This flight attendant is an extremely good sport. I suspect that if this had happened on a US legacy airline, the aircraft would have diverted and everyone arrested.
When I saw the 787 land at the Farnborough Airshow, I was very impressed at how fast and cleanly it stopped. Even if it was relatively empty. So I found a few videos of aircraft making impressive stops around the world.
The 787 at Farnborough and courtesy of FlightGlobal.
South African Airways 747SP – notice how narrow the landing runway was.
We often read stories about companies and businesses going green and being happier for it. We see governmental regulations aimed at being cleaner “emitters” and taxes and credits being structured to force people to be pollute less. A few years ago, the airline industry was being targeted by various “green” groups for being big polluters and being particularly damaging to the atmosphere.
So, is going green really good?
As matter of fact, it is. At least for the airline industry. One reason you see a variety of airlines embracing the idea of being “green” and becoming involved in a variety of experiments is that, for the airline industry, almost every “green” effort translates into cost savings for the airline.
American Airlines discovered several years ago that by being just a little bit more proactive in their engine maintenance, they could extract a 1 to 2% gain in fuel efficiency. Less fuel burned translates into less emissions in the atmosphere.
Several airlines have participated in experimental flights using various “bio” fuels to see what does work and how well it works. Interestingly enough, several of those experiments have revealed that the “bio” fuels often are *more* efficient than the petroleum based fuels. They have more “energy” and therefore an aircraft burns less fuel per mile using the bio fuel. We only lack the technology to mass produce some of these fuels at a cost effective price.
Other airlines have been experimenting with continuous descent approaches to airports. In the simplest sense, this is an airliner “gliding” from the top of its cruise altitude all the way to the runway. Currently, airlines have to make “step” approaches to airports where they lose a few thousand feet of altitude and wait. Then they are cleared to another lower level and when they reach that, they wait. This results in a lot of throttle “jockeying” that wastes fuel. Continuous descent approaches have been shown to reduce emissions by *tons* on a long haul flight. And they are one reason why airlines are embracing the idea and pushing on the FAA hard to find ways to employ these at airports.
Every time an engine manufacturer manages to eek out another 1 to 3% fuel efficiency these days, the gains aren’t just in reduced fuel burn but also in reduced toxic emissions. Essentially, these gains come from burning fuel more completely and the more completely the fuel is burned, the fewer toxic emissions that result.
Some airlines have discovered that just by washing their aircraft a little bit more results in a little less drag and that results in a little less fuel burn which then results in fewer emissions. Others have figured out that aircraft sitting at gates running their APU (Auxiliary Power Unit aka a small jet fuel engine producing electrical and hydraulic power) units is wasteful. Now they hook up ground power and ground airconditioning to the aircraft and that means fewer emissions. Running a jet fuel engine to produce power on the ground results in lots of dirty emissions and its wasteful of fuel.
Every “green” movement in the airline industry yields costs savings. In this industry, even tiny savings on a per mile basis can result in millions of dollars saved every year. That’s why you don’t hear about airlines protesting about being pushed towards being more efficient and less polluting. The same is true for aircraft manufacturers and engine makers: every effort made in this area means their customers save money. A customer that can save just a few dollars per flight using your equipment potentially saves millions of dollars each year and that’s a huge sale advantage.
At the end of the day, being “green” has literally no downside for the airline and it’s a model industry for looking at ways to embrace it further.
You’ve never heard of David Warren, have you? Well, Mr. Warren was the inventor of the flight recorder. The so called “black box” that is actually painted flourescent orange on most aircraft today. Mr. Warren passed away last week in his native Australia. You can see a photo of him HERE.
Mr. Warren, a radio and electronics nut, was invited to participate in a probe about one of the first jetliner crashes in the world and during that probe, he suggested that with a recording of what was going on in the cockpit, finding out what happened would be a lot easier and much more accurate.
His first prototype was capable of recording about 4 hours of voice and cockpit instrumentation. After a few years, his invention was being installed on virtually every modern aircraft. I would argue that this invention has contributed more to safety than any other single invention in the industry. Flight voice and data recorders have made it possible to find out exactly what happened prior to a crash and attribute an accurate cause of a wreck instead of leaving it up to speculation.
And how many times have we found out something else entirely was happening during an event versus what popular speculation focused on? All the time. There is no doubt that the things we have learned from his invention have improved air safety by an order of magnitude.
Rest in Peace, Mr. Warren, and thank you very much.
I’m still a bit in awe deep down inside that an aircraft of this size can take flight. Not only take flight but fly as many as 500 people for as much as 8000 miles. It really is a wonder. Here are some videos about the A380:
A380 Crosswind Landing in Iceland
The A380 Brake Test (laboratory)
The A380 lands hard in Oshkosh, Wisconsin
The A380 lands at JFK airport the first time.
First A380 landing at LAX airport.
And the first landing of the A380 at London Heathrow airport.
It’s hard to find any video on the Boeing 727 that is truly interesting. That’s a shame because if there is one commercial airliner that lights my fire more than any other it is the 727. I’m prejudiced, however, because it’s the aircraft I flew for hundreds of thousands of miles as a child and teenager when my father was an executive at Braniff International.
Designed in the early 1960’s, the idea was to meet requirements for the trunk airliners in the United States which were pretty diverse. Eastern Airlines wanted more than 2 jets so it could fly overwater routes longer than 60 minutes. United wanted superior takeoff performance because of its flights to and from Denver. American Airlines (and most other trunk airlines) wanted 2 engine efficiency. The three engined 727 answered all of the requirements.
It would suprise most people to learn that it was the 727 that long held the record for most aircraft built and its production spanned 20+ years with 3 basic variants. The original 727-100 (seating about 150 people), the 727-200 (seating about 180 people) and the 727-200 Advanced which seated the same number of people but had better range and take-off performance over the original -200.
To me, the aircraft always had the same sex appeal that a sports car has. It was sleek, slow the to ground and the very swept wings had a very racy look. This aircraft, in all 3 forms, was the mainstay of the Braniff International fleet from the mid-1960’s until the early 1980’s and the time I spent on them remains a very fond memory. Despite the fact that Boeing’s cabins from the 707 to the 757 are all the same in width and basic configuration, the 727 always seemed a bit “bigger” and “wider” to me. Indeed, the only aircraft that feels similar to me is the 757.
Designed with a clean wing and the ability to produce a lot of “lift” at low speeds, the 727 had a fairly high sink rate that caught several early 727 captains off guard resulting in accidents. One captain said “You didn’t try to grease the landing, you just flew it into the ground. If you did have a smooth landing, it was a complete accident.”
Its take-off performance was equally fun. A take-off resulted in being pushed *very* firmly back into your seat and then a very high angle of attack seemed to shoot you into the sky. It was noisy too. It was really, really noisy and I must say that it was these jets that really caused a lot of the pushback on aircraft noise. Many younger people marvel at how loud a MD-80 aircraft sounds on take-off. The 727 was far louder than that.
The 727 was also fast. Of course, in its hey day, pilots didn’t worry too much about fuel either. Nonetheless, it cruised at a far higher speed than is typical of today’s mainline domestic aircraft. I frequently flew between DFW and Chicago in the 1970’s, for instance, and that trip, gate to gate, was at or just shy of 2 hours flat. I also frequently flew between DFW and PDX nonstop and those flights were often done in at little as just over 3 hours. Today, those same flights take nearly 4 hours on an MD-80.
Its undoing was the 3-man cockpit and the 3 jets it had. I think airlines could have survived the 3 jets a bit longer but the 3 man cockpit wasn’t a tolerable condition anymore and airlines looked elsewhere. It’s next generation development was the 757 but I think it’s unfair to refer to it in that way as the 757 is clearly more than just another evolution.
Here are a couple of videos that I did find interesting and I hope you do too.
Delta says goodbye on its last 727 flight.
The restoration of the 1st 727, N70001U.
A Boeing 727 Rocket Assisted Take Off (RATO) Test.
USA Today’s Today in the Sky blog reported on an American Airlines flight attendant who stepped in as a First Officer on a 767 flight when the regular First Officer was suddenly afflicted with severe stomach flu-like symptoms. You can read the story HERE.
According to American Airlines, protocol is to search for off-duty AA pilots first and then the next best alternative. Flight attendant Patti DeLuna (61) was qualified as a commercial pilot some time ago and while her pilot’s license wasn’t current, she was able to help fill in for the ill first officer. The plane landed without incident.
American points out that it is perfectly possible to land the 767 with one pilot and I’m sure that Ms. Fagan helped the captain of the flight with his checklists and monitored speed and altitude during the landing. American Flight 1612 was flying from San Francisco to Chicago on Monday, June 14th.
It really is just like something out of the movies.
Southwest Airlines discovered dozens of human heads being shipped by someone at their Little Rock, Arkansas operation and seized them. Southwest contacted local authorities, including the county coroner who are investigating. The heads were being shipped to a local firm in the DFW area. You can read the MSNBC.Com story HERE.
I can only imagine the reaction of the cargo handlers when they discovered what was in the package(s).
Teenage girl Abby Sunderland set off two emergency beacons after her boat’s mast was removed in heavy weather yesterday. You can read details HERE.
The rather interesting part of this rescue operation, to me, was that she was located and contacted after a QANTAS A330 was chartered and sent to find her. No coast guard aircraft could make that trip and very few (if any) military aircraft in that part of the world would have been capable of doing it. An empty A330 could do it easily (it was about a 9 hour trip total). The pilots of the aircraft were able to communicate with Ms. Sunderland when she used her marina radio.
Update 6/10/2010 at 11:00am CDT: I sent 2 emails yesterday afternoon to American Airlines’ Public Relations department and while I got several odd “out of office” emails back, no one yet has responded to my inquiry on whether or not they plan to comment or react to this video.
Original post:
So, I found this video this yesterday evening:
The real lesson in all of this is for American Airlines. You never know *who* is flying on your airline and *who* your employees are potentially harming or lying to on any one day. It might be some powerless schmo and it might be a powerful executive. Even worse, it might be someone with pretty good graphic skills and who knows how to both tell a story and edit a video that goes viral beyond an airline’s worst dreams.
The guy will probably gets some satisfaction from this. Probably a new bike and based on what I saw, that’s probably a $2000+ bike. But the cost isn’t the bike. The cost is the PR nightmare that this will become over the next few days when this video truly goes viral worldwide. And it’s good enough to do so. The cost of everyone at AA now scrambling to deal with this will far exceed the cost of the bike and their efforts won’t fully repair the image problem.
You can read more about the author’s problems at NYC Aviation.
4 days of vacation and not reviewing anything to do with the airlines (or defense industry or the oil leak in the gulf) and it was quite relaxing.
Right. Well, I see British Airways and Unite still haven’t got their act together. These two desperately need binding arbitration. British Airways needs it in order to bring back a degree of certainty to their operations. Unite needs it to, well, preserve some semblance of the idea that they “won” something. British Airways is winning this conflict now. They’re winning it in public opinion and they’re winning it when it comes to employee viewpoints. For Unite to continue without a deal only weakens them week by week.
I see that all kinds of politicians are questioning details of the Continental / United merger. Oddly enough, many of them are from Texas and those folks are questioning the wisdom of Houston losing the Continental HQ. Well, so do I but for vastly different reasons. Houston is not going to be dimished as a hub nor is it going to lose many jobs. In fact, I suspect they won’t lose any jobs in terms of “count” but I do think there will be transitions and changes. This is a prestige objection on the part of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. She lost the race for the Republican nomination for Governor in Texas and she desperately needs to appear to be looking out after “the people” in Texas if she expects to keep her seat in the Senate.
I simply think it is stupid to move HQ to Chicago because it is fantastically more expensive there. That’s all.
I saw a few stories about Australian airline JetStar adopting the iPad for inflight entertainment. And, unlike most bloggers on the airline industry, I don’t care really. I don’t see it as an industry trend, I don’t see it as unwise and I don’t think it’ll be but a blip on the airline horizon. iPads are cool and probably cheap to deploy. Oh, and you can deploy them quickly too. Will it be a trend? I doubt it but I don’t care. I really don’t.
Boeing refuses to say whether or not they’ll bring a 787 to the annual flightshow in England this year in Farnborough. They say they’ll make that decision closer to the show. I say they would be insane not to give their customers a taste. If they’re refusing to say, it may only be because they don’t know if their GE equipped test planes will fly their first flights on time. Still, if I were to be money on an outcome, I’d be betting that ZA001, the first to fly, will be there all shiny and spiffy. Maybe they’ll bring ZA003 which has seats. One way or another, I’m betting there is a 787 at Farnborough.
I refuse to talk about the person(s) who were left on United aircraft over the past few weeks.
It’s been over a month since the new “tarmac rules” have been in place. Am I the only one to notice only the soft sounds of crickets so far? We’re 1 month into the thunderstorm season and nary a peep from anyone except Kate Hanni of FlyerRights.Org who wants rules in place to keep airlines from being punitive against people who want off an aircraft. Actually, I somewhat support the notion but I think Kate Hanni is the wrong supporter for such a measure. She’s got too much mud on her.
