining 250 kts in the climb and passing 7,000 ft above mean sea level, they heard two almost coincident ‘loud bangs’, followed shortly after by indications of a failure of the No 2 engine.

The crew advised Singapore Air Traffic Control of the situation and were provided with radar vectors to a holding pattern.  The crew undertook a series of actions before returning the aircraft to land at Singapore.  There were no reported injuries to the crew or passengers on the aircraft.  There were reports of minor injuries to two persons on Batam Island, Indonesia.

A subsequent examination of the aircraft indicated that the No 2 engine had sustained an uncontained failure of the Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine disc.  Sections of the liberated disc penetrated the left wing and the left wing-to-fuselage fairing, resulting in structural and systems damage to the aircraft.

As a result of this occurrence, a number of safety actions were immediately undertaken by Qantas, Airbus, Rolls-Royce plc and the European Aviation Safety Agency.  On 1 December 2010, the ATSB issued a safety recommendation to Rolls-Royce plc in respect of the Trent 900 series engine high pressure/intermediate pressure bearing structure oil feed stub pipes.  In addition, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued a Regulation 38 maintenance direction that addressed the immediate safety of flight concerns in respect of Qantas A380 operations with the Trent 900 series engine.  On 2 December 2010, Qantas advised that the requirements of Rolls-Royce plc Service Bulletin RB211 72 G595 would take place within the next 24 hours on engines in place on A380 aircraft currently in service, and before further flight on engines on aircraft not yet returned to service.

The ATSB report, which was issued today, is lengthy and detailed.  I will present some of the details of particular interest to crew members in the next two posts on Aircrew Buzz.  Stay tuned for that.

Meanwhile, here is the link to the landing page on the ATSB website where you can find links to the full text reports; photos; and safety recommendations pertaining to this accident: ATSB Investigation Number:AO-2010-089

[Photo Source]

Bombardier CRJ1000 NextGen gets European and Canadian Aircraft Type Certificates

by B. N. Sullivan

Bombardier Aerospace announced today that its new aircraft, the CRJ1000 NextGen regional jet, has been awarded Aircraft Type Certificates by both Transport Canada and the European Aviation Safety Agency. The 100-seat aircraft is the largest in Bombardier's CRJ Series of regional jets.

According to a press statement issued by Bombardier:

The CRJ1000 NextGen aircraft’s flight test program was conducted from the Bombardier Flight Test Centre in Wichita, Kansas, and the flight test aircraft accumulated approximately 1,400 flight hours in 470 test missions. The prototype CRJ1000 NextGen aircraft, serial number 19991, successfully made its inaugural flight from Bombardier’s facility in Mirabel, Québec on September 3, 2008.

“I do not think anyone 20 years ago would have envisaged how the regional jet would transform the airline industry all over the world,” said Gary R. Scott, President, Bombardier Commercial Aircraft.

“We are proud to have introduced the regional jet and we are proud of our ability to read the market and have larger and more cost-effective regional jets as the market required them. This ability has culminated in the production of the magnificent CRJ1000 NextGen regional jet.”

[Photo Source]

Preliminary NTSB report for the Fairchild C-123K Provider crash in Alaska

by B. N. Sullivan

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued a preliminary report regarding the crash of a Fairchild C-123K Provider in Alaska last month.  The accident occurred on the afternoon of August 1, 2010 when the aircraft impacted terrain at Denali National Park, Alaska.  All three people on board perished in the crash, and the aircraft was completely destroyed.

The aircraft (registration N709RR) was owned and operated by All West Freight, Inc. of Delta Junction, Alaska.  The accident flight, which was conducted under Part 91 rules, originated at the Wolf Lake Airport (4AK6), Palmer, Alaska, and was destined for Unalakleet Airport (PAUN), Unalakleet, Alaska.  No flight plan was filed.  Visual meteorological conditions prevailed.

The NTSB's preliminary report about the accident presents factual information about the accident flight, the crash site, and the crew.  No conclusions about probable cause are stated in the preliminary report.

The Accident Flight

According to the NTSB report, the purpose of the flight was to transport a large generator to Unalakleet.  The aircraft reportedly departed Wolf Lake at approximately 14:00L on August 1, 2010.  The pilot was not in contact with air traffic control (ATC) during the flight, and no radar service was provided. 

Quoting from the report:

At 1452, a witness, who was hunting about 10 miles south of Cantwell, Alaska, observed the airplane flying about 300-500 feet high above Parks Highway near mile-marker 195.  The witness, who is a certificated pilot, said the airplane was flying straight and level and headed north toward Denali National Park.  He stated that the landing gear and flaps were retracted and the engines were “really working” and “I felt the air vibrate as the airplane flew by.”

The witness did not observe any smoke trailing from the airplane or anything unusual.  He said the ceiling at the time was approximately 3,500 to 4,000 feet and the surrounding mountains were partially obscured.  The witness took two photos of the airplane and one of the mountain obscuration.  He provided a copy of these photos to the Safety Board, and they properly depict his observations.

Another witness, who was also a private pilot, was eating lunch on the deck at the Crow’s Nest, which is a restaurant on the hillside adjacent to the entrance into Denali National Park.  The witness first observed the airplane flying straight and level from her left to right near the main entrance area to the park.  Everything appeared to be normal.

The witness could not estimate the airplane’s altitude, but said it was in “slow flight” and in a 30 degree nose down descent.  There was no smoke trailing the airplane.  She then observed the airplane pitch straight up near vertical, stall, then roll left, and nose dive toward the ground.  The witness did not see the impact, but saw two large mushroom clouds after she lost sight of the airplane.  The weather at the time was “clear skies with a high ceiling.”  The witness took two photographs of the airplane.  The first photo shows the airplane in straight and level flight.  The second photo was taken several seconds later and showed the airplane inverted in a near vertical descent just above the tree line.

Numerous people observed the airplane flying low and slow over the park before it entered a steep left bank and then nosedive into the ground.  The sound of the engines was loud and an increase in pitch was heard right before impact.  Several of these witnesses also observed that the landing gear was retracted.

The Crash Site

The aircraft impacted wooded terrain near the main road into Denali Park. Quoting again from the report:

The airplane came to rest upright on a 060 degree heading at an elevation of 2,158 feet mean sea level (msl).  The wreckage was confined to an approximately 250-foot by 300-foot-wide area.

A post impact fire consumed most of the cockpit area, fuselage, inboard sections of the wings (around fuel tanks), both flaps, and damaged a majority of the tail section and outboard sections of the wings.  The post impact fire also started a small forest fire around the main wreckage and to an area adjacent to the accident site.

Examination of the airplane revealed that all major flight control surfaces were located at the site, including the two R2800 radial engines and the two jet-assist engines.  Flight control continuity was established for all flight control surfaces to the cockpit.  The left wing (including the aileron)exhibited impact and fire damage as did the right wing and aileron.  The vertical stabilizer, the rudder and rudder trim sustained impact and fire damage and came to rest on top of the cockpit area.  The right horizontal stabilizer exhibited fire and impact damage, and came to rest on top of the right wing.  A section of the right elevator remained attached to the stabilizer, but the fabric had burned away, exposing the metal framework.  The left horizontal stabilizer sustained extensive fire damage, and was found on the left side of the fuselage near where the left wing fuel tank was located.  A small section of elevator remained attached to the stabilizer.

The generator came to rest upright, and was in the center of the wreckage, which was consistent with the location of the cargo bay.  The nose gear was observed just forward and partially under the generator.  The ramp to the cargo bay and the main landing gear came to rest aft of the generator and exhibited fire and impact damage.

Both engines came to rest on their respective sides next to the cockpit. The left engine was upright, but partially buried in the ground and sustained impact and fire damage. A propeller blade remained attached, but was turned 180 degrees in the hub. The blade was intact and if orientated correctly, would be bent forward. The other two blades were buried in a small impact crater just forward of the engine. Both blades had separated at the hub and exhibited extensive leading edge damage and chordwise gouging and scoring. The left jet engine came to rest just forward of the left wing.

The right engine came to rest with the propeller hub buried about 2- 3 feet into the ground and sustained fire and impact damage.  A segment of one of the propeller blades was found on Park Road.  Another section of a blade was found just forward of the right wing, and another section of a blade was found in the impact crater near the propeller hub.  The right jet engine came to rest just aft of the right wing.

The Crew

There were three people on board the aircraft -- two pilots, and another person described by the NTSB as a passenger -- all of whom were fatally injured in the crash.

The pilot in command held a commercial pilot certificate for airplane single-engine land and sea, multi-engine land, rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument airplane. He also held a type rating for the FA-C123, and was restricted to flights conducted under visual flight rules only. As of May, 2010 the pilot reported a total of 20,000 flight hours.

The co-pilot held a private pilot certificate for airplane single and multi-engine land, rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument airplane.

The NTSB notes, "According to the type certificate data sheet (NO. A12NM), the airplane required a minimum of two crew; a pilot and copilot.  However, according to the FAA, the co-pilot was not required to hold a type rating in the airplane but was required to have some training in the airplane."

The investigation is continuing.

Here is the link to the preliminary accident report:  NTSB ID: ANC10FA067

RELATED: Click here to view all posts about the All West Freight C-123K Provider accident on Aircrew Buzz.

FAA grants provisional approval to Boeing for 787 Dreamliner pilot training

by B. N. Sullivan

Boeing will soon begin training pilots to fly the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.  According to a press statement, released yesterday by Boeing, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted provisional approval to Boeing Training and Flight Services for the company's training courses, which will allow pilots currently type-rated on the Boeing 777 to transition to the B787.  The provisional designation will be removed once the aircraft is fully certified.

The transition training can be accomplished in five to 20 days, depending on pilot experience, says Boeing.  The relatively short training period is possible because there is said to be a high level of commonality between the B777 and B787 airplane types, from a piloting perspective.

The airframer is now working with the FAA "to obtain provisional approval of the training devices at which point formal pilot training will commence."

The Boeing 787 pilot training program uses a sophisticated suite of training devices including a full-flight simulator, flight training device and desktop simulation station to ensure that pilots are ready to fly the Dreamliner.

"Gaining FAA approval for our courses is a significant milestone as we ramp up to the start of flight training," said Mark Albert, director of Simulator Services and 787 Training Program, Boeing Training & Flight Services. "It validates our approach to provide world-class training solutions at great value for the 787 Dreamliner."

Boeing training & Flight Services currently operates eight training suites at five locations around the world, including Seattle, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, and Gatwick, UK.

Some individual operators of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner also will have their own training courses for pilots of the new aircraft type.  According to Boeing, local FAA offices will approve those courses, "and these may be based on provisional approvals."



[Photo Source]

Fairchild C-123K Provider lost in Alaska crash was featured in 'Con Air' film

by B. N. Sullivan

Yesterday, a Fairchild C-123K Provider (N709RR), operated by All West Freight, was destroyed in an accident in Alaska, about a mile from the headquarters of Denali National Park. The accident took the lives of all three people who were on board.

It turns out that the accident aircraft had been a movie star. According to information on the website Old Wings, N709RR, (ex 54-0709 msn 20158) was featured as 'Jailbird' in the 1997 action film Con Air, where it was used for all the flying scenes.

For more information about this historic airplane, visit C-123 Providers starring in "Con Air" on the Old Wings website.  Also on Old Wings, you will find a photo of the accident aircraft, parked at All West's airport in Delta Junction, AK in 2006, and a wonderful close-up shot of the aircraft's Large Marge nose art.

More information about the Fairchild C-123K Provider:

• National Museum of the Air Force Fact Sheet
• Wikipedia page, with photos

---

 
UPDATE:  The owner of the Old Wings website has kindly given me permission to post the two photos I linked to above. Note, these are copyrighted photos, used here by express permission from Aad van der Voet, the copyright holder.

Here is N709RR, photographed by Aad at All West Airport, AK on June 11, 2006.

Here is the close-up photo of the "Large Marge" nose art on N709RR.

By way of explanation, the photographer says:

All West Freight's C-123K Provider N709RR is adorned by this "Large Marge" nose art, armed with gun, badge and handcuffs. The signature at the lower left says Steven Pinder, and the red sticker at the upper left is a left-over from the annual air races at Reno, NV. The small print says "Scarlet Screamer IF1 Pylon Air Racer #50" and refers to Birch Entriken's Ivie Cassutt III M air racer (N135R). Reno is where this Provider was based before it came to Alaska in 2004. Photo taken at All West Airport, Delta Junction, AK on 11 June 2006.

Thanks again to Aad van der Voet for these wonderful photos of this historic aircraft.  So sad to know the aircraft will never fly again.

Supersonic Shockwave Phenomena, Breaking the Sound Barrier, Sonic Boom, High-Subsonic Flight

Thanks to AVweb.com for posting this video on YouTube and providing this explanation:

Sound travels at about 760 miles per hour, or 340 meters per second and about 661 knots on an average day at sea level. And sometimes, you can almost see it. Going close to that speed through air can cause some unusual visual effects. This compiled footage includes F-14s, standard and Blue Angels F-18s, plus the SR-71 and an Atlas Rocket launch. AVweb contacted sources at NASA to research the phenomena.

Enjoy!

If the video does not play or display properly above, click here to view it on YouTube.

Photo: Boeing 787 in flight over Seattle

by B. N. Sullivan

This may be one of the best photos yet of Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner: here she is in flight over Seattle. It was posted earlier this week on Randy Tinseth's blog, Randy's Journal. (Randy, in case you don't know, is vice president, marketing, for Boeing Commercial Airplanes.)

Randy said:

"I can’t think of a better way to kick off the year than with some spectacular air-to-air photos of the continuing flight testing of the 787 Dreamliner."

I have to agree.

This photo shows "ZA001 bathed in sunset light over downtown Seattle."

Visit Randy's Journal for more photos, including downloadable enlargements.

[Photo Source]

---

RELATED:

• Big day for Boeing: The B787 Dreamliner flies! - AircrewBuzz.com, Dec. 15, 2009
• The test pilots who flew Boeing's 787 Dreamliner on her maiden flight - AircrewBuzz.com, Dec. 17, 2009

Tis the season... for de-icing

by B. N. Sullivan

A wicked snowstorm in the eastern United States caused the cancellation of many hundreds of flights today. Several airports closed while snow removal got underway, and at others, air traffic was greatly reduced.

'Tis the season for snow in the northern hemisphere. We all can bet that there's a lot more snow to follow before Spring returns.

Earlier this month I left Denver International Airport (DIA) in the middle of a snowstorm. The accumulation was not enough to cripple the airport, but early morning departures required de-icing. Fortunately DIA is used to snow, and well equipped to handle it. Here are a couple of photos I shot on the de-icing pad at DIA on the morning of December 8, 2009. I had a pretty good view from my exit row window seat on a United Airlines Boeing 767. [Click on the photos for a larger view.]

The first photo shows a United Airlines Boeing 757 being sprayed with de-icing fluid.



And then it was our turn.



I wish all the readers of Aircrew Buzz a safe winter flying season. Stay warm!

The test pilots who flew Boeing's 787 Dreamliner on her maiden flight

by B.N. Sullivan

When the Boeing 787 Dreamliner made its long-awaited first flight earlier this week, Capt. Mike Carriker, pictured at right, was commanding the aircraft. Capt. Carriker is Boeing's chief pilot for the 787 program. In the Dreamliner cockpit's right hand seat was Capt. Randy Neville, pictured below.

An article about the 787's first flight on Wired.com's Autopia blog profiles the two pilots this way:

Boeing brought in two of its best for the 787’s first flight. Carriker is chief pilot on the 787 program and was a Navy pilot before joining Boeing in 1990. He’s made more than 300 carrier landings flying the A-7E Corsair and F/A-18 Hornet. In addition to flying the 787, Carriker was a chief test pilot on the 737 program and the assistant project pilot on the X-32 Joint Strike Fighter program when Boeing was competing for the contract. He also is checked out in the 1933 Boeing 247D, the company’s first all-metal airliner.

Air Force veteran Randy Neville flew in right seat for the first flight. Neville spent 20 years flying F-106 Delta Darts and F-16 Fighting Falcons. He is a graduate of the USAF Test Pilot school and went on to weapons testing in the F-4 and F-16. Neville also flew the F-22 Raptor while at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

About the flight

On December 15, 2009 at 10:27 local time, the new aircraft departed Paine Field in Everett, WA on its maiden flight. Carriker and Neville kept the aircraft aloft for about three hours, testing some of the Dreamliner's systems and structures, while on-board equipment recorded and transmitted real-time data to a flight-test team at Boeing Field. They took the aircraft to an altitude of 13,200 feet (4,023 meters) and an air speed of 180 knots, or about 207 miles (333 kilometers) per hour -- which Boeing says is customary on a first flight. At about 13:33 local time, the 787 landed for the time at Seattle's Boeing Field.

Upon landing, the pair of pilots participated in a news conference about the first 787 flight. Both seemed enthusiastic about the aircraft and the experience of flying it (and who wouldn't?!).

Carriker, replying to a question, said, "Is it a relief? Yes. Would I like to go get another 20,000 pounds of gas and good weather and go again? You bet I would. Make that about 80,000 pounds of gas."

Neville said, "The airplane flew great. There were no surprises and the airplane did exactly as we were expecting -- and that's goodness from the pilot viewpoint."

Neville talked about the progression of the flight: "We took off with flaps 20, the normal take off setting and we stayed there for quite a ways. We were at flaps 20 for the bulk of the mission, that was with the gear down. We ultimately got to flaps 30, we cycled the landing gear, that was a big point we wanted to do. We brought the gear up then we both breathed a big sigh of relief when we put it back down and it came down properly."

In addition to the aircraft itself, a highlight for Carriker turned out to be the scenery from his 'office window': "We popped out of the top of the clouds at about 7,000 feet and there was the snow-capped Olympics, the Straits of San Juan, all framed in the front left window of a 787 at 10,000 feet. That image will be in my mind for the rest of my life."

By the way, they greased the landing at Boeing field, and rolled out straight down the runway's center line.

According to Boeing, the 787's first flight marks the beginning of a flight-test program that will see six airplanes "flying nearly around the clock and around the globe," with the first 787 scheduled for delivery in the fourth-quarter 2010. Like the first aircraft, three more of the 787s in the test program will be powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines,while two will be powered by General Electric GEnx engines.

Congratulations to Mike Carriker, Randy Neville, and all the folks at Boeing for the successful first flight of the beautiful new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

UPDATE Jan. 4, 2010: Michael Carriker, the pilot in command of the first flight of the Boeing 787, was interviewed recently for EAA Radio. He talked about "the 787, test flying, belonging to EAA, and if it's possible to put a Hatz biplane on floats." In case you missed it on the EAA Web site, here is the link to the MP3 audio file of the EAA interview with Michael Carriker.

[Photo Source]

Big day for Boeing: The B787 Dreamliner flies!

by B. N. Sullivan

Today, December 15, 2009, was historic. I don't know about you, but I spent hours watching TV and live webcasts earlier today as the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner took off for the very first time. While the world watched, the Dreamliner began its takeoff roll at Paine Field in Everett, WA. I have to admit that I got a bit choked up as Boeing's newest commercial aircraft rotated and lifted off the runway for the first time. The time was 10:27 AM local time.

The weather was not the best -- drizzly and overcast -- but the graceful looking aircraft climbed out as if it were a sunny day, carried out its long-anticipated maiden flight, and returned to earth for a picture perfect landing at Seattle's Boeing Field at 13:33 local time.

From the Boeing press release about the event:

787 Chief Pilot Mike Carriker and Capt. Randy Neville tested some of the airplane's systems and structures, as on-board equipment recorded and transmitted real-time data to a flight-test team at Boeing Field.

After takeoff from Everett, the airplane followed a route over the east end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Capts. Carriker and Neville took the airplane to an altitude of 15,000 feet (4,572 meters) and an air speed of 180 knots, or about 207 miles (333 kilometers) per hour, customary on a first flight.

According to Boeing, the first Boeing 787, which is powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, will be joined in the flight test program in the coming weeks and months by five other 787s, including two that will be powered by General Electric GEnx engines.

Congratulations to Boeing and all those involved with the 787 Dreamliner program on the successful first flight of this beautiful new airplane.

In case you missed the live event, here is a video of the Boeing 787's first takeoff from Paine Field (video provided by AirlineReporter):

If the video does not play or display properly above, click here to view it on YouTube.

RELATED:

• The test pilots who flew Boeing's 787 Dreamliner on her maiden flight - AircrewBuzz.com, Dec. 17, 2009
• Photo: Boeing 787-8 in flight over Seattle - AircrewBuzz.com, Jan. 6, 2010

Gulfstream's new G650 business jet completes maiden flight

by B.N. Sullivan

It was an exciting day in Savannah: The new Gulfstream G650 completed its first flight. The the ultra-large-cabin, ultra-long-range Gulfstream G650, the newest and fastest business jet produced by Gulfstream Aerospace, took off from Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport at 1:41 p.m. local time today, and landed 12 minutes later.

At the controls of the aircraft (N650GA) were Gulfstream experimental test pilot Jake Howard and senior experimental test pilot Tom Horne. Also on board was flight engineer Bill Osborne.

“We are pleased to announce that the G650 successfully completed its first flight today,” Pres Henne said in a statement to the press. Mr. Henne is senior vice president, Programs, Engineering and Test, at Gulfstream.

“Systems were fully operational. The aircraft achieved an altitude of 6,600 feet and a speed of 170 knots. Flight controls and characteristics performed as expected. We consider this flight a success and look forward to pursuing our full flight-test plan,” Henne said.

The crew reported "a slight vibration in a landing-gear door," so they cut the flight short from the original plan as a precautionary measure.

The Gulfstream G650 was formally rolled out of the hangar under its own power for the first time on September 29, 2009. (Here is a link to the video of the G650 rollout.)

According to information provided by Gulfstream:

The G650 offers the longest range at the fastest speed in its class. Powered by best-in-class Rolls-Royce BR725 engines, the business jet is capable of traveling 7,000 nautical miles at 0.85 Mach and has a maximum operating speed of 0.925 Mach.

Its 7,000-nautical-mile range means the G650 can fly nonstop from Dubai to Chicago.

With an initial cruise altitude of 41,000 feet at 0.85 Mach, the G650 can climb to a maximum altitude of 51,000 feet and avoid traffic and inclement weather.

With its all-new aerodynamically optimized wing, the G650 can meet the latest takeoff certification requirements. At maximum takeoff weight, the aircraft can depart from a 6,000-foot runway.

Additionally, notes Gulfstream, the G650 features the PlaneView™ II cockpit, the most advanced flight deck in business aviation, and an Advanced Health and Trend Monitoring System (AHTMS) to support aircraft maintenance planning and enhance availability.

Sounds like quite a cool airplane!

Here is a link to Gulfstream's G650 Web page where you can find several photos of the aircraft, and a video of its first flight.

[Photo Source]

Cessna's Citation Sovereign qualifies for operations between Los Angeles and Honolulu

by B. N. Sullivan

The Cessna Aircraft Company recently announced that Citation Sovereign Part 135 operators will now be able to conduct certain over-water flights, specifically Los Angeles to Hawaii, without requiring FAA Extended Operations (ETOPS) approval.

According to Cessna, analysis proves the aircraft can fly 1,022 nautical miles -- just over halfway between Hawaii and Los Angeles -- in less than 180 minutes at the engine-out flight profile. To qualify for the ETOPS exemption, a passenger aircraft flying with an engine out must never be more than 180 minutes from a suitable airport.

Technical details, provided by Cessna:

Cessna Engineering conducted an analysis using worst case weight and determined the Model 680 Sovereign is capable of traveling a distance of 1,022 nm in 180 minutes (under standard conditions in still air) after an engine failure. This analysis is based on a sea level takeoff at maximum takeoff weight (30,300 lbs), a direct climb to 43,000 feet using the Operating Manual multi-engine climb profile, followed by cruise at maximum cruise thrust.

At the engine failure point (1022 nm into the trip and weight of 26,209 pounds) the airplane drifts down using the Operating Manual drift down procedures to the drift down altitude. Upon reaching the drift down altitude, the airplane then descends at a rate of 3,000 fpm at a speed of VMO/MMO – 10 knots to 25,000 feet.

At 25,000 feet, the aircraft levels and cruises using maximum continuous thrust until starting the final descent to the diversion airport. The final descent is flown at a rate of 3,000 fpm and VMO -10 knots from 25,000 feet to 10,000 feet and then at 250 KIAS at idle thrust until reducing speed for landing.

This profile will support several of the over-water missions Sovereign operators desire to fly. The key in planning missions of this type is to maintain a maximum 1,022 nm or smaller radius from a suitable landing airport.

The operational guidance for this procedure will be included in the next revision (Revision 8) of the 680 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) due out in early 2010.

“This is a response to customer requests for help in meeting this profile as L.A. to Honolulu is sure to be a popular route with Cessna’s charter operators,” said Roger Whyte, senior vice president, Sales & Marketing.

[Photo Source]

Boeing 777-300ER in OneWorld livery delivered to Cathay Pacific Airways

by B. N. Sullivan

Boeing has just delivered a new B777-300ER aircraft to Singapore-based leasing company BOC Aviation and its customer, Cathay Pacific Airways. The plane is Cathay Pacific's 12th B777-300ER, and its 29th 'triple-7' -- but this one is painted with a special OneWorld livery. The special livery commemorates 10th anniversary of the OneWorld alliance, of which Cathay is a member.

According to Boeing, the B777-300ER is 19 percent lighter than its closest competitor, greatly reducing its fuel requirement. It produces 22 percent less carbon dioxide per seat and costs 20 percent less to operate per seat. The airplane can seat up to 365 passengers in a three-class configuration and has a maximum range of 7,930 nautical miles (14,685 km).

Cathay Pacific is one of 11 airlines and 21 affiliate airlines that make up the OneWorld alliance.

[Photo Source]

Ta daa! JetBlue unveils new livery

by B. N. Sullivan

JetBlue unveiled its new livery this evening in a ceremony at Orlando. They are calling the tailfin design 'Blueberries' (but I think it looks more like blue soap bubbles).

According to a series of tweets on @JetBlue's Twitter feed, the Blueberries design will be applied to several more planes and "the larger logo will roll out as planes need repainting and Blueberries tailfin will be added to the fleet with the others."

The photo here came from JetBlue's Flickr feed. There are lots more photos there from tonight's livery unveiling ceremony. Go there to have a look at the rest of the new aircraft paint job, too.

We'll all be watching for the Blueberries now.

Video: Gulfstream G650 Roll-out at Savannah

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation's new Gulfstream G650 ultra-large-cabin, ultra-long-range business jet rolled out of the hangar under its own power on September 29, 2009 at Gulfstream's Savannah, Ga., headquarters.

If the video does not play or display properly above, click here to view it on YouTube.

Hat tip to YouTube user AvionicsVideos for posting the G650 video.

Hello G650, Gulfstream's new flagship business jet

by B.N. Sullivan

On September 29, 2009, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation ceremoniously rolled out its new flagship aircraft, the G650. Nearly 7,000 invited guests were present at the Gulfstream Aerospace plant in Savannah as the new ultra-large-cabin, ultra-long-range business jet was officially introduced. Scheduled for delivery to customers in 2012, the twin-engine G650 will be Gulfstream's largest and fastest (and most expensive) aircraft.

“We’ve all been looking forward to this day since we officially announced the G650 program last year,” said Joe Lombardo, executive vice president, General Dynamics Aerospace group. “Simply put, the Gulfstream G650 is in a class by itself. I want to thank everyone who made this aircraft possible. I share the tremendous amount of pride you have for this significant piece of aviation history. Like you, I am eagerly awaiting the first flight later this year.”

According to information provided by Gulfstream, the G650 will offer the longest range, fastest speed, largest cabin and the most advanced cockpit in the Gulfstream fleet. The G650 is capable of traveling 7,000 nautical miles at 0.85 Mach and has a maximum operating speed of 0.925. That near-supersonic speed will make it the fastest civil aircraft flying.

The G650 can climb to an altitude of 51,000 feet, allowing it to avoid traffic and inclement weather. One can only imagine the view from the 'office window' at that altitude!

"The G650 offers unprecedented speed and range, superb takeoff performance, an all-new Gulfstream wing, best-in-class Rolls-Royce BR725 engines, and top-of-the-line aesthetics. It provides the most technologically advanced flight deck in business aviation with the PlaneViewTM II cockpit and an advanced aircraft health and trend monitoring system to support aircraft maintenance planning and improve availability," said Pres Henne, Gulfstream senior vice president, Programs, Engineering and Test.

Then there is the wider, taller cabin, featuring an all-new fuselage cross section. The G650 cabin measures 102 inches wide and 77 inches high, and is said to be the largest purpose-built cabin in business aviation. The extra space allows for larger galleys and lavatories -- and speaking of lavatories, the G650 has a vacuum toilet system. The larger fuselage also offers increased storage space and in-flight access to 195 cubic feet of usable volume in the baggage compartment.

The aircraft, which seats 11-18 passengers, has 16 panoramic windows that measure 28 by 20.5 inches, the largest in the industry. By the way, I noticed two over-wing emergency exits in a photo of the port side of the aircraft (not shown here).

"Along with traditional measures of aircraft performance, significant effort has been spent in ensuring the cabin will be in a class by itself. The Gulfstream Cabin EssentialTM systems include redundant fiber optic and wireless technologies, along with the latest innovations in lighting, seating, acoustics and cabin systems to provide the most productive cabin environment in business aviation," said Henne.

The first flight of the new G650 is scheduled for later this year and Gulfstream expects the G650 to be certified in 2011. Entry-into-service is planned for 2012.

[Photo Source]

Evergreen International's fire-fighting Boeing 747-100 Supertanker

You may have seen news clips on TV about the Very Large Aerial Tanker (VLAT) aircraft that are currently in use to fight the wildfires that are raging in California. These DC-10 and B-747 aircraft, operating under a supplemental type certificate, drop fire retardant material to assist in controlling large fires. They are operated by private companies under contract to the U.S. Forest Service.

One of those aircraft is the Boeing 747-100 Supertanker operated by Evergreen International. According to information provided by the company:

The multi-role B747 Supertanker is the largest tanker aircraft available today. With a payload of more than 20,000 gallons and a response time of 600 mph, it has more than eight times the drop capability and twice the speed of any other federal air tanker currently fighting fires. The Supertanker’s patented pressurized system has the capability to disperse product at high pressure for an overwhelming response, or disperse at the speed of falling rain in a single or several segmented drops. This pressurized system will also allow for drops at higher altitudes, creating a significant safety buffer and enabling the Supertanker to fight fires during the day and at night, when they are most vulnerable.

The video below shows some demonstration flights of Evergreen International's B747-100 Supertanker.

If the video does not play or display properly above, click here to view it on YouTube.

For more detailed information about both the B-747 and DC-10 tanker aircraft and their use in aerial fire suppression, see USFS Very Large Aerial Tanker Operational Test and Evaluation, a 24-page report ('pdf' file).