Category Archives: Manufacturer

India’s first Global 6000: Spotted

20 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

G6000VT-SNG, A BOMBARDIER BD-700-1A10 (Marketed as the Bombardier Global Express, and now rebranded as the Global 6000), just flew into Bangalore HAL airport. The aircraft was spotted on the downwind, as it majestically turned right for base to land into VOBG’s Runway 09.

This Global 6000 is owned by Sun TV Network Ltd (whose parent is Sun Group, which also owns Spicejet), and is used to transport their honco, Kalanithi Maran. The brand new aircraft was registered VT-SNG (manufacturer serial number 9493) on the 11th of March, 2013.

RANGE_6000Bombardier describes the Global 6000 as “Speed, Range and Stately Supremacy”. It has a maximum range of 6,000NM (11,112km), and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.89 (89% the speed of sound). It can fly at FL510 (51,000ft above mean sea level at an altimeter setting of 1013.25), carrying 8-19 passengers. VT-SNG, however, has been certified with a seating capacity of 16.

The range is impressive, but what I like about Bombardier is their frankness. “6000NM is a theoretical range with NBAA IFR Reserves, ISA, 8 pax/4 crew. Actual range will be affected by speed, weather, selected options and other factors.”

The aircraft is propelled by two Rolls-Royce Deutschland BR710A2-20 turbofans, each producing upto 65.5kN of thrust (about 6500kg thrust per engine), lending the aircraft a minimum thrust to weight ratio of 1 : 3.47 (at the MTOW of 45,132kg) , which is pretty high. This means the airplane can climb steeper and faster.

Maxing most of the raw power is the supercritical wing, swept back 35°, which features winglets for drag reduction.

G6_cockptThe Flight deck features a Rockwell Collins Pro Line Fusion avionics suite with four 15.1-inch (38.4 cm) Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) screens, and a Head-Up Display System (HUD), 3rd generation Enhanced Vision System (EVS) and Synthetic Vision System (SVS).

With more than US$58.5 Million per jet, the maximum payload is 1,710kg, which is equivalent to just 17 commercial airline economy class passengers (Based on 70kg passenger weight + 25kg check in baggage + 7kg cabin baggage).

Ofcourse, this is a business jet to flaunt, not an air-bus to make money.

The Hare and the Tortoise.

18 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by in Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

QvsALast Year, ATR produced 60 ATR 72 aircraft. Bombardier had produced 36 Q400s. 2012 saw ATR selling 115 aircraft (74 firm orders and 41 options), while Bombardier witnessed a sales of 81 aircraft (50 firm orders and 31 option aircraft).

This year, ATR is projected to produce 80 aircraft, almost all being the ATR 72-600. This will widen the gap between deliveries of the ATR 72 and the Q400, in 2013. A sign that the slower of the two turboprops, the ATR 72, is actually racing ahead of the Q400.

Maybe it’s the operating economics of the ATR 72. Or the average regional route lengths suited to its typical missions. Or the large number of operators in a region. Or the access to proximate training facilities. Or the rise of the developing nations while the developed saturate.

The aviation market in Asia, especially South-East Asia, is booming, in contrast to slowdowns and downsizing in Europe and the United States. In the February of 2013, ATR won an order for upto 36 ATR 72-600s, from Malaysia Airlines (MAS). Prior to that order, MAS had ruled out the ATR 72-600 series, on the grounds that there was no -600 simulator in the area. Says ATR’s CEO Filippo Bagnato, “In the last five years, Asia-Pacific has accounted for 50% of sales; so it is quite an important market for us”. So important is the market that ATR, in December, set up a ATR 72-600 training centre at Singapore, just because one customer demanded it.

What resulted in the ATR epidemic in Asia, particularly South East Asia?

The rise of the South East, Average regional route lengths, superior operating economics, Aggressive Sales, local availability of ATR type-specific qualified pilots and engineers, Luck #1, and Luck #2.

The Rise of the South East.

Says Neil Dave, Consulting Analyst, Aerospace & Defense, Frost & Sullivan Asia Pacific, “Many ASEAN countries currently lack comprehensive and well developed ground transport infrastructure and countries in these regions are divided by vast seas, therefore there is a demand for a well-knit, flexible air-transport system,” said Dave.

“Also, with the increasing popularity of air-travel as mode of transport, there is a rise in demand for low cost travel among countries in the ASEAN region which are not connected,” Dave continued.

Quoting a CAPA report, “The continued strength of the economies in ASEAN, led by booming Indonesia, and the continued rapid rise of the region’s middle class should ensure another big year of traffic growth for Southeast Asian carriers – particularly LCCs and, to a lesser extent, full-service carriers.”

Lucky with Route Lengths:

The ATR 72 is typically packed with 68 -72 passengers. Air Dolomiti in Europe flies its -72s with 66 seats, while Jet Airways (South Asia) has 68 seats, and this number can easily rise to 70-72 seats for South East Asian operators, thanks to the average height of the average male in the respective countries (Germany: 5′ 10″, India: 5′ 5″, Indonesia: 5′ 2.2″), which allow for a lower seat pitch.

The typical baggage weight limits for ATR flights in the SE-Asian region are 10kg for cabin and 15 kg for check in, totalling 25kg. With the average assumed body weight of 70kg per passenger, this total weight per passenger, including baggage, is 95kg.

With 95kg/passenger and 72 passengers, the payload goes upto 6840kg. Considering headwinds of upto 80kts at the cruise levels of the ATR, the useful range of the ATR 72-600 can be very safely assumed to be 500 NM. (ATR Literature claims 825NM for the -600 “option” [23,000kg MTOW] under the following conditions: ISA – No wind – JAR Fuel Reserves – Typical European Airline OEW)

MAP_500nm

500NM circles, centred at Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Bangalore, cover the whole of India.*

A 500NM circle, centred at Manila, covers almost the whole of the Philippines.*

A 500NM circle, centred at Bangkok, covers the whole of Thailand.*

500NM circles, centred at Kuala Lumpur and Kuching, covers all airports in Malaysia.*

500NM circles centred at Jakarta, Surabaya, Makassar, Ambon and Jambi cover most of Indonesia.*

The regional routes are tailor made for the ATR 72-600. Luck #1.

*Does not consider terrain and elevated airports beyond the performance limits of the ATR 72.

Operating Economics

The ATR 72 is less expensive to buy (by list price, though the heavy market demand for the type may make Bombardier offer the Q400 for lesser), less expensive to operate (the Q400 consumes almost 30% more fuel than the ATR 72-600), and due to its simpler design and systems, has a very high dispatch reliability.

The lower operating costs results in a lower breakeven load, of around 35 passengers, which is about 6 to 10 passengers lesser than the Q400.

Aggressive Sales

ATR and Airbus share the same parent company: EADS. The not-spoken-of fact is that if you buy an ATR aircraft, you get a good deal on Airbus airplanes. And vice-versa. On top of this, ATR’s sales team is comprised of an aggressive one, that can help with support from European export credit agencies. Further, ATR goes out of the way to secure a customer.

Bombardier is milder. “The aircraft sells for itself” is the attitude of key sales personnel. Plus, Bombardier has two nearly competing aircraft under its brand: the Q400, and the CRJ700. Both are in the 70 seat category, and have similar range. Bombardier, and the customer, are easily confused.

Bombardier, unlike EADS, does not, as yet, offer a comprehensive product line. The yet to fly C-Series will be Bombardier’s first single aisle mainline solution, which will well complement the Q400. But Bombardier still lacks the entire product line and capacity that would be needed for domestic operations: products the size of the A321 and A320.

Local availability of manpower and training facility.

There are only 5 operators of the Q400, in 4 countries of Asia. ANA and JAC in Japan, Air Niugini in Papua New Guinea, PAL Express in the Philippines, and Spicejet in India. There is no abundance of Asian Q400 pilots and engineers.

Although South and South-East Asia is teeming with ATR type pilots and engineers, the demand for the type is so high that there is a shortage of such qualified crew. This is where luck#2 plays a role.

ATR has one ATR 72-600 training centre at Singapore, which will help significantly reduce the costs of training and sim-checks.

Luck#2

There are ATR-type-rated pilots in Europe who could come to SE countries such as Indonesia. Lufthansa’s ATR operation Air Dolomiti, for example, will be downsizing, which will make ATR pilots available. They will need jobs, and they are in good demand.

The curious case of Citilink Indonesia:

Citilink, the low cost carrier of the national flag carrier, Garuda Indonesia, had considered the Bombardier Q400 for its turboprop fleet. It was believed that the Q400 would be chosen, to differentiate from the competition: Wings Air’s ATR 72 fleet.

Arif Wibowo, the CEO of Citilink, said that there were three key considerations to selecting the aircraft type: economic, such the purchase price; financing; and aircraft performance. In the request for proposals, Citilink required bidders to present a plan to provide pilots, and ATR had agreed to this.

Incidentally, after Citilink announced in the December of 2012 that had decided to order ATR 72-600s, it placed a firm order with Airbus for 25 A320neo, in the January of 2013.

The Head or the Heart?

Just because two or more aircraft are in the same class, it doesn’t mean that they’ll perform to the same standard. An airline’s requirement stems from route demand, and this demand defines the desired capacity, and range; Everything else that define the aircraft then play an important role in deciding the best.

In an airframe market, filled with competition, which results in options, the airline is caught between choosing a product that stands out from the other players, and choosing a product that makes the most economical sense. More often than not, what ego-driven airlines look for, is a differentiator, while truly customer focused airlines that are keen on operational viability, look for, is a suitable performer.

Citilink is a low cost carrier; and no 70-80 seat airplane beats the operating economics of the ATR 72-600. The Q400 has a greater performance (greater range, faster climbs, higher cruise speeds), and promising potential (upto 8 more seats on the same flight), but a potential remains a potential until tapped. Forego the 8 seats and you break even with lesser passengers. Look at the typical routes in South East Asia and they are all suited for an ATR 72, as typified by Wings Air, which is set to becomes the largest operator of the ATR 72. Watch the ever increasing fuel prices and you’ll want a less thirsty aircraft.

The Q400 promises more revenue potential, with more seats and an extra flight. But it has to fly more passengers to break even, and more passengers to make the same amount of profit that operating the ATR 72-600 will make. Not many regional sectors bring in 100% loads to tap that potential.

True that the Q400 flies faster, but there must be customers willing to pay for that speed. In a booming aviation environment that is low-cost driven, where the markets are yet to mature and loads are yet to pick up, economics is paramount.

In short, in most of Asia, a low cost carrier can only beat the ATR 72-600 with an ATR 72-600. For everywhere else, like in North America, you have the Q400.

ATR 72-500 and -600 Cross Fleet Utilization approved by DGCA

15 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by in Manufacturer, Operations, Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Dividing Line: The clean and well presented -600 cockpit (left) and the cluttered -500 cockpit (right). Undoubtedly late, but worth the wait.

With respect to type rating designation for the ATR 42/72 series, DGCA finally recognizes the same type rating (single license endorsement) for the existing ATR 42/72 variants and ATR-600 variants as “ATR42/72”. This means that the flight crew on Jet Airways’ ATR 72-500 can now fly either the -600 variant or the -500 variant on a single day, but not both the types on the same day.

This allows Jet Airways to better utilise its turboprop flight crew, which until recently was affected by DGCA’s then non recognition of the common type rating for the two types.

With only 2 ATR 72-600 in its fleet, and more expected to be inducted, this recognition is welcomed as Jet Airways slowly phases out the -500 in favour of the -600. Further, Jet Airways will realise training cost savings from the newly opened ATR Training Centre at Singapore, which houses one ATR 72-600 FFS (Full Flight Simulator).

The common rating is allowed with a differences training. EASA recommends a differences training of 5 days, which includes and covers 28 hours of classroom instruction, web based training, and practice on the Virtual Hardware Platform Trainer (VHPT),  and 4 hours per crew on a Full Flight Training device (FFT), such as a FFS.

The differences training between the two aircraft focus on:

  1. Engine malfunctions during take-off;
  2. Use of avionics in normal and abnormal / emergency operations, including FMA annunciations, caution and warning messages on the Engine & Warning Display (EWD), and associated human factors issues;
  3. Use of Flight Management System (FMS);
  4. Use of Electronic Checklist (ECL);
  5. Ice detection and management systems and displays (including APM); and
  6. Crew Resource Management (CRM) with regard to the new functionalities.
Training Schedule

Training Schedule

Flight Crew Observation: Indigo’s first Sharklet equipped A320′s scheduled Flight

03 Sunday Feb 2013

Posted by in Aerodynamics, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations, Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Load Alleviation Function is accomplished by deflecting spoilers 4&5, and the ailerons, on both wings.

Load Alleviation Function is accomplished by deflecting spoilers 4&5, and the ailerons, on both wings.

Capt Saleem Zaheer, Chief Pilot – Flight Operations at Indigo Airlines, sent out a mail to all Indigo flight crew describing his flight experience of the first flight of the A320 equipped sharklet, VT-IFH. Capt Saleem, and his senior first officer, flew the aircraft on the DEL-MAA-CJB-DEL pattern (Delhi – Chennai – Coimbatore-Delhi).

In course of their flight, the flight crew noticed no difference between the handling qualities of the sharklet-equipped A320, and their fleet of non-sharklet equipped A320s. The crew however noted the movement of ailerons and outboard spoilers when flying through turbulence, which is in accordance with a design by Airbus known as the Load Alleviation Function (LAF). The higher bending loads experienced by an A320 wing equipped with Sharklets, especially under conditions of rapidly fluctuating lift (when flying through turbulence), need to be alleviated. To accomplish this, the outboard spoilers (Numbers 4 & 5 on both wings) and the wing ailerons are deflected in accordance with the fall or rise in life.

VT-IFI landed in Delhi yesterday, and is the second Sharklet equipped A320 to join Indigo’s fleet.

Below is a video of VT-IFI’s first flight ever, which was on the 25th of January, 2013, at Hamburg, Germany.

Jet Blasting Away Operating Profits at Mumbai airport

01 Friday Feb 2013

Posted by in Airport Operations, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

A Jet Blast Shield, installed at Queenstown Airport, NZ. Image taken from Blastwall.

A Jet Blast Shield, installed at Queenstown Airport, NZ. Image taken from Blastwall.

A common practice at India is the misunderstanding of technical specifications. This leads to field failures. Further effort is spent into a turtle-paced probe of the failure, and till the probe is completed, inconveniences are caused; the inconveniences leading to losses, and the losses finally blamed upon the manufacturer whose specifications were misunderstood.

VABB_ARPTChhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai (ICAO: VABB, IATA: BOM) has two physical runways, one running east-west (09-27), and the other one running north-west-south-east (32-14). The east end of 09-27 is very close to a road, and the Jhari Mari slum. The proximity to the road and slum poses a safety issue, when airplanes open power for takeoff.

The jet blast, from aircraft jet engines, have been demonstrated to cause significant damage to proximate objects, such as cars, and houses. (view the video towards the end of this article) The problem is amplified in larger, and heavier airplanes, that require a significantly greater amount of takeoff thrust.

For example, on an Airbus A320 (180 passengers, maximum takeoff weight up to 78 tonnes), with the CFM 56 Engines, exhaust velocities of upto 144km/h may be recorded at 500ft behind the aircraft. On an Airbus A330 (typically 335 passengers, maximum takeoff weight up to 235 tonnes), with the GE CF6-80E1 engines, exhaust velocities of upto 169km/h may be recorded at 500ft behind the aircraft. On an Airbus A380 (typically 525 passengers, maximum takeoff weight up to 560 tonnes), with the GP 7200 Engines, exhaust velocities of upto 169km/h may be recorded upto 720ft behind the aircraft. The A380, unlike the previous examples, has four engines, pushing a larger mass of air, and causing more potential damage.

Engine Exhaust Velocities at takeoff, Airbus A380

Engine Exhaust Velocities at takeoff, Airbus A380 with Trent 900 Engines

According to the Beaufort Scale of wind speeds, wind speeds in excess of 119 km/h cause “Severe structural damage to buildings”.

At Mumbai airport, when aircraft line up on runway 27 (easterly end) for a departure (takeoff), the closest approximate distance between the aircraft and a sufficiently busy road named “Magan Nathuram” is 500ft. With all sorts of vehicles: cars and tall, loaded trucks plying on the road, the risk of a jet blast’s direct and indirect damage to vehicles, and the adjacent slums, is very high, every time an aircraft takes off.

The Jet Blast shield located near the threshold of Runway 27. The visible gap in the centre is the portion that was jet-blasted away in 2012.

The Jet Blast shield located near the threshold of Runway 27. The visible gap in the centre is the portion that was jet-blasted away in 2012.

This necessitates a Jet Blast shield: a well designed barrier between the aircraft and the road. In 2011, a new Jet blast barrier from Blastwall, a Canadian firm, was installed. A year later, in the July of 2012, the shield gave way when a cargo plane tookoff. Along with the shield, the ILS Localizer array, located right behind the shield and responsible for Runway 09 operations, was damaged.

The Times of India brought out an article on this damaged shield, which may be read HERE.

N1_NOT_AVBL_FOR_OPSSince the July of 2012, the jet blast shield has been left damaged. Satellite images show the central section of the Jet Blast shield missing. The risk of a jet blast affecting civilians outside the airport perimeter has forced Mumbai airport to shut a part of taxiway “N1”, with the NOTAM A0900/12 stating: “PORTION OF TWY ‘N1′ EAST OF TWY ‘N3′ NOT AVBL FOR OPS”. While the ILS has been repaired, the Jet blast shield hasn’t  and as such, aircraft can line up on Runway 27 only via taxiway N3, displacing the take off point almost 1000ft ahead: a requirement to prevent Jet Blasting the locals away.

Interestingly, Blastwall has installed their shields at Toronto Pearson International Airport, and at Queenstown Airport. At Both airports, the installed jet blast shield is located greater than 530ft behind the estimated closest aircraft line up position. At Mumbai, the shield is located only about 400ft behind, subjecting it to greater stresses.

A statement from Peter Roston, President of Blastwall Ltd:

“We have provided frangible fibreglass blast walls to airports all over the world since 1998 and have never had a failure including here in Mumbai. Our specifications are clearly outlined on our web site and in fact were quoted in the purchase order we received for this wall originally. Unfortunately someone misunderstood the limitations as expressed on our site. As a result, once placed in operation, the wall was overstressed almost 100% from the specifications. Being frangible, it did as required and collapsed. In fact the wall performed exactly as designed. Both the president of our engineering company and myself flew to Mumbai to discuss the collapse , review the misunderstanding, and determine a path to correct this problem for the future. We suggested a drastically reinforced model. Eventually, after review of our specifications by the purchaser’s own engineers, this was approved and purchased. It was shipped some time ago and is at the site awaiting installation.”

The very fact that a new, reinforced jet blast shield was purchased is proof that the company was not held liable for a defective product. Peter agreed with the Flying Engineer’s view, stating, “There are only really two solutions: 1- build a stronger wall to contain a higher velocity and/or 2- move the aircraft further from the wall.”

The most frequently used runway for operations, 09-27, is 11,312ft long. A fully laden Boeing 747-400ER Freighter, at 412 Tonnes, requires around 11,000ft of runway to take off at sea level, at 32°C. With almost 1,000ft knocked off, the smaller available take off distance when departing from runway 27 (westerly direction), lowers the permissible takeoff weight of the 747-400ER by 10 tonnes.

TAKEOFF RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS - 747-400ER (CF6-80C2B5F ENGINES)

TAKEOFF RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS – 747-400ER (CF6-80C2B5F ENGINES)

NOTAM A0900/12 is still in effect, and this introduces a payload penalty for long haul operations of large aircraft.

To better appreciate what a Jetblast can do to a vehicle, watch this 50 second video, involving an Airbus A319 (Upto 75.5 Tonnes Maximum Take Off Weight, 156 Pasengers maximum seating capacity, 2 CFM 56-5 Engines producing a max thrust of around 12,000 kg force each):

Second Indian Airline with a Sharklet Equipped A320

31 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by in Manufacturer, Operations

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

GOAIR

Airbus MSN 5463, an A320-214 with Sharklets, that first took to the skies on the 15th of January, 2013, was delivered to Go Air (India) on 30th January, 2013, making the airline the second Indian airline to operate a “Sharklet”-equipped Airbus A320. The induction of VT-GOL makes it the 14th aircraft in the fleet, in addition to two A320s that were leased for the winter, from Orbest Orizonia Airlines.

Go Air, like Indigo, leases back airplanes that it sells. VT-GOL, the sharklet equipped A320, is financed by ACG (Aviation Capital Group) under a sale and leaseback arrangement, and is the 14th of 20 airplanes ordered by Go Air in 2006. In addition, Go Air placed an order for 72 A320NEO airplanes in 2011.

According to Airbus, “Due to the very strong customer demand for Sharklets, all Airbus’ single-aisle final assembly lines (FALs) will be engaged in building A320 Family aircraft with Sharklets. These FALs are located in Toulouse (France), Hamburg (Germany) and Tianjin (China) and will soon be followed by an additional A320 FAL in Mobile (Alabama, USA).”

VT-WAE is the oldest airplane in the fleet, delivered in the October of 2007. If Go Air ‘s lease agreement is for 6 years, VT-WAE is slated to leave the fleet this year.

First Indian airline with Sharklet equipped A320

29 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Manufacturer, Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

6E_Sharklet

Indigo just became India’s first airline to operate a sharklet-equipped A320, with its VT-IFH registered Airbus A320 that it took delivery of, on 28th January, 2013. VT-IFH bears manufacturer serial number (MSN) 5437, and first took to the skies on the 15th of January, 2013, and herald a new chapter for Indigo with an operationally more economical airplane, that has the potential of saving the airline in excess of US$400,000 per year, per aircraft.

All future A320 aircraft to be delivered to IndiGo shall be fitted with the Sharklet wing tip devices.

You may read up more on “sharklets” by clicking here.

This aircraft will be the 75th A320 that the airline has taken delivery of. Of the 75, 14 no longer fly for Indigo. Indigo sells every aircraft that it takes deliver of, leasing the airplane back from the lessor. The lease period is typically for six years: sufficient time for Indigo to make the most of a new airplane’s reliability and performance, while avoiding an expensive “D” check. Those that flew for Indigo, for the first six years of their life, now fly for Ethiad, SAS, BH Air, Myanmar Airways International, Kibris Turk Hava Yollari Charters, and Turkish Airlines.

MSN 5460 is the next sharklet equipped A320 slated to join the Indigo fleet as VT-IFI, while VT-INK will be the next A320 to leave the Indigo fleet.

Go Air will be the next Indian airline to receive Airbus A320 aircraft fitted with sharklets.

Air Costa: Set to fly with Embraer ERJ 170 “E-Jets”

24 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by in Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

(I so badly wanted to title this: “India’s second ERJ 170 series operator: Air Costa”. But we’ve learnt our lessons of a volatile industry, the hard way.)

Air Costa, the Vijayawada based operator that had initially planned to launch operations using five Bombardier Q400s, is finally taking delivery of two Embrarer ERJ 170s. These E-Jets are leased from ECC Leasing. ECC Leasing was established in 2002 to manage and remarket Embraer´s pre-owned aircraft.

Both the ERJ 170s were formerly flying for Gulf Air, and were stored in Germany. One of the airplanes was spotted when it recently received its Air Costa paint scheme from Airbourne Colours at Bournemouth, UK. Airbourne Colours specialises in painting commercial, corporate and military aircraft. The second ERJ 170 is expected to roll out of the paint shop on the 29th of January, 2013.

The two ERJ 170-100LRs are presently registered G-CHJI (MSN 17000278) and G-CHJU (MSN 17000293), and will hopefully bear their Indian registrations soon. The last time Embraer 170s (-200LR, marketed as ERJ 175) were registered in India was when Paramount Airways was operating the type, until the airline ceased operations in 2010.

Air Costa’s Operations are expected to commence in the April of 2013. Reportedly, plans are to operate from Vijayawada to Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Pune, and Vishakhapatnam. Air Costa’s promoter, LEPL (Lingamaneni Estates Private Limited), is a Vijayawada based company involved in infrastructure, power, hospitality, education and entertainment.

Air Costa LogoSurprisingly, the website has published a requirement only for captains, and not first officers or Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. [EDIT*: Experienced pilots with Jet and Turboprop experience have already been recruited and type rated . Most other staff including Engineers have been recruited and trained as well . Recruitment for Cabin Crew is still going on. Experienced crew have been taken to meet insurance requirements.] Further, as per existing civil aviation rules, the yet to take-off “airline” requires a fleet of a minimum of five airplanes, within one year of grant of operator’s permit, to continue its “scheduled passenger air transport services”. However, for a “scheduled regional air transport service”, operations can commence with just one airplane, with the condition that the fleet size grows to a minimum of three aircraft within two years, and a minimum of five aircraft by the end of five years from the date of securing the operator’s permit.

Since none of Air Costa’s planned routes are Category I (certain Metro-Metro pairs), Air Costa may very well start with a Regional Scheduled Operator’s permit.

As per existing Civil Aviation Rules, “Scheduled Regional Air Transport Service means a Scheduled Air Transport service  which operates primarily in a designated region and which on grounds of operational and commercial exigencies may be allowed to operate from its designated region to airports in other regions, except the metro airports of other regions.”

Based on available information, the fleet will comprise of Embraer 170-100s, of a yet unknown fleet strength [EDIT*: 3 additional ERJ 170s are expected, in the period of 6-8 months following the commencement of operations] . This Embraer 170 variant can seat upto 80 passengers, with typically 78 being opted for. The maximum takeoff weight of the heaviest version is 38,600kg. Being lighter than 40,000kg MTOW qualifies Air Costa to pay only 4% service tax on fuel, as opposed to as much as 30% service tax for heavier aircraft. Further, the Airport Authority of India (AAI) does not charge domestic scheduled operators any landing fees for aircraft with a maximum certified capacity of less than 80 seats. These factors bode well for Air Costa.

Why the Embraer 170?

The ATR 72-500/600 burns roughly 760kg/hr, and claims a range of around 825 nautical miles (NM) with 70 passengers at 95kg each. The Embraer 170 burns roughly 1,400kg per hour, but claims a range of close to 2,000 NM with 70 passengers, or a little less than 1,500NM with 80 passengers, at 100kg each. While it may initially appear that Air Costa has gone in for an aircraft that consumes nearly twice the quantity of fuel of the most economical-to-operate western world turboprop, operating economics seem to have possibly been traded for operational flexibility, with the speed of a jet.

For example, the longest sector that the ATR 72 is operated on, in India, is 500NM. The air distance, under no winds, between Vijaywada and Ahmedabad is around 700NM.

Although the ERJ 170 is listed at around US$28M, US$5M costlier than the US$23M listed ATR72-600, slowing sales of the 70 seat jet leads to lowered market value, which translates to attractive purchase or lease rates for operators. In 2012, Embarer produced just 22 ERJ 170 series airplanes (170 and 175), of which only 2 were Embarer 170s; the rest being ERJ 175s. In contrast, ATR produced 64 airplanes in 2012, of which 60 were the ATR 72-500 and 600: airplanes with the same seating capacity as the ERJ 170. With a backlog of 221 airplanes: ATR has the largest backlog for regional aircraft up to 90 seats. In summary, significantly lower demand for the EMB 170 may make it available for cheaper than an equally aged ATR 72. [EDIT*: They were planing on leasing 3 Q400 from Botswana but Embraer offered them a better deal that they couldn't resist.]

The two airplanes that Air Costa is leasing were delivered to Gulf Air in the March of 2010, but were stored in the July of 2012, logging 2 years 4 months of service with the Middle East carrier. Only in the January of 2013, did the aircraft take off in the colours of their new operator.

Air Costa: A behavioural review

Air Costa’s initial announcement of the launch of its airlines with five Q-400 Turboprops, followed by its sudden change of the airplane type within less than a year reflects poor homework, preparation and research, on the part of the airline. Hopefully, the airline has well researched its routes. Further, it is hoped that the demonstrated fickle-mindedness does not reflected in its business plan, making it yet another airline that blossoms only to quickly wither away.

* With Inputs from Cyril Roy

[Images of the Air Costa airplane may be viewed here: LINK]

How an ATR is made: Assembly line

18 Friday Jan 2013

Posted by in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Be it a -72 or a -42, the journey of the aircraft and its parts, in its “gestation period” is very interesting. With demand for the ATR 72 rising sharply, due to its apparent great market value, availability of rated crew, and its operating economics, it is interesting how the assembly line is well coordinated, despite the inherent complexities involved with an assembly process spread over many countries. This is now being optimised by ATR to target 72 airplanes a year, to meet the rising demand for the world’s most popular turboprop. Click on the image below to enjoy the full size image, with readable text.

This image was published by ATR, when celebrating the delivery of its 1000th aircraft, in the May of 2012.

This image was published by ATR, when celebrating the delivery of its 1000th aircraft, in the May of 2012.

Airbus Sharklets and Winglets!

17 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by in Aerodynamics, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations, Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

A320_Sharklet_first_delivery_AirAsia

Air Asia recently received the world’s first “Sharklet”-equipped A320 for commercial operations. Indigo and Go air will very soon have VT-IFH and VT-GOL flying in the Indian skies; both equipped with “sharklets”. Ever wanted to know more about these “Sharklets” that are grabbing headlines today?

Here is a comprehensive article on Winglets, or what Airbus prefers to call them: “Sharklets”, which are “Hunting down fuel burn“.

Read more by CLICKING HERE.

The ATR 72-600: an Introduction

11 Friday Jan 2013

Posted by in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Technical

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ATR 72 Banner

VT-JCX (click for photo) and VT-JCY are now visible on the DGCA’s aircraft register; These are the two, and presently only ATR 72-600s in India, flying for Jet Airways, and deployed on the Mumbai-Diu-Porbandar and Mumbai-Udaipur sectors.

EASA_logoInterestingly, both airplanes reflect on the register as “ATR 72-212A”, which is no different from the type designation of the ATR 72-500. While it is confusing for someone looking up the registry to know if it refers to the ATR 72-500 or the ATR 72-600, a simple look at the All Up Weight, year of manufacture and evidently the manufacturer serial number will sort out your confusion; The ATR 72-600s have an AUW of 23,000kgs, while the ATR 72-500s had a maximum of 22,800 (in the Jet Airways Fleet).  But why the same name?

According to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA):

ATR 72-212A “600 version” is the designation to identify ATR 72-212A aircraft  models  having received the New  Avionic Suite (NAS) modification, also  named as “Glass Cockpit”, which represents the incorporation of ATR  Significant Major Change no 5948 and a batch of associated ATR (major &  minor) modifications. ATR 72-212A “600 version” aircraft are not considered as new aircraft model  or variant. “ATR 72-600″ is the commercial designation of the ATR 72-212A aircraft  model fitted with NAS modification. This designation must not be used on ATR  certified / approved documentation, and only mention of ‘Mod 5948′, ‘ATR 72- 212A with Mod 5948′, “ATR 72-212A fitted with NAS‟ or “ATR 72-212A -600 version” must be indicated.

F-WWEYF-WWEY, manufacturer serial number (MSN) 098, is a 24 year old ATR 72, made in the same year as the first flight of the ATR 72. That very ATR was, in the May of 2009, converted to a ATR 72-600, highlighting the minimal visible differences and changes that the 72 has undergone since its first flight.

The biggest change in the ATR 72 is the new avionic suite, which transforms the Honeywell and Collins cluttered deck to a clean, well laid out modern glass cockpit with avionics from Thales. Borrowing philosophy and deriving certain functionality from the Airbus A380, the cockpit is new. Very new.

The Dividing Line: The clean and well presented -600 cockpit (left) and the cluttered -500 cockpit (right). Undoubtedly late, but worth the wait.

The Dividing Line: The clean and well presented -600 cockpit (left) and the cluttered -500 cockpit (right). Undoubtedly late, but worth the wait.

So new that a very senior commander with the airline, says that “An ATR 72-500 can directly hand fly the -600 easily, for nothing changes with respect to the handling. But he will not be using the avionics to the best of its automation capabilities and functions that significantly ease crew workload, and boost situation awareness”.

Honestly, when I sat with the cockpit layout diagram of the ATR, I was lost, despite being very familiar with the -500. Where you once knew knobs, switches and controls to be: may not be there at all!

With CRTs and electro-mechanical gauges replaced by 5 LCD screens of 6” x 8”, the number of parts has been cut down by 30%, offering a 30kg weight saving and maintenance cost savings of around 15%. For an aircraft that has jumped 200 kgs in its AUW in comparison to the -500 fleet at Jet Airways, 30 kgs is a significant amount.

Primary Flight Display

Primary Flight Display

Let’s try to understand the gains. The older ATR cockpit has, for primary flight instruments, an electro mechanical airspeed indicator with bugs that need to be manually set, a CRT based EADI (Electronic Attitude and Direction Indicator), that would only show you, in addition, if you were flying faster or slower than the manually set speed on the airspeed indicator. The altimeter is electromechanical, with a knob to set the pressure. Newer vertical speed indicators are small, LCD screen based, that also doubles up as a traffic alert collision and avoidance system (TCAS) display, with a small map showing proximate traffic, and the range of these proximate traffic set by a range button. All this, and significantly more functions, are now packed into the primary flight display, which is just one 10” display. There are no moving parts. There is no bulky equipment associated with a Cathode Ray Tube. There is reduced electromagnetic interference, and reduced cooling requirements. If you need a simple comparison, think of the difference between a 34” LCD screen and an old TV. The LCD screen is clearer, crisper, bigger, with richer colours, thinner, significantly much lighter, and when you place your hand near the back, you hardly feel any heat. And if you are to bring your portable radio near the LCD screen, you’ll hardly hear any interference, if not nothing at all.

MFDThe ATR 72’s NAS cockpit is way beyond this. Besides eliminating old technology, and boosting reliability, the NAS introduces much greater functionality that serves one significant purpose: reduced crew workload and increased situation awareness. The ATR crew today is better equipped to answer the questions of “When”, “Where”, “Why”, “What” and “Who” much quicker, with possibly greater accuracy than ever before, without moving the head and hands too much in the cockpit.

Organized, simplified, reliable and enhanced: this is the new ATR that will make your flight in the skies safer. Join me as we discover how, as we embark on a journey that describes, in significant and sufficient detail what this new airplane offers, in contrast to the other 42 ATR aircraft registered in India.

atr21304atr72600royalairmaroccockpitgeneralview

Delhi-Bangalore: A321 Flight Details (NAV & PERF)

20 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in Airport Operations, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Aerodynamics

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

VT-KFY (Airbus A321 MSN 3302). Photo by Vivek Kaul, used with permission.

My flight on the 20th of December 2009 was a memorable experience. My friend, who was a first officer with the then 5 star airline, Kingfisher, had informed the captain (an ex-IAF officer) and the lady first officer that I was their passenger on their Delhi – Bangalore flight. Comfortably seated on 37A, I found the orange juice stain I had left behind on the same seat when flying from Bangalore to Delhi a couple of days earlier.

Having been part of a huge “makeover” program at Honeywell, I was keen to gather flight data that I could possibly use for my training at the company. I sent out the “In flight form” to the crew members, scribbled on sheets from the hotel where the company had accommodated me. Most of the data is, as you will notice, from the FMS pages of the Airbus A320 family.

VT-KFY, the Airbus A321, was the first, and till date, the only A321 that I have flown on. Branded with MSN 3302, and fitted with IAE V2500 engines, I was all too interested in the then 2 year old airplane.

With the DGCA Cancelling the license of Kingfisher Airlines, this article is a tribute to an airline whose employees and flights taught me so much.

Capt M and F/O F were kind enough to fill in all requested details for IT-207 Operated by an A321, VT-KFY

Flight Plan & Navigation

VT-KFY, operating as IT-207 was planned to fly Delhi  to Bangalore via airway W20S and W57S. W20S starts from the VOR at Delhi (DPN), and runs south-south east till Hyderabad International Airport’s VOR, HIA. W57S starts at HIA, and terminates at Bangalore International Airport’s VOR, BIA.

Our take off was from Runway 28, which is westerly in its orientation. After take off, the aircraft has to join the airway, for which the Air Traffic System at busy airports provide what are known as a SIDs: (standard instrument departure), which are laid down procedures that specify how an airplane taking off from a particular runway may intercept and join a particular airway. In our case, the then effective AKELA 3B SID was applicable, which details how the airplane, after takeoff from Runway 28, may turn left to intercept waypoint AKELA, which lies on W20S.

Airspace restrictions make W20S head south-south-west till waypoint KALNA, before changing direction to south-south-east towards Bhopal. This non-direct route between the two radio stations at Delhi and Bhopal makes an airplane fly 15NM extra. However, in practice, pilots request for a direct-to from AKELA to BPL, which, more often than not, is granted, saving around 10NM of ground distance. Upto waypoint IBANI, the aircraft flies  in the Delhi Flight Information Region (FIR). Passing IBANI, the aircraft enters Mumbai FlR.

Mumbai is around 420NM from waypoint IBANI, and yet, the airplane must be in contact with Mumbai Control, which is physically located at Mumbai. Communication link between the airplane and the centre, through direct VHF will not be possible, as a VHF radio’s range is limited to line of sight: around 200NM. Overcoming this problem are VHF transmitters positioned in the Mumbai FIR such that when a voice transmission over VHF occurs at Mumbai, the same VHF signal is broadcasted from multiple ground transmitters. This ensures sufficient coverage throughout a FIR.

From BPL, pilots are often granted a direct-to all the way to waypoint VABDI, which saves hardly anything.

RVSM Cruising Levels

Since the route is easterly, even though slightly, ICAO specified RVSM cruising levels have to be adhered to. Airplanes flying easterly, must fly at “Odd” flight levels (FL). Example, FL 290, FL 310, FL 330, and so on. FL 290 stands for Flight Level 290, which is 29,000ft above sea level at an assumed barometric pressure of 1013.25hPa (hector Pascal) at sea level. Since it is an “assumption” that is followed by every airplane at the flight levels, all airplanes with their altimeters displaying 29,000ft with the assumption set in the altimeter, are flying at the same altitude, through the true altitude may differ by as much as 2000ft from the displayed altitude at this “Standard Barometric” pressure of 1013.25 hPa.

About 20NM from waypoint BUSBO, the aircraft is “released” from Mumbai control and “handed over” to Chennai Control, where pilots may contact the physical centre at Chennai (approximately 400NM away from BUSBO) on one of 11 VHF frequencies.

Observing the route, the direction changes toward the west (south south west) over waypoint VABDI. However, back then, when Chennai did not have sufficient radar coverage, airplanes on W57S needed to either climb 1000ft or descend 1000ft over Hyderabad. This was to change the cruise altitude from an ODD flight level to an EVEN flight level earlier than VABDI, for surveillance reasons. As far as our flight was concerned, we descended from our cruise level of FL 350 to FL 340 over Hyderabad.

We approached Bangalore from the north east, and the active runway at that time was 09, which is east facing. We were “vectored” (given compass headings to follow) by air traffic control, and “broke off” from W57S in a divergent heading. This was to take us further west, before directing us to intercept the ILS for runway 09.

The airway distance between Delhi and Bangalore is 950NM. However, with the standard instrument departure and the arrival into the airfield, the total ground distance  increases to 980NM, which is an extra of 30NM. With the soon to be introduced RNP route between Delhi and Bangalore, this sector’s ground distance shall reduce significantly.

Performance

VT-KFY, for that day’s flight to Bangalore, weighed 79 tonnes, as against its all up weight of 89 tonnes. 14.5 Tonnes of fuel was uplifted, and the centre of gravity was determined at 24.7% of the Mean Aero Dynamic Chord (MAC). Permissible range is 15% to 35%, with a preference for a rear CG to improve fuel burn performance. Corresponding to this CG, the horizontal stabilizer was trimmed for nose UP to an Airbus defined position of 1 unit. This is to keep stick forces (on the pitch axis) almost neutral during takeoff.

A quick look at the Flight Crew Operating Manual for the A321 reveals that for a 980NM flight at FL350 (assumption: no winds, wind data on that day wasn’t collected), the A321 with a takeoff weight of 79 Tonnes burns approximately 6600kg of fuel for the entire flight from takeoff to landing. Approximately 200kg is burnt during startup and taxi, raising the estimated fuel burn to 6800kg. The estimated flight time between take off and landing is 2 hours 22 minutes.

The difference between the uplifted fuel (14,500kg) and the trip fuel (6800kg) was huge: 7,700kg. Bangalore’s ATF rates being higher than Delhi’s, 7.7T of fuel was “tankered” to Bangalore, which was to be used up for the next day’s flight to Delhi out of Bangalore.

A Cost Index of 18 was used for the flight. The Cost Index is a measure of the cost of time v/s the cost of fuel. The unspecified unit is kg/min, which in this case translates to 18kg of fuel being as costly as 1 minute of flight time. If the cost of fuel was low, the cost of time relatively goes up, which increases the numerical value of the cost index. If the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of time in comparison pales, lowering the numerical value of CI. Last year, most flights by Kingfisher were operated at around Cost Index 10. Lower the cost index, slower the airplane flies. For our flight that day, CI 18 corresponded to a cruise speed of Mach 0.775 under no wind conditions. There must not have been any significant winds, as the aircraft’s FMS targeted the same Mach number for cruise.

Takeoff was planned with “Flap configuration” 1+F, which is the first of four selectable “configurations” on all in-production Airbus commercial airplanes. 1+F corresponds to 18° of slats and 10° of flaps on the A321. Lower flap settings provide better fuel burn and climb performance.

Because the airplane was taking off 10 tonnes lighter than its maximum, full engine thrust for take off wasn’t required. Although the outside air temperature that night was 15°, the engine was told to produce a thrust corresponding to an outside air temperature of 44°C. Specifying a higher temperature reduces the generated thrust, saving engine life through reduced operation at the extremes. The thrust was “flex(ed) to” 44°.

With this thrust setting, the specifics of Runway 28 at Delhi, weather and the weight of the airplane, the aircraft’s take off speeds were determined as V1 : 152kts, VR : 152kts, and V2 : 156kts. V1 is the decision speed. If anything was to have happened that demanded the take off to be rejected, the decision to reject must have been made before the airplane reached the decision speed of 152kts. Attempting to stop the airplane beyond this speed is unwise, as the combination of aircraft energy and remaining runway length will prevent the airplane from stopping before the end of the runway. Vr is when the pilot pulls back on the stick to “rotate” the nose up into the air. V2 is the takeoff climb speed: the speed that is maintained on the initial climb out phase (when gaining altitude is important) before building up further speed.

Delhi’s airport is at an elevation of 777ft MSL. Takeoff thrust and take off speed (usually V2 + 10, 166kts in this case) was maintained till 1000ft above ground level, or 1720ft above MSL. At that point, the thrust was lowered to climb thrust, and the nose pitched down to maintain the same speed (V2 + 10), till 1500ft above airport elevation, or 2277ft in this case. Passing this altitude, the nose was further lowered, to build up airspeed. As the airspeed built, the flaps were retracted to “clean up” the aircraft, allowing for further acceleration. The best lift to drag speed is realised at the “O” speed, which was 217kts on that day for the given aircraft weight.

The Cruise Altitude of FL350 was determined by looking for the optimal cruise altitude at the aircraft’s weight and weather conditions. Least fuel burn is expected at the cruise altitude. Since the aircraft was flying east, the ODD flight level closest to the optimum altitude is chosen, which, in our case, was 350.

For the A321, the time to this cruise altitude, under ideal conditions at 79 tonnes, takes 25 minutes over 160 NM , burning 2000kg of fuel. Air Traffic Restrictions normally prevent most airplanes climbing out of Delhi from reaching their cruise altitude this early.

Reaching cruise, the aircraft became lighter by 2 tonnes, reducing its weight to 77 tonnes. At this weight, at FL350 under ideal conditions, the airplane guzzles around 2800kg of fuel per hour, at Mach 0.78 (450kts ground speed). Considering that the aircraft needs at minimum around 100NM to descend, and 160NM to climb, 720NM at best is traversed at cruise. This implies approximately 1hr 30 minutes in cruise, burning 3,200kg of fuel.

Starting descent, VT-KFY might have been around 73,800kg heavy. Interestingly, a light airplane descends faster. Descent from FL350 at continuous IDLE thrust takes about 17 minutes over 100NM by an A321, under ideal conditions, at the specified weight.

Our A321, for landing, was configured with full FLAPS, which corresponds to a slats of 27° and flaps of 25°. The approach speed, at the estimated landing weight of 73,000 tonnes, was 142kts. Kingfihser later adopted CONFIG 3 landings, which extends slats / flaps to 22°/21°, offering lower drag and saving fuel.

The autobrakes were set to Low (LO), one of three positions: LO, MED, HIGH. No Thrust reversers were used for landing, which was, and still is part of fuel saving procedures the world over.

Boeing 727: The “Original” Airbus

09 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Aircraft Production, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Boeing Advertisement, taken from a 1973 issue of Flight Global. Click to Enlarge.

Two online definitions of an “airbus” are:

  1. AIR-BUS: A short-range or medium-range commercial passenger airplane, especially one that is part of a frequent shuttle like service between two popular destinations. [Dictionary.com]
  2. An aircraft designed to carry a large number of passengers economically, esp. over relatively short routes. [Google]

Boeing 727 in a freighter configuration. Creative Commons.

Interestingly, that name is what we today associate with the European aerospace company. In the pre-Airbus era, “airbus” was a term used to describe airplanes, as above. When the Airbus Industrie was founded in 1970, they adopted the popular description. The Boeing 727 was one such very well known, and immensely successful “airbus” airplane back in its time, when it entered service in 1964.

Here is the more interesting part: American Airlines began flying the Boeing 727 in 1964, making it one of the first operators, and at one point of time, the airline operated as many as 182 Boeing 727s, making it the largest operator of the type.

This same operator, in as early as 1966, laid out the requirements for a Boeing 727 “replacement” on short to medium range routes. The requirements were: a passenger capacity of 250 – 300, twin aisle, twin engine, and good hot and high airfield performance.

The very next year, the British, French and German governments signed an MoU to develop the Airbus A300: a 300 seat, twin aisle, twin engine aircraft. With twice the maximum capacity (375 seats) of a Boeing 727 airliner (189 seats), it almost seemed like the A300 was “tailormade” for American Airlines. Intended for short and medium haul routes, the A300 was another “airbus”.

Airbus A300, flying for American Airlines. Creative Commons

American Airlines was the largest passenger operator of the type, with 35 Airbus A300s. The A300, very obviously, was deployed on routes with sufficient capacity, replacing two 727s with one A300, which in effect, was replacing 6 engines with 2, Two sets of Crew with one, and Two fuel guzzling 727s with an operationally more economical airplane that cost just twice as much as a single Boeing 727.

Possibly sensing trouble, Boeing came out with an advertisement in 1973 (beginning of article), a copy of which was published in one of that year’s print issue of Flightglobal. The advertisement was a direct hit at Airbus, in which it makes a very unfair comparison between the 727 and the alluded-to A300. At the time of the advertisement, Airbus was only 3 years old, and the A300 hadn’t yet entered service. The 727 was, at the time of the advertisement, flying for almost 10 years, and evidently, without a successful competitor, the “best selling” at that time, with orders crossing the 1000th mark in the September of 1972.

The introduction of the A300, amongst other newer airplanes, had its effect on the 727. It took 9 years to sell 1000 Boeing 727s, but 18years thereafter to sell 832 airplanes. The last Boeing 727 was built in 1984, and the 727 was retired from American Airlines’ fleet in 2002. The Airbus A300 was produced for 33 years: 12 years more than the 727, producing 561 airplanes. The A300 fleet was retired from American Airlines in 2009.

In short, the Airbus Industry was effectively formed to cater to an American Airlines requirement, and the American Airlines requirement stemmed from the Boeing 727. Which, if seen in another light, will appear as if the Boeing 727 gave birth to the Airbus Industrie.

The advertisement, very aptly, reads, “Because the Boeing 727 is the original airbus”.

A Cockpit “flare” for “perspective”

03 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Operations, Flight Safety, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Aerodynamics

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Seat Position Sight Gauge on the ATR 72

The ATR 72-500 has its idiosyncrasies. In the cockpit is a “seat position sight gauge”, which are three small, coloured balls that allow a pilot to adjust his viewpoint to a position that ATR deems appropriate, allowing for a “correct view of instrument panels as well as runway environment”. The photo above shows the ATR 72 cockpit, with the sight gauge enlarged in the inset. If the first officer is to have his viewpoint right, he must adjust his seat height and position such that when looking at the three balls, the left white ball is obscured by the red centre ball.

Eye Level Indicator on the Q400

Interestingly, this gauge is not found in the Boeings, where the recommended method of adjusting the viewpoint is different. The ATR 72-500/600’s competitor, the Q400, however, has something similar, called the “eye level indicator”, as may be seen in the second photo. The Airbuses, not surprisingly, have a sight gauge similar to that found on the ATR.

Possibly one of the smartest first officers in India told me, after seeing me so diligently adjusting my P1 seat in an ATR 72-212A (500) to the correct viewpoint, that I was too high. Apparently, the seat position sight gauge does do its job well, but it isn’t something you’d want to level your eye with on an airplane like the ATR 72-500. Why? Visual perspective.

With the eyes adjusted, the view is good, and clean. But with the ATR 72, (and the Q400) one has to be very careful with the flare: the airplane’s fuselage is long and low, and a tail strike is easy. Another complication is the aircraft itself: having a constant speed propeller means that when you pull back on the power levers, the pitch angle of the propeller blades changes to “fine” (almost perpendicular to the direction of the airplane’s travel through the air), resulting in a significant increase in drag. If the flare is more than required, and the airplane balloons*, pulling back on the power levers is the last thing one would want to do, as the drag would make the aircraft drop to the runway like a stone!  So one would add power to keep the airplane up, and this will eat up more runway: Messy indeed. And for him, with the ATR recommended viewpoint, comes the tendency to flare more than required.

*[The term “balloon” refers to a landing airplane that rises slightly before touching down. Ballooning is typically caused by excessive airspeed or excessive back pressure being applied to the flight controls by the pilot during the landing flare]

So what he does is to sit lower than the recommended view point: low enough to make him actually look up to see outside. This works well for him, and few others who have settled for this more comfortable, though not recommended, seating technique. Anything that works!

What can go wrong just because of an improper flare?

On 9th May, 2004, N438AT, an ATR 72-212, during the approach to landing, the captain stated to the first officer (flying), “you better keep that nose down or get some power up because you’re gonna balloon.”. After the airplane crossed the runway threshold, the captain stated, “power in a little bit, don’t pull the nose up, don’t pull the nose up.” The captain then stated, “you’re ballooning,”. The airplane touched down with a vertical load of 1.3G, bounced into the air, touched down a second time, then bounced into the air with a nose up of 9°, climbed to 37 feet, and touched down a third time with a vertical load of 5Gs. After a fourth touchdown, the badly damaged airplane came to a stop outside the runway.

On 17th September, 2005, D-ANFH, an ATR 72-212A, Just prior to touchdown, the co-pilot pitched the aircraft nose up to an attitude of 6.5º. The aircraft landed hard on the runway and bounced; in the course of the initial touchdown, the lower rear fuselage struck the runway surface.

On 23rd May 2006, G-BWDA, an ATR 72-202, towards the conclusion of a brilliant approach, the first officer closed the power levers at 10ft and flared the aircraft. The airplane touched down, bounced into the air, and the attempt to arrest the sinking of the aircraft to the ground, pulled back on the control column, striking the tail.

And yes, I have also heard some of my friends say, “Oh damn, I forgot to flare!”

Jet Airways: ATR 72-500s, 600s, and Training Flights

19 Wednesday Sep 2012

Posted by in Aircraft Production, Airport Operations, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A 15″ shutter lets VT-JCM streak through the sky, with its all white anti-collision light system.

Turboprop, again. Flying over the geographical south Bangalore, with multiple flight crew on a FAM (Familiarization) course, VT-JCM, an ATR-72-500, has been flying from the last few hours, performing around 15 touch-and-goes, and atleast one ILS approach for runway 27, VOBG.

JCM, the 4 year 3 month old leased airplane flying for Jet Airways, India, is part of a dwindling fleet of ATR 72-500s at Jet Airways. The once 20 strong fleet is now down to 18, with VT-JCF and VT-JCH having been sent back to the lessors.

Another 4 ATR 72-500s are on their way out, and this will bring the fleet down to 14 ATR 72-500. Why then would you have a FAM flight for first officers when the fleet is being downsized?

Because the 6 ATR-72-500s are being replaced by 6 ATR 72-600s from GECAS, possibly in November 2012.

The sad part is, that although ATR took great pains to ensure near identical cockpits for absolutely identical airplanes (the only significant difference is the cockpit, operationally speaking), the DGCA does not allow the cross-utilization of crew flying the two variants of the ATR 72. This will drive the turboprop crew to be further broken up into two sets.

Cockpits of the ATR 72-500 (left) and ATR 72-600 (right). While the -600 is a full glass cockpit, essentially they’re the same cockpits of the same airplane.

As of today, only two examiners in the company have been trained (rated) on the ATR 72-600, one of whom is the Chief Pilot of the turboprop fleet.

So maybe, to cater to this new spilt of DGCA recognized “incompatible” crew, training flights are underway on the ATR 72-500 to make up for first officers who will be moved to the -600 fleet.

The Training Flight

Training flights are interesting. Today’s training flight was being conducted by a “very, very senior” Bangalore based examiner.

Typically, the airplane is topped up to 4 tonnes of fuel, and the duration of a FAM flight for each crew member is typically around 45 minutes, with about 10 minutes per visual circuit. Each circuit burns around 200 kgs of fuel.

Conditions (18th-Sept-2012, 2300 local): Winds 290/06kts, Runway 27, Visibility 8km, Clouds 1500ft Scattered 8000ft, Temperature 22°, Dew point 19°, Qnh 1014.

So how do you go about flying the airplane on a circuit?

The visual pattern is performed at 1500ft AGL, which is 4500ft in the case of Bangalore. After takeoff and cleaning up the aircraft (gear up, flaps retract from 15°), the aircraft power is reduced to maintain 170kts on the downwind. Abeam the threshold (touchdown threshold), extend flaps to 15°, take the gear down, and start the timer. When 45 seconds elapses on the timer (+/- 1 second for every kt of headwind), the aircraft is turned to base, descending at about 500ft/min. The Autopilot, if ON, is disconnected for the turn, and the crew checks the vertical situation of the airplane in relation to the airfield, and adjusts the descent rate based on either the glide slope indication or the PAPI. When turning for finals, flaps are extended to 30°, and the approach speed maintained at around 100kts for a light aircraft in nil winds. With the main landing gear touching down, the nose is gently lowered while the flaps are retracted to 15° by the pilot not flying (captain in the case of FAM flights), and the take off config button pressed. Due to the immense aerodynamic braking of the ATR 72’s 12 propeller blades even at flight-idle-blade-pitch, the drag causes the speed to descend to around or below 70 kts. If below 70 kts, the captain takes over via the nose wheel steering, applies take off power, and the first officer has controls at 70kts and above. Rotate, and repeat.

Visual Pattern for the ATR 72, taken from a public site publishing a section of the FCOM.

 

 

 

Air India’s controversial Dream-liner: Made, and Delivered.

07 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by in Aerodynamics, Aircraft Production, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

[787 production video at the end of article]

The 21st 787 to be delivered, and the first of 27 Dreamliners destined for Air India, VT-ANH was delivered yesterday to the ailing national flag carrier in a low key ceremony at Boeing’s South Carolina delivery centre. Scheduled to be ferried to Delhi today (Friday, 07 September 2012), the dreamliner is expected to touch down at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IATA: DEL, ICAO: VIDP) on the morning of Saturday, 08 September 2012.

The Dream-liner has actually been quite a nightmare for Air India. A four year production delay, and the antics of the Indian Government, and “pure-blood” Air India pilots, have made things quite distasteful. Air India pilots not wanting pre-merger Indian Airlines’ pilots to get rated on the 787, The Indian government (through Air India) demanding greater compensation from Boeing, and the 28th July un-contained GEnX-1B engine failure during high speed taxi trials on a 787 destined for Air India have  culminated in making the 787 appear (literally) like an blood smeared dagger responsible for an aviation bloodbath.

VT-ANH is Line number 35, and the manufacturer’s serial number 36276; its first flight having been conducted on the 25th of January, 2012. Of the other 787s produced / in production, VT-AND (Line 29) and VT-ANI (Line 46) are ready for delivery, while VT-ANA/B/C/E/G are in storage and undergoing rework. VT-ANJ (line 54) and VT-ANK (Line 60) are undergoing pre-flight preparations, while line numbers 65 and 72 (unregistered) are undergoing final assembly. Line Number 90, to be assembled in Everett, is also destined for Air India.

Rework is underway on the earlier line numbers (25, 26, 28,30, 32), possibly to fix the 10 – 15% reduced range (6900NM as against the promised 7700 – 8200NM) due to the 8% overweight airplane.

How does this airplane compare to the existing twin engine widebodies flying for Air India? 

Performance Comparisons between the four twin engine widebodies flying for AI. Note that performance figures for the 777 200LR and 300ER are based on FL350, LGD Wt: 200T, 7200NM. Data derived from graphs may have unspecified tolerances.

Seating on the widebodies, with seat pitch and sizes where available. Width and Pitch are in inches.

All technical information have been sourced from Airbus and Boeing published documents

A General Aviation Flight Simulator

03 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by in Aerodynamics, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A 5 month sabbatical from my website (I continued to write for my print magazine, Airbuz) was well spent. I engaged myself in the design and development of a General Aviation Flight Simulator. Either click HERE to know more, or visit my section, “Projects”.

I must thank my readers who were both patient and concerned. I hope you like the simulator!

And yes, I’m back!

India’s Second Q400 operator: Air Costa

10 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Making up in part for the poor representation of the Q400 in Asia is LEPL, the business conglomerate with a footprint in Infrastructure, Power, Entertainment, Education, Hospitality and Health Care, that announced on the 22nd of February a new regional airline catering to Tier II & Tier III cities using a fleet of 5 Q400 next gen Turbo prop aircraft.

Headquartered at Vijayawada and with hubs planned at Hyderabad and Chennai, the all turbo prop airline, Air Costa, plans to start operations in either May or June in preparation for which a newspaper advertisement was brought out calling applications from Captains, transition captains, first officers, cabin crew, aircraft maintenance engineers, and other ground staff.

The Q400 Next Gen’s direct and only competitor, the ATR 72-600 may have given the Vijaywada base airline’s decision makers a tough time in choosing the right aircraft for their operations. The ATR 72-600 is more economical, with the direct operating costs lower than that of the Q400. The ATR 72-600 consumes significantly lesser fuel than the Q400 per passenger, breaks-even at a lower load factor, costs 7-8 million USD cheaper to procure, and yet Air Costa chose the Q400.

Three reasons can make the Q400 more attractive than the ATR 72-600: its ability to carry an additional 6 revenue paying passengers, its high performance, and most importantly, its range.

Looking up manufacturer published range v/s payload charts, the Q400 and the ATR 72 can be compared on an almost level ground. Bombardier’s published data is unambiguous: They clearly specify the range is considering fuel reserves for a 100NM alternate airfield, 45 minutes of holding time, and 5% flight fuel contingency, and that the aircraft is flown in high speed cruise. ATR on the other hand puts these reserves under “JAR Fuel Reserves”. This conceals the assumptions: the distance to the alternate airfield isn’t known, and in previous brochures, an 87NM alternate was considered. This only means that the range indicated by ATR may be lesser than projected if one is to consider a 100NM alternate.

ATR 72 (left) and the Q400's (right) Range-Payload chart. Note that the Q400 chart is for High Speed Cruise, 100NM alternate, 45 hold and 5% fuel contingency, while the ATR 72's chart keeps the essential details hidden.

Nevertheless, ignoring the differences and pulling out the figures still puts the Q400′s range (High Gross Weight version: the Q400 variant used by Spicejet) a minimum 80NM greater than the ATR 72-600′s (the “OPTION” that ATR offers, which boasts off greater range and weights than the “BASIC” variant), at maximum passenger load (78 X 102 = 7959kg for the Q400 and 72 X 102= 7344kg for the ATR 72-600), this maximum payload considering passengers at 102kgs each (75kg adult + 20kg check in+ 7kg cabin baggage).

*Data from Bombardier. **Data from ATR

This 80NM makes all the difference in planning a flight from Hyderabad to Tiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum). Considering the fact that Air Costa plans to serve Tier II cities in India, there is no reason why this sector wouldn’t be considered. Spicejet operates a daily Q400 flight direct from Hyderabad to Trivananthapuram, with a scheduled block time of 2hrs 15 minutes, with Cochin as the alternate, which is around 100NM away. The ATR 72-600 on the other hand will not be able to fly direct between the city pair with full payload. Deviations due to weather, winds, and flying airways that zig-zag in varying degrees add air distance: all this combined with the 100NM alternate (Cochin) will make things tough for a flight planned on the ATR 72.

The Q400′s range presents operational flexibility. A flight from Chennai to Mumbai, with Pune as the alternate may also be planned on the Q400, but not on the ATR 72.

Air Costa may settle for a cabin configuration similar to Spicejet’s: 78 seat, 30″ seat pitch all economy configuration.

With an all turbo prop fleet, Air Costa will enjoy the lowest fuel cost per aircraft per litre of ATF (Aircraft Turbine Fuel) amongst all scheduled operators in India, due to the non-applicability of sales tax on ATF for scheduled operation with regional aircraft of seating capacity less than 80 seats. Considering the sad fact that in India, ATF accounts for nearly 50% of operating costs, the savings cannot be overemphasised. The Q400′s flexibility in range and speed can potentially throw open an all new airline to the Indian traveller: an airline that can keep costs low, flexibility high, giving other airlines a run for their money.

The timing of Air Costa isn’t bad either. With Kingfisher Airlines’ flight and cabin crew applying outside to other airlines, there may be no dearth of experienced manpower. With 5 aircraft and an average estimated requirement of 10 pilots per airplane (commanders + first officers), at least 50 flight crew members and possibly about 50 cabin crew would be needed, all of whom may easily be “sourced” from Kingfisher.

In conclusion, Air Costa will operate an aircraft that will offer it immense route flexibility, while keeping costs very low. With good planning, strong political connections, and the introduction of frequent flights between Tier I cities (such as Bangalore-Mumbai, Bangalore-Chennai, Hyderabad-Mumbai, Hyderabad-Bangalore and Chennai-Mumbai), Air Costa may, if well managed, become the envied airline of tomorrow.

In Photos: The 787: “Lining” the Dream, from back to front: India Aviation 2012

16 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by in Aircraft Production, Airshow, Exhibitors, General Aviation Interest, India Aviation 2012, Manufacturer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

I thought I’d be this cool dude by writing an extensive article on the 787 right away. Its too big, and too grand for that. In the time I will take to write up on the Dream, enjoy the photos from The Flying Engineer, who got one of the most detailed tours of the new bird from Boeing. And I adopted a reverse airflow direction over 238 economy seats and 18 business to cover this bird. Paid off!

The 787's aft Galley. In this airplane, the feeling of space is overwhelming!

A very kind Boeing employee showing me how much the seat can recline in the economy class. Notice that the bottom cushion for the thigh support slides forward as the seat reclines backward.

Another great feature on board this Boeing is the foot rest. Small additions like these make a long 8000NM flight more comfortable.

The Economy entertainment system. Providers of IFE are Panasonic and Thales. The nice handy remote can allow you to not only play your personal collection of movies through the provided USB socket, but can swipe your card for payments as well!

Another small yet useful feature: the 115V AC sockets for your appliances: available for every passenger under his/her seat!

Cabin clean shot: the economy 9 abreast seating (3-3-3) with a 32" seat pitch. Notice the feeling of space, the elevated ceiling, and the very curved overhead bins. It fools you into believing that there isn't sufficient overhead space. See the next photo to know more!

Mr. good guy from Boeing poses with a huge trolly bag and a charming smile, just to show what can fit in the overhead and how! See the next picture.

A comparison of the overhead bin, when opened, and retracted (closed). notice the space. And notice the illusion of a poor capacity when retracted. Its unbelievable.

All due to the overhead bin innovative design, you no longer have to crouch to reach your window seat. You can stand closer, and longer, for seats close to the window. There is comfort, there is space, and there is well-thought-of engineering.

Business Class: Notice the seats that allow you to lie flat and get a good flight's sleep!

Mr. goodguy from Boeing poses again just to show you how much space there is everywhere. A wide cabin, a tall ceiling, curved and non-intrusive overhead bins: all make for a very good feeling of space.

Another take of the Business class seats! They're wide, and they have a 78" seat pitch. The IFE seems good, but the comfort is unparalleled.

Photo comparison of the most talked about thing in the cabin: the polarised windows. There are no shades. Instead, electrically controlled windows (through polarisation) cut the amount of light that passes through. The left photo and the right are taken with the same camera settings of exposure & ISO. Yet, note that despite it being broad daylight, on selecting a complete cut, its pretty dark inside (look close at the left photo and you will see a faint blue image)

The small round control below each window is responsible for the dimming.

Wilson Chow, who is about 2 meters in height, trying to show me that there is no way you can ever feel claustrophobic on board this beauty!

As soon as you enter the aircraft from the front-left passenger door, you see this. The stairway to heaven: the overhead crew rest area!

A view from the crew rest area, looking down at the cockpit entrance.

Cozy enough, comfortable. Enough for the crew? See the next photo to find out!

Boeing's 787 Captain Pat Bearce, a 6ft 3" tall ex-marines pilot, showing me that he too is comfortable in the crew rest!

The holy deck. The most sought after tourist destination on board the airplane. the Head up Displays, the avionics, and the simple feeling of luxurious space is very luring.

Another view of the deck, from the Captain's seat. The Honeywell FMS running on a Smith's (now GE) Hardware.

The Head Up Display. Notice how the display doesn't need constant refocusing of the eye. Infact, the lady captain said she who needed glasses to see instruments up close now no longer needs any spectacles while flying. HUD's allow you to have lower approach minima in poor weather.

I regret not having caught her name (Edit: Capt. Ross). There she is showing me the 787's "soft" FMS, which is NOT a touch screen, as one would be fooled into believing. A mouse-like cursor is navigated to the desired software buttons and clicked. pretty much like a laptop touch pad.

Up close and even closer. The Capt's hand on the Cursor Control unit., and shes navigating her way through the FMS. Hard to use the cursor and the keypad left of the screen, both of which demand constant shifting of the hand? Not really, says her. Its faster than on the 777's hard-FMS, is what the lady cpatin tells me!

The only touch screens in the cockpit are the Electronic Flight Bags, or the EFB. Comfort. Ease. Style. Technology.

So similair to the 777's cockpit is the 787 that FAA allows crews to undergo only 5 days of transistion training. It hasbn't worked this way across the world, with complaints from ANA, but from a higher level: the controls, the layout, the functions are all very similar to the 777. Says Capt's Pat, "To me, I just forget what a 777 and a 787 are when flying. they're transparent to each other. Almost"