Capt. Sully also noted Airbus has an inherent design flaw, that being the 2 side sticks are not connected. So one pilot cannot look at his stick and visually tell what kind of stick inputs the other pilot is making. Having said that, it's still hard to believe Boeing made the decisions it did regarding MCAS and AOA. Particularly, the note of 'optional safety equipment' meaning a second AOA sensor. There is no such things as 'Optional' when safety is concerned. Geez

(Written on 2019/11/03)(Permalink)

So, are these new aircraft, used aircraft another airline is not longer using, or are they redeploying 2 aircraft from other routes?

(Written on 2019/07/11)(Permalink)

One thing superior in my opinion about Boeing vs Airbus is control wheel vs side stick. Airbus side stick controls doesn't allow the non-flying pilot to visually tell what the flying pilot is doing. Boeing's control wheels are mechanically linked, which allows visual confirmation of pilot inputs. Frankly, I also wish both manufacturers didn't rely on fly by wire. Call me old fashioned, but aircraft should have mechanical connection to flight surfaces like cars do from the steering wheel to the tires.

(Written on 2019/05/26)(Permalink)

A different take. With the 787, Boeing outsourced key aircraft components and took the approach that the supply chain would supply the components. Boeing would literally just snap them together like a model airplane. My take is this - is it possible non-aviation decisionmakers are making critical aviation decisions? It's just hard to believe that aviation engineers and managers would look at the MCAS and believe it doesn't require additional training. At what level is this kind of decision made?

(Written on 2019/05/18)(Permalink)

As long as the pilots aren't third-world trained, I'm not worried about flying on one.

(Written on 2019/04/17)(Permalink)

Freight requirements likely will make the 747 the jet version of the DC3. The 747 is a tough aircraft with a healthy supply of parts to keep them flying for decades. Meanwhile, it would appear the A380 won't fly anywhere nearly as long. Others may know better than I, but it would appear the cost to make a freight conversion isn't viable.

(Written on 2019/02/18)(Permalink)

I've been getting concerned that there is no differentiation between flight hours and 'hand on the stick, feet on the rudder' time.

(Written on 2018/12/19)(Permalink)

Could an experienced pilot explain the issues with this? While I understand some of the impacts of the engine location, why have a system to mitigate a stall problem without training the pilots on the system? Is the breakdown with Boeing or the airlines?

(Written on 2018/11/25)(Permalink)

The A380 looks like it's going to have the same type of existence as the Concorde. Performs it's mission well, but never will be profitable. And Rolls Royce has some kind of manufacturing or design flaw in it's corporate DNA.

(Written on 2018/10/09)(Permalink)

I don't know about the law there, but in the US a strike allows a company to declare force majeure and not be responsible or liable for any costs incurred by others. It does beg the question, though, about returning the paid fares for a flight that was cancelled for reason of strike. My background would be more about material being delayed for delivery due to strike, which in turn allowed a free and clear cancellation of the order. I wonder if the union has any legal exposure?

(Written on 2018/10/04)(Permalink)