Thread: Airline News

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

And in his next post, OhOh will explain how he mows his lawn.

NTSB releases video of San Francisco Near Miss.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- NTSB officials just released new video that shows how close an Air Canada flight got to other jets as it was making a landing at San Francisco International Airport back in July 2017. The plane came within 10 feet of another as pilots prepared to land it at SFO.

A spokesman for SFO says several safety improvements have been since then, when the plane almost entered a busy runway.

https://abc7news.com/travel/ntsb-rel...t-sfo/3420161/

Xaimen Airport Arrival

1. Small and very new airport. Not quite Trat airport, more Thai provincial size.

XIAMEN Gaoqi airport has been open since 1983 - 36 years. Hardly new.

Unless they've opened the new Xiang'an airport (which is only scheduled to be opened in a few years).

So, which one did you fly in/out of?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

OhOh will explain

Some here do not know about utilising non mainstream airlines. I have illustrated a number of points:

1. A particular airline offers a very impressive price for anybody wishing to fly across the Pacific to North America. THB 17,000 was my trans pacific, BKK/LAX, return price.
2. Travel into and out of a particular Chinese airport is as easy, if not easier than some western airports. Due to it's smaller size/less daily flights, no doubt. The aircraft to terminal bussing, was the only detraction.
3. A particular Chinese airline utilises main stream airplanes
4. Visa requirements for lay overs are non-existent for many western passport holders. Checkout Visa exceptions on your own passport country's local Chinese embassy site for complete details.
5. Service standards on the particular airline are as good as most western airlines in economy class. including check-in, in-flight, airport assistance. Passing through business class cabins they appeared to offer similar "coffins" to travel inas western airlines.
6. Currently only a few NA destinations are offered, by the particular airline.
7. On my two pacific legs I shared the left side three seat grouping with one passenger, i.e a spare seat between us. Both times with an older Chinese woman. Both women were travelling with their husbands, one was seated in business, the other in economy a few rows behind, it maybe a Chinese thing.
8.Many of the Chinese were part of a group which meant they checked-in using the group check-in booth.
9.The particular airline I flew with having limited routes ensured flight, cabin and check-in staff were working, rather than being flown in on the day, causing extreme delays and cancellations -American Airlines an established western airline.
10.Short flights 2-3 hours, were staffed and the delivered serviced was better than the established western domestic airline I used.

You being a particularly experienced traveller may not require any information. I would suggest you are not the TD norm in this instance.

Why not just ignore one posters post instead of displaying an unwarranted and boorish comment.

But as you display in other threads, it is nothing new.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Bangkok Airport Arrival

6. Exit through security, no personal or baggage inspection.

You mean Customs not security right?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Some here do not know about utilising non mainstream airlines. I have illustrated a number of points:

1. A particular airline offers a very impressive price for anybody wishing to fly across the Pacific to North America. THB 17,000 was my trans pacific, BKK/LAX, return price.
2. Travel into and out of a particular Chinese airport is as easy, if not easier than some western airports. Due to it's smaller size/less daily flights, no doubt. The aircraft to terminal bussing, was the only detraction.
3. A particular Chinese airline utilises main stream airplanes
4. Visa requirements for lay overs are non-existent for many western passport holders. Checkout Visa exceptions on your own passport country's local Chinese embassy site for complete details.
5. Service standards on the particular airline are as good as most western airlines in economy class. including check-in, in-flight, airport assistance. Passing through business class cabins they appeared to offer similar "coffins" to travel inas western airlines.
6. Currently only a few NA destinations are offered, by the particular airline.
7. On my two pacific legs I shared the left side three seat grouping with one passenger, i.e a spare seat between us. Both times with an older Chinese woman. Both women were travelling with their husbands, one was seated in business, the other in economy a few rows behind, it maybe a Chinese thing.
8.Many of the Chinese were part of a group which meant they checked-in using the group check-in booth.
9.The particular airline I flew with having limited routes ensured flight, cabin and check-in staff were working, rather than being flown in on the day, causing extreme delays and cancellations -American Airlines an established western airline.
10.Short flights 2-3 hours, were staffed and the delivered serviced was better than the established western domestic airline I used.

You being a particularly experienced traveller may not require any information. I would suggest you are not the TD norm in this instance.

Why not just ignore one posters post instead of displaying an unwarranted and boorish comment.

But as you display in other threads, it is nothing new.

What's with all the chinky shit, picking up your next set of brown-nosing instructions?

Airlines Asked To Check 737 MAX and A320neo Engines After Failure Risk Found


Engine manufacturer CFM International have identified a potential problem with two versions of their Leap engines. The Leap-1A and Leap-1B, as used on the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo aircraft, have been found to be suffering from coking of fuel nozzles at a much faster rate than anticipated. CFM are ordering inspections of potentially affected equipment by carriers.

Just when you thought nothing else could go wrong for Boeing’s MAX aircraft, a new problem comes to light. But this time it’s not only Boeing who are affected, as the issue could mean problems for the Airbus A320neo as well.

CFM have identified an issue with the Leap-1A and -1B engines which are used on both the 737 MAX and A320neo. The issue involves a carbon build up on fuel nozzles which could lead to engine failure.



At this time, the engine maker is monitoring their engine and performing tests to see how widespread the problem is. According to a statement released to the media, “CFM continually monitors the fleet and we have a method to detect carbon build-up, enabling CFM and our customers to proactively manage the issue,”


Gas turbine engines are highly susceptible to a buildup of carbon, in a process known as coking. Deposits from evaporated fuel and other material create obstruction to the fuel nozzles, of which these Leap engines have 18.



This obstruction can lead to uneven temperature flow within the combustion chamber and can cause hot spots to develop inside the high pressure turbine. These hotspots are responsible for premature wear and, potentially, to the failure of the engine.

CFM have targeted two versions of their Leap engines for further investigation. The Leap-1A, as used on the Airbus A320neo, and the Leap-1B as found on the 737 MAX.


At the end of last month, a Southwest 737 MAX was flying from Orlando to Victorville, to the airline’s storage facility where they are parking their 34 grounded aircraft. Flight 8701 took off as normal, but shortly after takeoff the pilots declared an emergency, telling the tower:
“Tower, Southwest 8701 we just lost our right engine, need to declare an emergency.”

The aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing back at Orlando. Thankfully the two person crew managed to land safely. Within hours of the incident, CFM were on the scene analyzing detailed performance data to find out what went wrong with the engine.


What they found was that coking had occurred, damaging the engine and leading to a turbine blade failure, with metallic fragments found in the tailpipe. While coking is a common issue with gas turbine engines, what has emerged is that CFM’s maintenance schedule needed to be revised to swap out the fuel nozzles at shorter intervals. They commented:

“In the case of the engine on flight 8701, we learned from the event that our monitoring analytic and maintenance process needed to be adjusted for our LEAP engines. This adjustment has been made and the fleet was assessed within hours, with follow-on actions completed within days.”

Since the problem was identified, all carriers with engines which were beyond the revised threshold for nozzle swaps were asked to inspect their engines. Inspections have turned up issues on around 1% of the engine fleet, all on the Leap-1B engine used on the 737 MAX.

Although as yet no problems have been found in the Leap-1A engines, as used on the Airbus A320, some carriers are also being asked to inspect their equipment to ensure all is well.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-engine-investigation/

At least Airbus has the P&W P1000 as a second engine manufacturer for the A320 fleet. Currently it's even competition between the two engines so P&W may get a boost.

I'm surprised Boeing only have the CFM engine fit. The US used to favour P&W for engines.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Although as yet no problems have been found in the Leap-1A engines, as used on the Airbus A320, some carriers are also being asked to inspect their equipment to ensure all is well.

So actually only Boeing affected. Trump will now have to raise the trade barriers against EU a pin hole higher.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What's with all the chinky shit, picking up your next set of brown-nosing instructions?

Just sharing with the posters here of a possible route/airline choice of airline across the pacific to LAX, an airport of entry in the "unexceptional country north of Mexico".

Which many may have hesitations, in utilising.

As I illustrated, some false internet rumours re visa requirements/cost, airport and airline service experience - one Chinese airport procedures and one Chinese airline. Some might be relieved to have an idea of what to expect from the airline and airport services.

Also illustrating my actual trip experience between one western airline, with alleged superior customer service, reliability, timekeeping etc. versus a relatively small and new airport and airline.

The fact that they were both Chinese upsets you but that is your problem to deal with, as you are able to.

Why not share your personal experience of Chinese airports and airlines with us here? This thread is titled "Airline News", after all.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Just sharing with the posters here of a possible route/airline choice of airline across the pacific to LAX, an airport of entry in the "unexceptional country north of Mexico".

Which many may have hesitations, in utilising.

As I illustrated, some false internet rumours re visa requirements/cost, airport and airline service experience - one Chinese airport procedures and one Chinese airline. Some might be relieved to have an idea of what to expect from the airline and airport services.

Also illustrating my actual trip experience between one western airline, with alleged superior customer service, reliability, timekeeping etc. versus a relatively small and new airport and airline.

The fact that they were both Chinese upsets you but that is your problem to deal with, as you are able to.

Why not share your personal experience of Chinese airports and airlines with us here? This thread is titled "Airline News", after all.

I don't know why you think the boring details of your irrelevant itineraries constitute "airline news".

Oh, scratch that. I do.

You would think they would be forced to recertify the whole fucking aircraft, but it looks to me like they are going to try and fast track it again. The bean counters win again.

In the days after a Boeing Co. 737 Max 8 jet plunged into Indonesia's Java Sea last October, company officials said they were moving quickly to update plane software suspected in the crash.

Six months and a second Max 8 disaster later, Boeing has yet to submit its fix to regulators. Last week, pilots and its airline customers left a Federal Aviation Administration meeting with no idea when the grounded model would fly again.

"We've taken off our watches and put the calendars in the drawer," American Airlines pilot Dennis Tajer said after the meeting.

What's taking so long?

Fixing software, it turns out, is no easy task.

"Any time you change software code, it's a major issue,'' said Clint Balog, an Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University professor who studies the interaction between humans and computers in planes. "If you change even one small thing in a code, it can have downstream implications.''

The jet's anti-stall device, known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, has now been implicated in October's Lion Air crash and last month's Ethiopian Airlines disaster, which occurred while the software fix was underway. An update turns out to be more complicated than Boeing anticipated, both politically and technically.

In a video message Wednesday night, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said the company had finished its last test flight and was prepared to move forward with certification. The goal, he said, is to make the 737 Max "one of the safest airplanes ever to fly.''

His company needs to convince the now heavily scrutinized FAA — as well as skeptical international regulators — that the fix is safe and capable of being used in the Max 8 without requiring costly flight-simulator training for pilots, as the company has promised customers. That could prove tricky in the current environment, said Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft consultant and vice president at Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.

"I suspect the time spent so far is less about creating optimal software and more about proving to regulators that it's OK,'' Aboulafia said.

The tradition of non-U.S. aircraft regulators deferring to the FAA's judgment calls is "hanging by a thread. The system now has many agencies who are determined to show that they have independent oversight.''

Cracks are already showing. On Wednesday, a day after an FAA-appointed pilot board's recommended that the U.S. not mandate simulator training for the Max 8, Canada's transport minister said the training should be required no matter how long the planes remain grounded.

Complicating Boeing's task is the increasingly complex interplay between artificial intelligence, hardware and humans, aerospace and computer experts say.

Software engineers need to ferret out ripple effects and unintended consequences, said Eric Feron, an aerospace software engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "You have to look at the way the human is going to operate the plane. You have to consider the interactions with hardware, and other software,'' he said. "We want to be sure, if we can be sure, that we have no negative interactions between software systems.''

MCAS proved vulnerable to those kinds of interactions. It relied on data from just one piece of hardware — a sensor that malfunctioned — before putting a plane into a dive that pilots didn't see coming.

The use of software, artificial intelligence and automation systems continues to expand, not only to fly planes but to drive cars (and even decide who gets parole or a mortgage). When designed well, such systems can prevent fatigue and help humans make better decisions. Risks emerge when they aren't designed to manage the back-and-forth between human and machine, particularly when automation changes in ways the user doesn't expect. In the case of the Max 8, pilots initially weren't told the MCAS existed.

"Human-AI teams perform better than either alone, but when the AI is updated its behavior may violate human expectations," according to a January paper published by researchers at Microsoft Corp., the University of Washington and the University of Michigan. "The system can't be the same and also have a new button," said Walter Lasecki, a University of Michigan professor and one of the study's co-authors. "If you add a new button, you have to teach people how to use it."

Balog, the Embry-Riddle professor, said aircraft automation introduces complications such as complacency, with pilots relying too much on computers, as well as a lack of transparency, where pilots don't know what the computers are doing or why.

"I believe in the pilot understanding what is going on in the cockpit,'' he said.

Many pilots distrust software, said John Barton, who flies the Max for a major airline. "Software by definition gets in between pilots and the airplane,'' he said in an email. "Most pilots would prefer to fly the airplane mechanically, where we can feel what's actually going on with the flight controls and with the airplane.''

Unlike rival Airbus, Boeing has preferred to give pilots, not automation, the final word on flying its planes. The MCAS software on its Max 8 was an exception.

According to Boeing, the software helped the Max 8 handle like earlier 737s. With a bigger engine, positioned differently, the Max 8 nose can tilt up more than pilots expect, risking a stall. The MCAS system was designed to push it back down automatically. That proved disastrous when malfunctioning sensors on the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights incorrectly assumed the plane was aimed so high it was in danger of stalling, and pointed it down. The resulting crashes killed a total of 346 people.

The 737 Max should have been grounded after the first crash, said Tom Demetrio, a Chicago lawyer who is suing Boeing on behalf of Lion Air families. "That was the time to tell airlines, do not fly this plane until you hear from us that we know the cause and the cause has been corrected," he said.

Boeing has said it began working on its software fix immediately, but that the work proved more complicated than initially thought, since the software hovers in the background of critical flight controls.

But some Boeing critics said the company might have moved faster if the first crash hadn't involved Lion Air, a young airline with a history of maintenance and other troubles. "There were just so many factors that contributed with Lion Air," said Hans Weber, an aerospace engineer with FAA experience.

Then came the March 10 disaster, which involved widely respected Ethiopian Airlines. Two days later, Boeing's Muilenburg said the company had been working for months on "software enhancements'' designed to "make an already safe aircraft even safer.'' On March 13, the U.S. joined the rest of the world in grounding the Max 8.

Two weeks after that, Boeing unveiled its software fix to hundreds of pilots and airline executives in Seattle, saying the company would submit it to the FAA by month's end, a timeline the company walked back within days.

In his video message Wednesday night, Muilenberg said the company had completed 120 test flights, spending 203 hours in the air checking the reworked system.

The updated software will assess readings from two sensors, turn itself off if they don't agree and nudge the plane's nose down if they do. To test the new system and convince regulators, the company ran computer models subjecting the fix to multiple speeds, angles and potential human or machine failures in the lab, in simulators and in a jet outfitted with flight-test equipment.

To Weber and Teal Group's Aboulafia, the fix only highlights the original software's flaws.

"In retrospect,'' Aboulafia said, "there were some bad calls.''

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/04/18/taking-boeing-long-fix-737-max-software-linked-deadly-crashes

Originally Posted by SeventhSoul

Taiwan, aka ROC, is a country. An independant, sovereign country. NOT a province of the PRC.

Xiamen Gaoqi is the 'old' airport, the new airport is being completed in Xiang'An district.

The "new" airport you miscorrectly labeled in your picture is that of Kinmen island/county, which belongs to sovereign, independant Taiwan, aka ROC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinmen_Airport

Facts, mate. Freely available. Use them, correctly.

Oh fuck, that will trigger the chinky sycophant.

that video which dave has posted the embed code so it shows nothing for any user that has turned off the loading of scripts from sites outside the root site they are visiting - I took the H2tuKiiznsY and searched youtube as I had not idea what he was trying to show

and thus I found it was a click bait you tube vid - "the real reason the boeings crashed "

so no - I will not watch such obvious fcukwittery and will not wast my time anymore trying to work out what newbie dave is trying to post with his embedded links

Originally Posted by baldrick

that video which dave has posted the embed code so it shows nothing for any user that has turned off the loading of scripts from sites outside the root site they are visiting - I took the H2tuKiiznsY and searched youtube as I had not idea what he was trying to show

and thus I found it was a click bait you tube vid - "the real reason the boeings crashed "

so no - I will not watch such obvious fcukwittery and will not wast my time anymore trying to work out what newbie dave is trying to post with his embedded links

Umm, err ... sorry?

Originally Posted by baldrick

that video which dave has posted the embed code so it shows nothing for any user that has turned off the loading of scripts from sites outside the root site they are visiting - I took the H2tuKiiznsY and searched youtube as I had not idea what he was trying to show

and thus I found it was a click bait you tube vid - "the real reason the boeings crashed "

so no - I will not watch such obvious fcukwittery and will not wast my time anymore trying to work out what newbie dave is trying to post with his embedded links

The video loads fine.

I think you're overthinking this shit.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The video loads fine.

looks like tomcats shirt choices

it wouldn't be a problem if he wrote a description

as it is it is reminiscent of the vapid posts by milkman - barbaro- post youtube vid ,discuss

Originally Posted by baldrick

it wouldn't be a problem if he wrote a description

Umm ... I thought the YouTube itself was self-descripting.



... must be me.