Unusual Attitude

Passenger creates big debate at American - I mean big!

2009-11-18T22:48:01Z

This is sent to me with the absolute assurance that it's a genuine picture taken by a flight attendant at American Airlines. The F/A took it to show her manager what was happening on the aircraft (757???) and why she was unhappy about it. Seems the guy paid for only one seat and the gate staff let him board.

You can see the F/A's point of view - how the heck is s(he) supposed to deal with it. Sympathise with the guy or not, he's a major safety hazard in an evacuation, a gross inconvenience for the cabin crew, and I would suggest a totally unacceptable travelling companion for the guy next to him.

I don't know what the actual outcome was but it seems unimaginable that he was allowed to fly in the end. Not that anything on a commercial airline is actually unimaginable, but close anyway.

A good friend of mine had a similar experience sitting next to a guy who was big but I don't think as big as this, for a long-haul flight and was effectively injured by sitting for several hours in a contorted position with his fellow pax half on top of him. The airline that did that to him was utterly unsympathetic throughout a lengthy correspondence afterwards. OK, Emirates since you ask. Ironically my chum is now in a senior position with another carrier.

Anyone know how how the American affair turned out?

Another one for Pratt & Whitney fans

2009-11-09T08:22:02Z

First frost of the year in London this morning and northern hemisphere aviation is entering the winter. There will doubtless be much airport angst ahead, especially in the US mid-west and northeast - so a quick reminder of just how remarkable it is that the video below is pretty unremarkable. Didn't even take a century to make this sort of thing routine.

Would you take off with this much snow on the wing?

2009-11-08T22:30:21Z

This picture taken by someone who says they were an off-duty flight attendant is causing considerable consternation in UK regulatory circles. And it's being energetically discussed on Pprune.

It was sent to the UK's greatly respected CHIRP operation which is a confidential safety reporting system in which incidents are disidentified.

The F/A says (s)he told the senior F/A about the snow before take-off but the aircraft departed anyway. This picture was taken during the ensuing flight.

I'm not sure what type it is - no obvious sign of a nacelle, but maybe it's out of frame. If it's a hard-wing type though then this is really not a great situation.

In the Flight office we several times discussed what we would do if we found ourselves on an aircraft which appeared to be about to take-off with something amiss. I mean even if you knew you were right, what do you do exactly to stop the take-off going ahead? Imagine you're just about to roll on an MD-80 with no slats/flaps deployed.

Staying awake on the flightdeck

2009-11-03T08:29:34Z

Obviously the main thing pilots now do to pass the time on boring sectors is discuss what happened to the Northwest crew who overflew Minneapolis on a boring sector. But the bloggers among them are starting to put their thoughts into print.

Aluwings at The Wings Stayed On is educational about the inventive uses to which the flight management system can be put, but he's also good on why you really don't want to play with the aircraft systems and why SOPs are generally there for a reason.

And Aviatrix at Cockpit Conversation has been whiling away the hours by recording how she was whiling away the hours. In remarkable detail. She sounds good company.

All good, innocent fun. Although when the ACARS datalink was first introduced back in the early 90s, airlines were surprised by some of the data bills they started getting. Investigations followed and one carrier felt impelled to issue an edict banning the game of searching the weather data in order to bet with other crews on which airport had the lowest temperature in the world.

Great article on pilot fatigue (and a strange RAA comment)

2009-11-01T22:40:58Z

Hats off to Eric Torbenson of the Dallas Morning News for an intelligent and penetrating article on scheduling and pay issues in the US regional airline industry. Another piece of evidence adding to the growing certainty that this is not a sustainable situation.

US Regional Airline Association (RAA) president Roger Cohen is quoted as saying that "there's been very little research in this area". He needs to get out more.

What is wrong with this photo at Atlanta?

2009-11-01T22:07:43Z

Of course if you're familiar with this story (and who isn't) then the answer will be easy. What's wrong is the skidmarks on the taxiway. But it's still not at all clear what happened.

Interesting take on this incident and the Northwest distracted crew here, It's a sensible argument but I'm not sure I really agree - I think it's too narrow. Clearly the actual potential consequences of the NW incident on the day were not as serious as the DL landing at Atlanta, but I wonder if that's really the point. The question is how come that NW situation could have arisen, and when you've worked out how come, what other consequences could have arisen from those factors in different circumstances. Ditto the DL incident of course.

So DL may perhaps be more important than NW, but until you've worked back to the root causes you can't tell.

Another reason why China will not soon overtake Western aerospace

2009-10-29T09:37:14Z

Scott Hamilton's story about US questions to the WTO about Chinese aerospace subsidies, published first on our CAO subscription service, and then on his own Leeham site, deserves much more attention than it's been getting. It hints at one of the most powerful reasons why China's aerospace industry is not going to match the major Western airframers for many, many years to come.
]]>
But with China it's different. First, their skeletons are not in cupboards but aggressively dancing around like a voodoo B-movie, and second the threat posed by the emergence of China as a serious new player is simply too awful for the incumbents to allow without a titanic struggle.

Compare with Russia, where at least the government genuinely wants to get the aerospace industry off its burdened national balance sheet. China has unashamedly built its industry courtesy of the state, and now we're seeing the industry buying or creating airlines to buy its products - initially the ARJ21 and C919.

I don't know if China has any intention of defending this at the WTO, or even of addressing the question anytime soon. I suspect their view is that, rather like Europe in the early days of Airbus, it's decided that it's going to have this industry one way or another and the world is going to have to live with it. That's difficult to stop, but it will be a brave company in Europe, USA, Canada or Brazil for starters who will launch these Chinese products. Which does leave an awfully small market.

I started saying this a good while ago when I challenged Steve Hazy's views on the matter, and I've not seen anything to change my mind. Plus he's now got just as many problems as me!

I am leaving Flight

2009-10-28T10:45:34Z

Tomorrow actually. I couldn't quite bring myself to make it public until now.

It's almost exactly 21 years since, in an astounding stroke of luck, I was in the right place at the right time to land a job on Flight International. And the experience since has lived up to, and then wildly surpassed, whatever expectations I had. I've been incredibly fortunate to live the life of a Flight journalist and I'm acutely aware of the fact.

The people here are the most splendidly intelligent, amusing and affable bunch anywhere in aviation publishing. I've had marvellous times with them and I'll miss them.

It didn't really occur to me in 1988 that I would announce the news of my departure on a laptop computer, via something called the internet, in the form of another thing called a blog to which readers could instantly respond. I think I would have been terrified.

I''ll be continuing the blog. In its two years as Unusual Attitude it's been viewed nearly 650,000 times and I hugely appreciate your interest. Receiving your comments from all over the world in realtime has been a salutary, educational and frequently encouraging experience and I'd like to thank you for that. I hope it's improved my journalism.

I don't in fact know what I'll be doing next in my professional life. All reasonable offers considered!

Thanks for reading. Kieran

Should I sue Boeing over the British Airways 777 crash

2009-10-28T09:52:11Z

I only ask this because I'm being urged to do so by a firm of London lawyers - "the UK's leading aviation claimant law firm" apparently. They understand that I was a passenger on BA038, which you'll recall crashed short of the runway at Heathrow probably due to fuel icing, and they believe I "may have suffered a physical or psychological injury as a result".

God it's tempting! But I don't think I'm going to take up their offer, partly because I'm the sort of tedious individual who tends to think that, in life, stuff happens and you shouldn't really go around sueing hard-working, talented people who were doing their best but may have got something complex wrong. (A bit like BA038 passenger Francis Charig.) Oh, and partly because I wasn't actually on BA038.]]> since I blogged about it. And if they'd spelled my name correctly then the email version of their letter would have reached me and I could have posted it online for you to see. But I guess they're busy people, you know, what with all the aeroplanes crashing and that.

I thought you'd like to hear their arguments for why I should sue though, and how I'd do it.

First it wouldn't cost me anything as they'd fund it on a contingency basis and take about one-third of the winnings, sorry, "damages".

Here's what they say: "Even if you have not suffered physical injuries as a result of this incident, but you were understandably shaken at the time and continue to fear flying, you are entitled to claim damages from Boeing in the US. The benefit of bringing a claim in the US is that the levels of damages awarded are much higher than in other jurisdictions, such as the UK. Further, in the UK in the absence of a physical injury, damages for psychological injury will not be available in an action against British Airways under the provisions of the Montreal Convention."

They think they'll win because: "Our research indicates that Boeing will be held liable by the US Court because of design defects within the aircraft, in particular, the fuel delivery system which appears to have become impacted with ice."

So there you have it. Any advice?

Northwest A320 crew find rostering more interesting than flying

2009-10-26T19:52:00Z

Who realised flying airliners had become so boring?

It turns out that the two pilots of the Northwest A320 that overflew Minneapolis St Paul were two old lags within sight of retirement who got talking about the age-old subject of the crew rostering system, pulled out their laptops on the flight deck to look at the software, and next thing they know the flight attendant is asking when they're going to land. They start actually flying the airplane again and realise Minneapolis is a long way behind them.

Captain 53, with 20,000 blameless hours, half of them in the A320 and 7,000 of them in command. First officer 54 with 11,000 similarily clean hours, 5,000 in the A320. What a way to end a career.

They're spared the full embarrasment of having the whole ghastly saga played back to them because the 30min CVR doesn't cover the period in question. Although most of the last half-hour is on the tape and may or may not be educational.

Below is the NTSB statement today after interviewing the pilots for five no doubt excruciating hours.
]]> In its continuing investigation of an Airbus A320 that

overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-

Chamberlain Airport (MSP), the National Transportation

Safety Board has developed the following factual

information: On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm

mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, operating as

Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no

radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet. The flight was

operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International

Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 144

passengers, 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants.

Both pilots were interviewed separately by NTSB

investigators yesterday in Minnesota. The following is an

overview of the interviews:

* The first officer and the captain were interviewed for

over 5 hours combined.

* The Captain, 53 years old, was hired in 1985. His

total flight time is about 20,000 hours, about 10,000

hours of A-320 time of which about 7,000 was as pilot

in command.

* The First Officer, 54 years old, was hired in 1997.

His total flight time is about 11,000 hours, and has

about 5,000 hours on the A-320.

* Both pilots said they had never had an accident,

incident or violation.

* Neither pilot reported any ongoing medical conditions.

* Both pilots stated that they were not fatigued. They

were both commuters, but they had a 19-hour layover in

San Diego just prior to the incident flight. Both said

they did not fall asleep or doze during the flight.

* Both said there was no heated argument.

* Both stated there was a distraction in the cockpit.

The pilots said there was a concentrated period of

discussion where they did not monitor the airplane or

calls from ATC even though both stated they heard

conversation on the radio. Also, neither pilot noticed

messages that were sent by company dispatchers. They

were discussing the new monthly crew flight scheduling

system that was now in place as a result of the

merger. The discussion began at cruise altitude.

* Both said they lost track of time.

* Each pilot accessed and used his personal laptop

computer while they discussed the airline crew flight

scheduling procedure. The first officer, who was more

familiar with the procedure was providing instruction

to the captain. The use of personal computers on the

flight deck is prohibited by company policy.

* Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position

until a flight attendant called about 5 minutes before

they were scheduled to land and asked what was their

estimated time of arrival (ETA). The captain said, at

that point, he looked at his primary flight display

for an ETA and realized that they had passed MSP. They

made contact with ATC and were given vectors back to

MSP.

* At cruise altitude - the pilots stated they were using

cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications,

not their headsets.

* When asked by ATC what the problem was, they replied

"just cockpit distraction" and "dealing with company

issues".

* Both pilots said there are no procedures for the

flight attendants to check on the pilots during

flight.

The Safety Board is interviewing the flight attendants and

other company personnel today. Air traffic control

communications have been obtained and are being analyzed.

Preliminary data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR)

revealed the following:

* The CVR recording was 1/2 hour in length.

* The cockpit area microphone channel was not working

during this recording. However, the crew's headset

microphones recorded their conversations.

* The CVR recording began during final approach, and

continued while the aircraft was at the gate.

* During the hours immediately following the incident

flight, routine aircraft maintenance provided power to

the CVR for a few minutes on several occasions, likely

recording over several minutes of the flight.

The FDR captured the entire flight which contained several

hundred aircraft parameters including the portion of flight

where there was no radio communication from the flight

crew. Investigators are examining the recorded parameters

to see if any information regarding crew activity during the

portion of flight where radio contact was lost can be

obtained.

The Safety Board's investigation continues.

Air France pilots tell management like it is concerning AF447

2009-10-26T15:17:34Z

Air France's letter to its pilots telling them essentially to move on and not get involved in the AF447 blame-game has not gone down well. The biggest of the pilots unions there, SNPL, issued this response under the heading An Unacceptable Letter. It's my translation - feel free to offer alternatives.

The SNPL ALPA Air France, like all pilots of Air France was shocked by the letter to pilots by the Director of Flight Operations and Safety Director.

This letter is unacceptable because it suggests, in a denial of reality, the sole responsibility of the situation described lies with the pilots.

In an amalgamation between the AF447 accident and certain operational incidents, the management of Air France calls into question the professionalism and sense of responsibility of Air France line pilots, making them scapegoats .

This letter crystallizes the pilots' loss of confidence in the management of their company, and particularly to the authors of the letter and those who approved it.

In pointing only to the line pilots, the management demonstrates its inability and unwillingness to accept any challenge.

The SNPL had demanded this overall questioning in the aftermath of AF447 by calling for an external audit. The management of Air France responded positively to our request in early September 2009.

In view of the autism of the Air France management as evidenced by this letter, SNPL Air France insists that the audit is begun as soon as possible. Furthermore, SNPL Air France demands to take part in this audit to assure itself that it examines all the services and modes of operation related to flight safety.

Air France tells its pilots like it is regarding AF447

2009-10-25T21:36:29Z

In a quintessentially French document, Air France's heads of flight ops and safety have written to the carrier's pilots telling them what the company thinks about the AF447 situation. In a lengthy analysis of the current position, bordering on the philosophical, Pierre-Marie Gauron and Etienne Lichtenberger basically say the public debate in the media and elsewhere is misguided, pilots should rise above it, nobody knows exactly what happened and may never do, and AF and Airbus are doing everything reasonable in the circumstances.

Here's the French version, released to Le Point magazine at least, following the leaking of parts of the document. Sorry, but I don't have time right now to translate it myself, so here's a Google translation which is not too bad.

The French attitude to this kind of horrific affair is roughly: these are serious matters deserving a serious response; let's be grown-up about it; and let's rise above the public debate. As a journalist I like dealing with French industry more or less for those exact reasons. But French interests often come unstuck in the English-language media which doesn't really view things the same way.

Video: Northwest pilot denies sleeping or arguing

2009-10-25T20:41:55Z

One of the pilots of the Northwest Airlines flight that flew past Minneapolis last week has given at least an indication of what he and the other pilot will be telling the NTSB. First officer Richard Cole told ABC News that he couldn't go into any more detail. Here's the conversation on video below.

Delta/Northwest incident - bust-up in cockpit, not sleep

2009-10-22T19:34:29Z

The NTSB has just confirmed my story that it wasn't a sleeping Northwest crew that caused the no-radio incident at Minneapolis. In fact it was a cockpit bust-up.

Here's their statement:

***********************************************************

NTSB ADVISORY

************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board

Washington, DC 20594

October 22, 2009

************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING FLIGHT THAT OVERFLEW INTENDED MINNEAPOLIS AIRPORT

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an

incident where an Airbus A320 overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul

International/Wold-Chamberlain Airport (MSP).

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm mountain daylight time,

an Airbus A320, N03274, operating as Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight

188, became a NORDO (no radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet.

The flight was operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego

International Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 147

passengers and unknown number of crew.

At 7:58 pm central daylight time (CDT), the aircraft flew over the

destination airport and continued northeast for approximately 150

miles. The MSP center controller reestablished communications with

the crew at 8:14 pm and reportedly stated that the crew had become

distracted and had overflown MSP, and requested to return to MSP.

According to the Federal Administration (FAA) the crew was

interviewed by the FBI and airport police. The crew stated they

were in a heated discussion over airline policy and they lost

situational awareness. The Safety Board is scheduling an interview

with the crew.

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) have

been secured and are being sent to the NTSB laboratory in

Washington, DC.

David Lawrence, the Investigator-in-Charge, is leading the team of 3

in investigating the incident.

Parties to the investigation are the FAA and Northwest Airlines.

More on that Delta/Northwest incident

2009-10-22T18:56:19Z

The story is starting to turn up, but I'm still not sure the truth is out there.

Here's local television and here's the Wall Street Journal.