Nose wheel steering problem? February 16, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, Italian Air Force, Military Aviation, non-military aviation.Tags: A-319, A-320, Aeronautica Militare, Airbus, Airbus 320, AMI, Aviation Safety, AWE2811, B747, emergency landing, HH-3F, ItAF, Italian Air Force, landing gear, Military Aviation, non-military aviation, Nose Wheel Steering, NWS, Pratica di Mare
add a comment
When Giovanni Maduli sent me the pictures he took at Pratica di Mare on Feb 13 (that you can find here: http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/pratica-di-mare-130209/), he suggested me to look at the nose landing gear of the HH-3F.
Here’s the picture and a close up:
I don’t know how the HH-3F nose wheel steering (NWS) works, but in most aircraft it is engaged and disengaged using a switch/push-button. Military aircraft have that button on the control stick. The F-16 moves the nose wheel when on the ground using the rudder pedals (and the rudder moves accordingly too). Obviously, the rudder becomes effective only at a certain speed (I think around 70 Knots) so the only way to turn the nose while taxiing is by means of the NWS. Aircraft larger than a fighter (C-130s or B747s just to name but few), have a large tiller on the pilot’s left side to steer the nose landing gear beyond the small deflections provided by the rudder pedals. Since some aircraft use the same switch for multiple functions (steering on the ground, air-to-air refueling door when flying, etc), the aircraft itself base on the actual flight conditions the system that must be activated: for ex. WOW (Weight-On-Wheels), the switch activates the NWS, while, on the air, the switch opens/closes the refueling door.
For sure, when the aircraft is flying, the NWS is disengaged and when the landing gear is lowered, the nose wheel should be centered by the hydraulic pressure of the servo valve.
So, the picture of the HH-3F with the nose wheel in an unsual position made me think that this was a quite frequent emergency for the A-320/319 family. 10 years ago an America West A-320 (it was Feb. 16, 1999), with registration N628AW, flying as AWE 2811 suffered minor damages landing at Port Columbus International Airport (CMH), Columbus, Ohio, with the nose wheels rotated 90 degrees. When the flight crew lowered the landing gear it received a (Landing Gear Control and Interface Unit) fault that after a visual fly-by resulted in nose wheels rotated 90 degrees from the straight direction foreseen for landing. The pilot performed a normal touchdown which was followed by an emergency evacuation from the overwing exits. Nobody of the 31 POB (People On Board) was injured. The NTSB investigation revealed that “the external ‘O’ rings in the steering control valve had extruded and by-passed pressurized hydraulic fluid to rotate the nose wheels. This event had occurred before, and the manufacturer had issued a service bulletin. The operator had not complied with the service bulletin, nor were they required to comply with it.”
In November 2002, both a JetBlue A320 (reg. N503JB) and a United A-319 (N804UA) were compelled to land with the nose wheel perpendicular to the runway and in 2005 many will remember the images (http://www.airliners.net/photo/JetBlue-Airways/Airbus-A320-232/0926274/L/) of the JetBlue A320 (flight 292) performing an emergency landing at Los Angeles International with the nose wheel 90° to the runway.
US Air 1549 vs Tuninter 1153: two differing ending ditchings February 5, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: A320, Aeronautica Militare, Airbus, Airbus 320, aviation accident, aviation crash, Aviation Safety, AWE1549, birdstrike, CHESLEY B. "SULLY" SULLENBERGER, civil aviation, ckecklist, crash landing, ditching, dual engine failure, FQI, Fuel Quantity Indicator, Heathrow crash landing, Hudson crash, Hudson crash landing, Hudson river crash landing, human factor, La Guardia airport, Mayday, N106US, New York, NTSB, Sullenberger, Teterboro, TUI 1153, Tuninter, Tuninter 1153, US1549, USAir
11 comments
Analysing the recent US1549 ditching in the Hudson River (http://cencio4.wordpress.com/tag/awe1549/), I explained that the success in the difficult splash down was the result of a perfect maneuver and luck. Even if I still believe that luck is important to increase survivability in case of emergency, when talking about aviation safety, I believe that it sometimes doesn’t come alone and it is strictly tied to the crew’s airmanship. Capt. Sullenberger perfomed a difficult maneuver he had never attempted before. He was lucky, as the rest of the crew and the passengers were, but the “happy ending” could have been tragic and luck would most probably be enough if “Sully” had not made the right decisions and had not followed the correct procedure. Pilot’s experience, skill and cold blood, are paramount to increase the possibilities of achieving a succesfull crash landing. In order to emphasise this point I will remind you another crash landing, the one of the Tuninter 1153. On Aug 6, 2005, TUI 1153 flight, an ATR-72-200 with registration TS-LBB, enroute from Bari-Palese airport, Italy, to Djerba-Zarzis Airport in Djerba, Tunisia, ran out of fuel and ditched in the Tyrrenhian sea 26 chilometers to the North East of Palermo, Sicily. 16 POB (2 crew members and 14 passengers) died in the accident while 23 survived the crash. The root cause of the crash was an ATR-42 fuel gauge erroneously installed on the ATR-72. Both gauges have the same form factor but they are different as the Fuel Quantity is calculated by processing the signals coming from capacitance probes in the tanks with a specific algortithm that differs from aircraft to aircraft, depending on the shape and size of the tanks. When TUI 1153 departed from Bari, the FQI indicated 2.700 kilograms, while the actual amount of fuel was only 570 kgs. At 15.17′47″LT, 4 minutes before the first engine failed, the crew did not notice the low pressure indication. At 23.000 feet, at 15.21, the aircraft lost the first engine, to be followed by the second at 15.23. The pilot declared an emergency at 15.24 informing Rome Radar that they were diverting to Palermo Punta Raisi airport. The aircraft did not make to Palermo, glided for 14 minutes before ditching at around 15.40. Six Tuninter employee at the time of the disaster were found guilty by the court of Palermo. Among them, Captain and Fist Officer who survived the crash (the only 2 crew member to escape the aircraft of the 4 on board).
Even if the problem was with the gauge, according to the investigation the pilot made a series of mistakes that for sure contributed to the crash and did not help to solve the emergency:
before experiencing the emergency:
- he did not check that the installed FQI was correct (both him and the FO had requested a replacement the day before for a failure, replacement that was performed in Tunis) and working properly
in-flight:
- he ignored the acoustic warning 4 minutes before the first engine quit
- after losing the first and later both engines he started a steep descend instead of gliding smoothly
- there was too much confusion in the cockpit and 10 minutes after the aircraft had lost both engines, the crew had not started the appropriate check list yet
- ditching was not performed as foreseen: the aircraft has an angle of attack comprised between -0,1° and 0,8 even if AOA, according to the manual, had to be of 9°. The Vertical Speed is too high: 13 feet per second instead of the foreseen 5 fps. The approach to the surface of the water was performed with tail wind and not parallel to the waves. In particular, the uncorrect aircraft attitude was the root cause of the violent impact with the water and the subsequent quick deceleration and disintegration of the airframe.
Nobody can say if a ditching performed “as prescribed” would have changed the destiny of TUI 1153. For sure, despite the gauge mistakenly installed on the aircraft, the investigation focused to a large amount of cockpit crew’s errors, which, most probably, cost some human lives. In your opinion, did this ditching fail because of bad luck? In my opinion, it was not a matter of luck (only). Most probably the particular high-wing of the ATR72 (the same of the ATR42) did not help since the floating line was above the cabin (as the following picture of an Alitalia ATR42 shows)
but the captain had some luck (he was flying at high altitude, he could point the ATR72 towards some boats, he had plenty of time to perform the check list and appropriate procedures, he ditched in the warm water of the Tyrrhenian Sea in August) and he simply wasted it.
The following pictures were taken by the Italian Coast Guard a few minutes after the crash landing. According to the autopsies the majority of the dead passenger didn’t survive the crash, but some drowned).
How to go Down Under with an Airbus 380 (saving some money) January 27, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, non-military aviation.Tags: A380, air travel, Airbus, Airbus 380, B747, B777, Boeing 777, civil aviation, commercial aviation, DXB, Emirates, Milan Malpensa, mxp, Rome Fiumicino, Terminal 3
add a comment
The title of this post could be deceiving. I’m not suggesting how to get an Airbus 380 inverted for aerobatic purposes. I was just providing an advice for those who want to visit Australia possibly reaching the Red Continent on board the largest plane on commercial routes (like myself). Emirates has launched some promotional fares to fly towards 4 destinations in Australia: Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. With 950 Euro, it is now possible to fly from Italy to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne in Economy Class with the possibility to perform a stopover in Dubai to visit the town. Starting from next Feb 2, 2009 each Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, all passengers to Sydney will have the oppportunity to travel on board the A380.
Flights to Perth are offered by Emirates at 850 Euro with a stopover in Dubai. Tickets should be purchased within Mar 31, 2009, from one of the tre Emirates airports in Italy: Rome, Milan and Venice. Dealing with Milan Malpensa airport, a second daily flight was added (departure at 21.15LT) to Dubai where connections are managed at the brand new Terminal 3 of Dubai International Airport, that is completely dedicated to the handling of Emirates flights.
US Air 1549 update January 22, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: A320, Airbus, Airbus 320, Aviation Safety, AWE1549, birdstrike, CHESLEY B. "SULLY" SULLENBERGER, civil aviation, ckecklist, crash landing, ditching, dual engine failure, Hudson crash, Hudson crash landing, Hudson river crash landing, La Guardia airport, Mayday, N106US, New York, NTSB, Sullenberger, Teterboro, US1549, USAir
add a comment
During the last days many new details surfaced about the 6 minutes (more or less) of the US Air 1549 that ended with a successful textbook ditching of an Airbus 320 in the cold water of the Hudson river, New York City. First of all, many videos have been released, some of which clearly show the aircraft touching softly the surface of water and stopping a few meters later. I would have expected it to “sail” a few more, but it seems that it came immediately to a stop. The following Youtube video provides views of the touch down from different angles:
For sure, it seems like the A320 has some unexpected amphibious capabilities, especially if you think the pilots had not pushed the Ditching button that closes all the “holes” of the airframe to enhance floating ability of the aircraft at sea (because it was later on the ckecklist they were following and had not time to read it). This is one of the most interesting things that was explained in the last NTSB press conferences on the mishap. The other details deals with the following points:
- The aircraft touched down in the Hudson, where the water depth is around 50 feet. The weight of the plane, filled with water after sinking was about 1 million pounds and for this reason the aircraft had to be lifted by a crane very slowly in order to let the water drain.
- While the right engine is still in its original place, the left one was found some 50 feet below the surface.
- The crew members were the last to evacuate the aircraft and as it was recalled by the survivors, Capt. Sullenberger twice checked the cabin for missing passengers before escaping from the front door that was around 2 or 3 feet above the water level. Among the passengers there was also one lap child and a small one. The crew members were flying the forth leg of a 4 day shift (KPIT-KCLT-KLGA-KCLT).
- Capt. has 3.800 hours on the A320 while the First Officer, that was the initial Pilot Flying just 35. According to what they have recalled, the FO saw birds and shortly later the windscreen was filled by big dark (brown) birds. After experiencing the loss of thrust, the Capt. took the command saying “My aircraft!” then he lowered the nose in order to gain speed (that had reduced for the loss of both engines) while the FO began the Dual Engine flame out check list (and attempting to relight the engines). Turning back to La Guardia was discarded since the Airbus was too low and too slow; Teterboro was too far so the pilot called for Flap 2 and headed for the river trying to land as near to a boat as possible.
Noteworthy, Teterboro was considered too far. I initially thought that the Capt. had not opted for that airport because the runway was too short: actually, the airport has a runway (01/19) that is 2.134 mt long, equipped with ILS and PAPI that could be used by an Airbus 320. But, the runway orientation would have required the US1549 to perform at least a couple of turns to aligh, meaning that the distance for Teterboro could not be covered by the N106US flying without both engines. An Airbus 320 should have a gliding ratio of 17:1. This means that, with no thrust but in the correct configuration, starting from an altitude of 1.000 meters, it could fly for 17 chilometers before reaching the ground. Let’s say that that value is just theoretical and that, in that conditions, the N106US had a gliding ratio of 13:1. Since it was around 1.000 meters it should have been able to cover a distance of 13 chilometers (in straight line, without considering buildings in the overflown area). Using Google Earth I calculated that the distance from the birdstrike position to the airport (without considering any turn) exceeds 15 chilometers. So, Teterboro was indeed too far.
Furthermore, some journalists discovered that the same aircraft, whose registration is N106US, flew the same route as flight US1549 (AWE1549) on Jan 12 and that on Jan 13 it suffered a compressor stall. As it was reported by the CNN, about 20 minutes after departure from La Guardia, the plane “had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte.” Since I have already reported the highlights of the press conference, the fact that the aircraft had a compressor stall on the same route 2 days prior to the dual engine failure is just pure coincidence (even if it is better to wait for the NTSB final report…).
Roland Posnett sent me the link to the full article about US1549 flight of Jan 13, 2009:
Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549
* Story Highlights
* Three say US Airways Flight 1549 nearly made emergency landing earlier last week
* Two days before last week’s crash-landing, passengers report loud bang on flight
* One passenger says he sent a text message to his wife: “I love you”By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost
CNN Special Investigations Unit(CNN) — Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.
Steve Jeffrey of Charlotte, North Carolina, told CNN he was flying in first class Tuesday when, about 20 minutes into the flight, “it sounded like the wing was just snapping off.”
“The red lights started going on. A little pandemonium was going on,” Jeffrey recalled.
He said the incident occurred over Newark, New Jersey, soon after the plane — also flying as Flight 1549 — had taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York.
“It seemed so loud, like luggage was hitting the side but times a thousand. It startled everyone on the plane,” Jeffrey said. “We started looking at each other. The stewardesses started running around. They made an announcement that ‘everyone heard the noise, we’re going to turn around and head back to LaGuardia and check out what happened.’
“I fly about 50 to 60 times per year, and I’ve never heard a noise so loud,” he said. “It wasn’t turbulence, it wasn’t luggage bouncing around. It was just completely like the engine was thrown against the side of the plane. It just — it didn’t shake the plane but it shook you out of the seat when you’re drifting off, it really woke you up. And when it happened again, everyone just started looking at each other and there was a quiet murmuring around the plane, and you could feel the tension rising just in looking.
“I remember turning to my [business] partner and saying, ‘I hope you got everything in order back home, life insurance and everything, because that didn’t sound good.’ “
Jeffrey said he sent a text message to his wife about a “scary, scary noise on the plane. Doesn’t sound right. They’re flying back to LaGuardia to check it out. I’ll call you when we land. I love you.”
He added, “About 10 minutes later when we never made the turn, we kept going, that’s when the pilot came on and explained — I wish I could remember the words — I remember him using air, compression and lock — I’m not sure the right order, but he made it sound like the air didn’t get to the engine and it stalled the engine out, which he said doesn’t happen all the time but it’s not abnormal.”
Expert Aviation Consulting, an Indianapolis, Indiana, private consulting firm that includes commercial airline pilots on its staff, said the plane that landed in the Hudson was the same one as Flight 1549 from LaGuardia two days earlier. PhotoSee images from the rescue in last week’s crash »
“EAC confirms that US Airways ship number N106US flew on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009, with the same flight number of AWE 1549 from New York’s LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte Douglas [International] Airport in North Carolina,” Expert Aviation said in a statement to CNN.
The company said it checked with contacts in the aviation industry to confirm that it was the same plane.
The National Transportation Safety Board released the tail number of the downed Airbus A-320, which is N106US.
NTSB spokesman Peter Knudsen said as part of its investigation into the Hudson River crash, it will be looking at all maintenance activities, but has no indications of any anomalies or any malfunctions in the aircraft, so far in the investigation.
The Federal Aviation Administration referred CNN to US Airways.
US Airways would not confirm that the Flight 1549 that took off January 13 was the same plane that splashed into the Hudson two days later.
Valerie Wunder, a US Airways spokeswoman, said: “US Air is working with the National Transportation Safety Board in this investigation.” She would not comment on any other details, including Tuesday’s flight, though she did confirm US Airways is looking into it.
Jeffrey told CNN that US Airways earlier Monday confirmed to him that the Tuesday incident occurred aboard the plane that crashed.
John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: “About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte.”
In an interview, Hodock said the pilot “got on the intercom and said they were going to have to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport. But then, only five to 10 minutes later, the pilot came back on and said it was a stalled compressor and they were going to continue to Charlotte.”
A third passenger, who did not want her named used, also said she heard a “loud banging sound” on the right side of the plane. She said she heard the pilot say the “compressor for the engine was stalled” and they needed “to turn around and go back.” However, she said, the problem was fixed and the flight continued without incident.
Pilots and aviation officials said that a compressor stall results from insufficient air getting into the engine and that multiple stalls could result in engine damage. However, the officials said, a momentary compressor stall may be less serious and could be corrected in flight by simply restarting the engine.
A bird strike could lead to a compressor stall, the officials said.
All AboutUS Airways Group Inc. • Air Travel
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Is spotting at Rome Fiumicino dangerous? January 20, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: A319, A320, Afriqiyah, Air One, Airbus, Airbus 320, Airbus 321, Airbus 340, airline, airplane, Alitalia, Aviation Safety, B.737, B747, B747-400, B773, B777, Boeing 777, China Airlines, Ethiopian Airlines, FCO, Fiumicino, KLM, LIRF, Lufthansa, MD80, Qantas, Sri Lankan, Thai, Vueling
7 comments
On Jan 18, I went to Fiumicino to watch some aircraft departing from RWY 25. After following the story of the US Air 1549 that performed a successful ditching in the Hudson river shortly after take off from La Guardia airport in NYC, and watching the wide bodies taking off with a low rate of climb in bad weather conditions, some friends and relatives asked me “what if an aircraft has a failure during take off?……Is there any risk taking pictures next to the threshold?”. Actually, even if there has been a certain number of flights experiencing emergencies or failures during or immediately after take off, there were only 2 big accidents involving aircraft taking off from RWY 25 at Fiumicino. Both occurred in 1970′s. On Apr 30, 1970, a Qantas B707-338C registered “VH-EAD” at approximately 05.23 GMT ran off the runway and became bogged in soft sand after performing the take off roll from Rome Fiumicino airport. The aircraft, that was operating as Qantas Flight 755/192, a regular public transport flight from Sydney to London via Hong Kong, New Delhi, Teheran and Rome, was slightly damaged and only one passenger of the 10 crew members and 45 passengers on board suffered minor injuries during the evacuation. According to the ATSB report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1970/AAIR/pdf/197006118.pdf) , although the take off run was started with a wind tail component of 10 kts (the maximum permissible for aircraft type), the accident was caused by an undetected gross misalignment of the nosewheels after line up. When the aircraft accelerated along the runway it swung violently to the left and the pilot could not stop the plane before it overran.
On Nov 19, 1977, an Ethiopian Airlines B707-360C registered ET-ACD, with 5 POB (People On Board) hit treetops after departure from RWY25 and struck the ground 280 mt further on causing the death of all the occupants (3 crew members and 2 passengers).
That said, since the spotting positions are next also to runways that are used for landing (16R is usually used by arriving B747-400s and B777s) and also landing accidents statistics should be analysed, I believe that the risk is extremely low and the nearby “Coccia di Morto” road is much more dangerous than any aircraft departing from Fiumicino airport.
Anyway, approximately 1 hour spent spotting provided the following registrations and a few interesting pictures of the wide bodies taking off in a rainy day from Rome intercontinental airport.
HZ-AKH B777 Saudi Arabian Airlines
I-BIXE A321 Alitalia
I-DATI MD82 Alitalia
EI-DUK CL600 Air One
EI-DOS B737-400 Air One
EI-CWF B737-400 Air One
EI-DSI A320 Alitalia
D-AIRK A321 Lufthansa
B-18806 A340-300 China Airlines
EI-DMR B737-400 Air One
HS-TGM B744 Thai
TS-INA A320 Afriqiyah
I-DANF MD82 Alitalia
4R-ADE A340-300 Sri Lankan
I-BIMF A319 Alitalia
I-BIXA A321 Alitalia
EC-KKT A320 Vueling
YL-BBX B737 Air Baltic
EI-DFH ERJ170 Alitalia
PH-BGB B737-800 KLM
Capt. Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger: the hero of US Air Flight 1549 January 17, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: A320, Airbus, Airbus 320, Airmanship, Aviation Safety, AWE1549, birdstrike, CHESLEY B. "SULLY" SULLENBERGER, civil aviation, crash landing, ditching, dual engine failure, Hudson crash, Hudson crash landing, Hudson river crash landing, La Guardia airport, Mayday, New York, Rome Ciampino, Ryanair, Sullenberger, USAir
13 comments
Until yesterday, if I was asked who was my favorite superhero, I would have answered without any doubt Spider Man. However, the images of an Airbus 320 floating in the Hudson River with the last passengers escaping from the hatches while the majority of them were waiting for rescues on the wings, made me think that, from Jan 15 2009, there’s another superhero “operating” in New York City. As Spider Man has done hundreds times on the Marvel strips, the new hero has saved many people when everything seemed to lead to a catastrophic event: this superhero was piloting an Airbus 320 with a Load Factor next to 100%, full of fuel, at low altitude during the most critical part of the flight when he experienced something that is at least rare in Aviation: a dual engine flame out after multiple birdstrikes. Furthermore, he was overflying one of the most densely populated area of the world with the responsibility of 155 lives. As Spider Man, he succeded. He performed a perfect maneuver. His name is CHESLEY B. “SULLY” SULLENBERGER. Pilots can’t train to ditch an aircraft because ditching effects on the aircraft can’t be predicted. So he’s a hero not because he outstandingly did what he was trained to do but because, thanks to his experience, he coped something that is almost unpredictable. He applied all the main Best Practices for that kind of situation: land parallel to the swells with the gear up to minimize drag with water and prevent nose down momentum tha the landing gear would induce and make a “soft touchdown”. He showedcased AIRMANSHIP not only landing the aircraft safely under pressure: after the aircraft came to a rest, he guided the evacuation and he checked the aircraft cabin twice (while it was sinking) to ensure that there was nobody left behind. As someone claimed: “he epitomized the ‘service before self’ concept”. Obviously his experience and his know how in aviation safety has helped. This 57-year-old captain is a former F-4 pilot with 40 years of flying experience, and has been working for US Air since 1980. He is President and CEO of Safety Reliability Methods Inc., a company he founded to provide emergency management, safety strategies and performance monitoring to the aviation industry. For sure, he was the right pilot in the right place. His resume can be found on both LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/209/118 and on his company’s website: http://safetyreliability.com/about_us (the picture of Capt. Sullenberger come from Safetyreliability.com website).
According to it, “he has served as an instructor and Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) safety chairman, accident investigator and national technical committee member. He has participated in several USAF and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident investigations. His ALPA safety work led to the development of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular. Working with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists, he coauthored a paper on error inducing contexts in aviation. He was instrumental in the development and implementation of the Crew Resource Management (CRM) course used at his airline and has taught the course to hundreds of his colleagues. Sully is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy (B.S.), Purdue University (M.S.) and the University of Northern Colorado (M.A.). He was a speaker on two panels at the High Reliability Organizations (HRO) 2007 International Conference in Deauville, France May 29-31, 2007. He has just been named a Visiting Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley“.
Obviously he was also lucky, and this is important as well. Even if the failure unfolded in such a way the AWE1549 flight could end in a disaster, other surrounding conditions were ideal: just think to the presence of the river (not sea, with waves, but a calm river) nearby, to the shipping traffic in that part of the Hudson that was able to intervene in a few minutes, to the weather conditions that were good, to the cockpit crew that assisted Capt. Sullenberger. Passengers were lucky too since they found a superior pilot in the cockpit and Flight Attendants that where perfectly trained and helped them escape the aircraft.
Emirates to introduce the A380 in the Dubay-Rome-Dubay on Dec 1st 2009 January 8, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, non-military aviation.Tags: A380, air travel, Airbus, Airbus 380, B747, B747-400, B777, Boeing 777, civil aviation, commercial aviation, DXB, Emirates, FCO, Fiumicino, Rome Fiumicino
3 comments
One of the highlights of the 2009 for Rome Fiumicino airport is the expected upgrade of the Emirates EK097/098 DBX-FCO-DBX daily routes from the Boeing B777-300 (B773) to the Airbus A380-800 (A388) effective from Dec 1, 2009. With this upgrade, Rome is going to be the second destination in Europe to receive the “giant” aircraft. So far London Heathrow, with Emirates and Qantas A380s was the only airport in Europe to receive the biggest aircraft in Airbus family.
According to the Emirates.com website, the schedule is the following:
EK97 DXB FCO 09.25 12.45 daily – A380-800
EK98 FCO DXB 14.30 23.00 daily – A380-800
In other words: 5h 30m flight time with 1h 45m turn round.
The flights can be already reserved. I made a test, here’s the screeshot:
The configuration of the aircraft is unknown at present. Emirates has ordered 58 aircraft in three configurations:
489 seats / 3 classes
517 seats / 3 classes
625* seats / 2 classes (some sources reported 644, others 604).
So far, the EK201/202 on the very long range flight DXB-JFK-DXB is in the 489 seats configuration. Same for the EK001/002 of the DXB-LHR-DXB route. Since flight to Rome is shorter it is possible that aircraft in the 517 seats configuration (a long range one) will be used. The two class high-density layout should be used in short range flights.
The arrival of the Emirates A380 in Rome Fiumicino has various meanings: first of all, it reaffirms the interest of Emirates for the Italian market, especially now that Alitalia is so weak and with an uncertain future. Emirates can surely gain an important share of market, especially if Rome will be used as a sort of European hub for other intercontinental destinations that are not currently directly served from Italy. Emirates strategy could be to get passengers from Asia and the Gulf area to Dubai and to fly them to Rome. Same could be for passengers coming from NYC: with a single aircraft, Emirates could perform the JFK-DBX-FCO route with an efficient utilizitation of its A380 fleet.
Someone speculated that an increased capacity to Rome could be achieved with a second daily B777 flight to FCO, however there’s a bilateral issue and the maximum number of weekly flights (7) has been already reached. Furthermore, the A380 has a strong image impact and must be considered as a part of a marketing strategy that focuses on Italy. In these days, an interesting ads has been broadcasted by all the Italian TV channels.
Second is that Rome-Fiumicino is ready (well, it will be ready by Dec 1 2009) to handle the A380. Actually, an A380 has not so many “needs” one might think: it is able to operate on a typical 45 mt wide runway and doesn’t require an extended runway that does a 747-400. It is heavier than a Jumbo but its landing gear has 4 extra wheels that absorbe the weight reducing the stress on the underlying runway and taxiways. Fiumicino hasn’t any taxiway passing above a bridge that would need to be strengthened. However, taxiways must be large enough to ensure that the outboard engines run above an asphalted surface in order to prevent injestion of foreign objects and consequent engine damage (FOD, Foreign Object Damage). At the gate, provided that the distance from the other stands is sufficient (the A380 has a wingspan of 79.8 mt/261 ft), in order to speed boarding and unboarding of passengers, double fingers would be ideal, even if I think that also the “normal” jetways can be used (with longer loading/unloading time). The aircraft is pretty tall, thus servicing vehicles able to reach the aircraft’s top deck must be available. However, despite its colossal shape, the Emirates A380 makes less than half the noise of a 747 and uses 20% less fuel. Its environmental impact is low. Just have a look at the specification page on the Emirates page (http://www.emirates.com/nz/English/flying/our_fleet/emirates_a380/emirates_a380_specifications.aspx):
Most probably, a series of compatibility flights using an Airbus company A380 will be performed in the months preceeding Dec 1, has happened for the other airports expected to receive the aircraft.
Emirates A380 Environmental Facts
* The Emirates A380 burns up to 20% less fuel per seat than today’s largest aircraft
* This is the most significant advancement in reducing fuel burn and emissions in four decades
* Low fuel burn means lower C02 emissions. The Emirates A380 produces less than 75g of C02 per passenger kilometre, almost half of the European target for cars manufactured in 2008
* Emirates A380s will progressively feature digital inflight magazines, entertainment guides and shopping catalogues, saving 2kg per seat or almost one tonne per aircraft
* Emirates A380s, which offers more space per passenger in all classes, will also meet ICAO’s gaseous emissions standards by a substantial margin
* We will comfortably meet current Stage Three and proposed Stage Four noise level standards
* Our new Emirates A380 maintenance facilities in Dubai are state of the art, efficient buildings
* A380s feature lightweight materials that account for 25% of its structure
* Our emissions components – such as NOx – will be well under the regulated ‘cap four’ rule
* Emirates is working with Airbus to further reduce weight of our future A380s
* Larger aircraft mean less takeoff and landings (in passenger terms, some Emirates A380 versions would be the equivalent of flying up to seven smaller aircraft types)
* Emirates average fleet age is less than half that of many European airlines, meaning newer technology and efficiency breakthroughs characterise our aircraft.
Above, Emirates 777 taking off from Rome Fiumicino. Below, EK A380 pictures from Emirates Media website.
Qantas 72 update: faulty data in the ADIRU 1 October 20, 2008
Posted by David Cenciotti in non-military aviation.Tags: A-340, A330, ADIRU, Air China, Air Data Inertial Reference Unit, Airbus, aircraft, airspeed, altitute, Aviation Safety, B744, B747-400, Boeing, CAT, Clear Air Turbulence, in flight emergency, jetstream, plane, Qantas, QF72, turbulence
2 comments
Even if it is too early to have a full explaination of the causes of the Qantas flight QF72 plunge that caused many injuries (see also: “Qantas flight forced to land: is turbulence dangerous?”) the preliminary review of the data recorded by the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) made by the ATSB indicated that the event developed in three steps:
the aircraft was levelled at FL370 when initiated an uncommanded climb of about 200 ft, before returning back (autonomously to 37.000 feet). About 1 minute later, the aircraft pitched nose-down, to a maximum pitch angle of about 8.4 degrees, and plunged about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning again to FL370. Finally, about 70 seconds after returning to the cruising level, it pitched again nose-down, to a maximum angle of about 3.5 degrees, and descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds, before returning once again to FL370. Such a “behaviour” seems to rule out the hypothesis of a CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) and the ATSB is in fact focusing on the faulty data in Air Data Intertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) 1 that “deceived” the aircraft’s flight control system. The ADIRU is an aircraft’s vital system. It feeds other on board key systems (autopilot, engine control system, flight control system, etc) with information about speed, altitude, position and attitude of the plane. On board the Qantas 72 flight, the ADIRU generated false warnings (stall, over-speed, etc) that the flight control’s computer faced with incorrect aircraft movements. The reason for the faulty data is still unclear. Someone pointed to the possible corruption caused by an electronic interference from an onboard portable device (laptop, PDA, tablet pc, etc.). Following the event, the ATSB initial report, Airbus issued recommendations to A330 and A340 operators that are equipped with the same ADIRU, including guidance and checklists for crew response in case of a similar inertial reference system failure.
It was most probably Severe turbulence, to cause the one that caused some injuries on Sept. 20. A China Airlines B747-400 serialled B-18211, flying as CI687 from Taipei to Denpasar, Bali, encountered severe turbolence overflying North Sulawesi. According to the news report, 13 people on board were injured, 8 of whom were taken to hospitals after the aircraft landed in Denpasar. According to the news reports, the aircraft plunged some 3.000 meters. A part of the ATSB media release on QF72, dated Oct. 9, is noteworthy, because underlines something I always say when discussing flight safety and similar accidents:
“….we cannot pre-empt the findings in relation to cabin safety issues and the wearing of seatbelts, but this accident does serve as a salient reminder to all people who travel by air of the importance of keeping seatbelts fastened at all times when seated in an aircraft.”
In the following pictures, some of the aircraft interested by the Airbus recommendations (A330 and A340) and a China Airlines B747-400 photographed in LAX.
The Boeing B767 CTA “delivered” to the Italian Air Force July 2, 2008
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Italian Air Force, Military Aviation.Tags: 14 Stormo, A330, Aeronautica Militare, Airbus, B767, Boeing, EADS, KC-30, KC-45, KC-767A, KC-X, McConnell AFB, Northrop, Pratica di Mare, tanker
add a comment
A white Boeing 767 landed on Jul 1 at Pratica di Mare airport coming from McConnell AFB, Wichita, Kansas. The aircraft, serialled N606TW, according to FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N606TW) flew the following route:
GOSSL MCI J26 IRK J26 JOT J146 GIJ J554 CRL J586 YXU J595 PLB YSC PATTA J509 YQY J575 YYT NOVEP 4800N 05000W 4700N 04000W 4600N 03000W 4400N 02000W BANAL UZ28 DIRMA UM191 DIPOL UH100 CJN UN733 MJV UN851 MHN UM603 ALG UL5 VALMA, with an ETD on Jun 30 at 04:10PM CDT an ETA on Jul 1 at 07:27AM GMT and a cruising speed of 464 Kts at at FL350.
The aircraft is a B767-200 CTA (Commercial Trainer Aircraft) of the Boeing company and it will be used in the next months for training purposes by the Aeronautica Militare in anticipation of the delivery of the first KC-767 tanker (for more details and some pictures: http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/Sitoam/default.asp?idente=1398&idNot=21789&idSez=2&idArg=). After qualifying the pilots of the 8° Gruppo, 14° Stormo, on the B767 aircraft type, the CTA will be used to train the Italian crews in the trasport task until the KC-767A is delivered: the ItAF will in fact use the aircraft to support the Italian contingents operating in “out of area” scenarios. Therefore, the CTA will permit Italy, that signed the contract for 4 KC-767 in 2002 thus being the launch customer of the tanker (the other only customer so far is Japan, that received the first two KC-767J in Feb. and Mar. 2008), to make up for some of the time lost because of the delayed delivery of the first aircraft (initially expected in 2005), a delay that has already had a bad impact on the ItAF AAR capabilities since the fleet of predecessor B707 has been gradually withdrawn from use (see also: http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/italian-b707-last-operative-flight/). As soon as the first KC-767A will be officially delivered to the ItAF in 2009, the Italian crews will have achieved an initial generic experience with the B767 and will be able to immidiately start the training in the Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) role. In fact, the CTA that is currently operating with the 14 Stormo is not equipped with any refueling equipment and can’t be employed in such a kind of training. According to the information provided by the ItAF website, 3 crews have already completed the simulator training phase at the Boeing facilities in Seattle; at the end of the year there will be 7 while another 5 will start transition in 2009. Even if based on a different version (the 767-200ER instead of the 767-200LRF Long Range Freighter) the KC-767A for the ItAF is much similar to the aircraft offered to the USAF for the KC-X competition to replace the old fleet of KC-135 tankers. As everybody knows (and as I discovered by reading the first page of The New York Times in NYC on Saturday March 1st), on Feb. 29 2008 the $40 billion deal (possibly growing to $100 billion) was awarded to the Northrop Grumman/EADS’s KC-30, based on the much younger Airbus A330-200. Upholding the protest submitted by the Boeing in the following days, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended the USAF to reopen discussions with the offerors and evaluation of the proposals since it had not properly evaluated the Boeing and Northrop Grumman bids. The decision of the GAO was a good news for the ItAF: should the KC-767 be the new USAF tanker, the Aeronautica Militare would benefit of operating the same kind of aircraft as the Air Force (that would require 179 planes) in both logistical and operative fields.
The following pictures, courtesy of the Italian Air Force Press Office, show the N606TW arriving in Pratica di Mare on Jul. 1.
The following picture shows the first Boeing KC-767 destined for the Italian Air Force extending its aerial refueling boom and transferring fuel to a B-52 for the first time in flight on Mar 2007. During that refueling mission, the tanker made 73 contacts with the B-52 and transferred nearly 10,000 pounds of fuel.
Inside the Italian Air Force One: discover the A319CJ July 1, 2008
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Italian Air Force, Military Aviation.Tags: 306 Gruppo, 31 Stormo, A319, Aeronautica Militare, Airbus, Ciampino, Falcon 50, Falcon 900, Italian Air Force, SH-3D, Silvio Berlusconi
1 comment so far
Have you ever wondered what’s the internal set up of the Italian Air Force One? Have you ever guessed if the seat of the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is comfortable?
On Apr 17, I had the opportunity to sit on that important (and comfortable) chair since I flew in one of the 3 A319CJ of the 31° Stormo, the unit within the Aeronautica Militare undertaking VIP transportation missions (among the important persons carried by the aircraft of the 31 Stormo there’s also Pope Benedict XVI, who often use the SH-3D of the 93° Gruppo). The opportunity was provided by a Media Flight organized by the Italian Air Force Press Office to bring journlists and photographers to Decimomannu to attend the Media Day of the Exercise Spring Flag (for more info and pictures search “Spring Flag” in this site using the search field in the upper right hand column). Along with other media representatives, I boarded the aircraft serialled MM62174 (the other two A319CJ of the ItAF are the MM62209 and MM62243) of the 306° Gruppo, parked in the 31° Stormo apron at Ciampino airport, Rome, and made two flights (to and from Deci) lasting slightly less than 1 hour each.
Immediately after boarding through the front stairs I gave a quick look at the “glass” cockpit with retractable HUD (Head Up Display), MFDs (Multi-Function Displays) and all the other features of a commercial A319, IFF and radio equipment aside. The standard crew is composed by 2 pilots (“I-2174″ flight had Gen. Parma, former Cdr of the 31° Stormo and current Cdr of the Comando delle Forze per la Mobilità e il Supporto, on the left seat in the cockpit), 2 flight engineers, 2 stewards.
I was given the possibility to take a seat in the VIP area, a sort of internal “business class” made of 8 seats. These are large and ergonomic and they are located in front of desks equipped with telephones and have large LCDs on the opposite wall. Next to the “business class”, there’s also a sort of President’ Suite with two large seats (each with an embedded telephone, modem/fax), LCDs, a sofa and a private restroom; everything inside this private area is lacquered. This is where a strategic meeting between the Prime Minister and its closer co-workers would take place.
The “economic class” is divided from the business class by means of a corridor that runs inside the fuselage more or less above the root of the right wing and has plenty of windows on the starboard engine. The seats in the back are obviously smaller and there are 8 rows with 5 seat each (2 on the left and 3 on the right of the corridor).
Even if the aircraft is used for State Flights, carrying the most important representatives of the Italian Government, the A319CJ, whose Mission Design Series is VC-319A, can be also used as an Air Ambulance to perform Hospital flights, MEDEVAC and CASEVAC. In fact, with its fleet of A319, Falcon 50 (VC-50A) and Falcon 900EX (VC-900A) and EASY (VC-900B), the 31° Stormo provides also short, medium and long range
Emergency transportation with at least one aircraft ready for departure H24 365 days per year (recently the aircraft of the Stormo have rescued Italian citizens in Australia, USA and Argentina). Just to have an idea of the effort of the wing in its two main tasks, let’s have a look at figures of the last year: in 2007, the VC-319A, flew 1.364 sorties (2.483 flight hours); the VC-50A, 1311 sorties (1083 fh); the VC-900A, 2136 sorties (1510 fh); the VC-900B 1484 sorties (957 fh) and the SH-3D (VH-3D), 250 sorties (247 fh).
Boarding the A319CJ of the 306° Gruppo:
My seat (on the left, next to the window):
Looking to my left:
Looking to my right:
The display in front of my seat showing the flight progressing to destination:
The right wing as seen from the corridor’s window:
The corridor window and the corridor between “business” and “economy”:
The Presidential Suite:
Inside the cockpit:
Rome, as seen from the aircraft performing the ILS procedure in Ciampino:
I wish to thank Col. Amedeo Magnani of the Italian Air Force Press Office for providing the opportunity to fly with the A319CJ.















































































































