• Home
  • Aircraft
    • Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72
    • Spicejet unveils the Q400s
  • FlightDeck & Systems
    • Airbus A320 Experience
    • Boeing’s MAX, Southwest’s 737
    • Cockpit Design: EPR v/s N1 indication
    • Evolution
    • Winglets and Sharklets
  • Training
    • A320 FFS LOFT Session
    • IGRUA
    • Aerospace Engineering in India: the Gaps
    • NFTI: Rising to the Top, and how
  • Out Of the Blue
    • Captain Dad and kid First Officer
    • GPS to the rescue!
    • Iran Air 743: Landing Without Nose Gear
    • LOT 767 Gear Up Landing
    • Love is in “the air”
    • Cathay’s Young Cabin Crew!
  • In Photos
    • Aero India 2011
    • Aero India 2009
  • Projects
    • General Aviation Flight Simulator
    • Airbus Tech
      • About PAT
      • AIRCON/PRESSURIZATION/VENTILATION
      • COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
      • ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
      • FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
      • FUEL SYSTEMS
      • HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
    • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go!
  • People
    • Radka Máchová
  • About

The Flying Engineer

~ Technically and Operationally Commercial Aviation

The Flying Engineer

Tag Archives: Airbus

Air Asia: Hiring Indian Captains and First Officers

12 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in General Aviation Interest

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

A320, Air, Airbus, Asia, Captain, First, Hiring, India, Officer, Pilots, rating, type

Air Asia

Air Asia has begun recruiting India Based Captains and India based First Officers for Air Asia-India. Last date for applying for the posts is the 19th of April, 2013. You have 5 days!

The good news is that even CPL holders without a type rating or experience on the Airbus fleet, are encouraged to apply. All you need are a minimum of 200hrs total flying time! Of course, a type rating will stand in your favour.

Applications for the position of a captain has, what is seen rarely in the Indian Industry, a minimum age limit of 26 years. Applicants must hold a valid ATPL. Senior first officers with a minimum of 5,000 hours total flying time may apply.

This news brings hope to many presently employed with Kingfisher Airlines, as they stand a very high chance of being considered. There will be an exodus of pilots from Indigo towards Air Asia, as upgrades to the rank of a captain (P1) is taking much longer than the airline had promised earlier. Low seniority numbers will tempt many first officers and commanders to jump to the new Indian airline.

Kingfisher and Indigo crew are expected to form the major chunk of flight crew at Air Asia, followed by A320 rated first officers, and CPL holders.

Air Asia specifies clearly, “AirAsia has not appointed any third party agents to recruit on our behalf. Official recruitment should only be conducted through airasia.com, official social media platforms and/or email addresses (user@airasia.com)“

Follow the link below to the official Air Asia Page where you may apply:

Captains: http://www.airasia.com/in/en/about-us/india-captain.page

First Officers: http://www.airasia.com/in/en/about-us/india-first-officer.page

A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn’t quite right.

05 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in Aircraft Production, General Aviation Interest, Technical

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

777, 787, A330, A340, Airbus, Boeing, Production, Ramp, Up

A330_FALAirbus has announced that its Airbus A330 production rate has touched 10 aircraft a month, which is significant for a wide body airliner, and the highest production rate of any Airbus widebody aircraft.

Airbus claims that the Airbus A330 is “the most popular in its category”. A330 Programme head Patrick Piedrafita said more than 800 sales have been logged since Airbus’ competitor launched its 787, validating the A330’s sustained competitiveness. That statement is vague.

The 767-300ER, and the 767-400ER, together have 621 orders, of which only 9 are unfulfilled. These two models compete with the A330-200 in capacity, but fall short in range by more than 1,500NM. There are totally 575 orders for the Airbus A330-200. Yes, the Airbus wins considering it is a younger airplane and offers more range and capacity. Then, the 787 was introduced to replace the 767 and compete against the popular A330-200.

But the Boeing 787-8 has orders for 535 airplanes, of which 50 have been delivered. If the 787’s issues are resolved, and it re-enters service and production, it quickly eclipses the popularity of the Airbus A330-200: It offers a lot more, for the same price as the shorter Airbus A330, while offering the same range and passenger capacity. Which explains the orders for the 787-8. The 787, was introduced in service in 2011, while the A330 entered service in 1992. Considering this gap, the 787’s sales performance is way better, underlining its competitiveness. If A330 Programme head Patrick Piedrafita says the A330 is still competitive, he must realize that if the 787 program ran smooth, the A330-200 line would have closed. It isn’t the 787, but the 787 program that still makes the A330-200 a safe bet.

And yes, he must be reminded that the A330-300 is a different aircraft.

A333_A332The Airbus A330-300 competes against the Boeing 777-200 and 777-200ER aircraft. It has the same passenger capacity (440 max pax), but has a range that falls in between the -200 and the -200ER variant. The 777-200 and the -200ER together have orders for 510 airplanes, while the A330-300 has a order book total of 622 airplanes. The A330 family does not compete with the other 777 models (-200LR, -300, -300ER). The Boeing 777-200LR, 777-300 and 777-300ER compete with the Airbus A340-500 and -600, which are now out of production.

Although the A330-300 boasts a range similar to the 777-300, it falls short in maximum passenger capacity by 110 passengers. The A330-300 costs lesser than the 777-200 and 200ER aircraft, and is cheaper to operate. Yes, the Airbus 330 is a lot more competitive than competing 777 models, and stands as the best aircraft in its category, but that doesn’t mean it is more competitive than the 787.

Infact, the A330-300 is a lot more popular than the A330-200. But Airbus can’t compare the A330-300 with the 787. Apples and Oranges don’t look, smell, and taste alike, even if they have 2 wings and two engines.

A330_Orders_Operation

“The airline business is all about ego”

19 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in General Aviation Interest

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

72, Aditya, Air, Airbus, ATR, Boeing, Ghosh, Indonesia, Kirana, Lion, Rusdi, Wings

lion321Says Rusdi Kirana, CEO of Lion Air, which has been, off late, making headline for all the “right” reasons.

RusdiSurprisingly, for a man who has absolutely no emotional attachment to the airline industry, all his orders are worthy of an ego boost. Surprising for a man who started off as a typewriter salesman, and has ended up as the CEO of the family owned business of the fastest growing airline in the world fueled by a dubious source of funding. Indonesia is ranked 118 by Transparency International. The ranking runs from least corrupt at No. 1 to most corrupt at No. 176.

In the February of 2012, the Indonesian airline placed an order for 27 ATR 72-600 aircraft, which, when all delivered in 2015, will make Lion Air’s subsidiary, Wings Air, the largest ATR operator.

In the same month of the same year, Lion Air placed the then largest firm order in aviation history, for 230 Boeing aircraft: 29 Boeing 737-900ERs, and 201 737Max, with options for 150 more 737MAXs.

Said Rusdi, in 2006, to Flightglobal, “Everyone knows that the passenger doesn’t really care about aircraft. I hear other airline people say they will go from old aircraft to new aircraft because their passenger likes it. But the passenger is already flying with you so who cares? Unless you are like Singapore Airlines where it is part of your image you should only change your aircraft if the cost is better. Here in Indonesia it is all about the ticket price.”

But Yesterday, (March 18th, 2013), Lion Air ordered for a total of 234 A320 Family aircraft, comprising 109 A320neo, 65 A321neo and 60 A320ceo: one of the biggest orders from that region.

Surely, the orders are business driven. The carrier is banned from flying into the US and EU skies over safety fears. Now, Airbus and Boeing “safety experts” are running in and out of the airline auditing its safety and helping improve its rating.

Lion air has quite a few thin feathers on its cap. The first Boeing 737-900ER, and the and last ATR 72-500, were delivered to Lion Air. Lion Air is expected to be the launch customer for the 737-9 MAX.

Lion Air, with its subsidiary Wings Air, presently has a fleet of 125 airplanes, which comprise a mix of 737 Classics, 737NGs, 747-400s, MD-82s, MD-83, ATR 72s, and Dash 8-300s. This is impressive, considering the airline started operations in 1999. This combined fleet size is 17 aircraft more than the combined fleet strength of the Indonesian national flag carrier, Garuda Indonesia, and its low cost subsidiary, Citilink Indonesia.

This is surprising growth, and surprising business moves, coming from an apparently public shy, boyish charm businessman who said almost 6 years ago, on why he started an airline: “I did it because I was hungry”. Surprising that in a business with hairline margins, high costs, and stiff competition, that was the first business of choice for a starving man.

Instead, he went on to say, “I didn’t have money. If I had money at that time I would never have done an airline. Only stupid people who have money do airlines. If I had money I would buy plantations or do mining or property or restaurants.”

So we have a shy CEO who was hungry, made about US$10 a month, and decided, of all businesses, to start an airline, and has managed to grow it to the largest by fleet in the country, with money magically appearing from absolutely nowhere.

If Aditya Ghosh considers Southwest beyond Godly status, Lion air is Supernatural.

CLICK HERE to hear Aditya.

A320 Sharklets: Factory Installation vs Production Retrofit

18 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in General Aviation Interest

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

A320, Air Asia, Airbus, jetBlue, N821JB, Retrofit, Sharklet

New Airbus A320 family aircraft come with strengthened wings, ready for the increased aerodynamic loads the Sharklets impose on the wings. It is then up to the customer to choose for a factory installation of either the roughly US$1M winglets, or the standard wingtip fences.

Or, if the customer chooses to, may later swap the wingtip fences with the winglets (Airbus calls them Sharklets), in what is known as a Production Retrofit. The rettrofit kit adds to the cost of the Sharklets.

Jet Blue made “history” by being the first operator to perform a production retrofit, on its aircraft N821JB (MSN 5417 which first flew on the 1st of December, 2012). This aircraft was produced before MSN 5428, which is now registered as 9M-AQQ, flying for Air Asia, and made “history” as the first Sharklet Equipped A320 to be delivered.

The recently delivered A320s to JetBlue, which came without the Sharklets, take less than 2 days per aircraft to fit the Sharklets. However, the older A320s in its fleet, on which JetBlue wishes to fit Sharklets, will need structural modification to strengthen the wings, and will take an estimated 14-21 days at a MRO facility. Newer deliveries will have the Sharklets fitted at the factory.

Watch the two videos, to understand and appreciate the differences between the two ways in which you can strap on the Sharklets: either at the factory, or at your facility.

Airbus Sharklets: A timeline

04 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in Aerodynamics, Aircraft Production, Manufacturer, Technical

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Airbus, Development, Sharklets, Timeline

Airbus has released a very crisp video of the sharklet’s developmental timeline. For a detailed insight into the program, please click on the following link: http://theflyingengineer.com/flightdeck/winglets-and-sharklets/

Project Airbus Tech

04 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by theflyingengineer in Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

A320, Airbus, Answers, Questions, Refresher, Systems, Technical

LOGO_1280

The Flying Engineer is pleased to announce the launch of Project Airbus Tech (PAT): a Project, for Airbus A320 flight crew, that serves to provide quick access to technical questions and answers on the Airbus A320.

Project Airbus Tech is a social cause in the aviation community, to make aviation safer, and information accessible, accurate, and easy to assimilate.  It may be accessed anywhere, anytime: even when you, the pilot, are in the crew transport and wish to revise some technical details about your aircraft.

Significant efforts are taken to ensure that the information in PAT is sourced only from FCOMs, and the content verified and cross checked by experienced line A320 pilots. Of course, a project such as this is very demanding; Contributions, suggestions, and any help are always welcome.

To link to Project Airbus Tech, simply type the following link in your browser:

http://theflyingengineer.com/projects/

Or, directly link to:

http://theflyingengineer.com/projects/airbus-tech/

We appreciate your patience and help as the website slowly, but surely, covers every possible technical topic/system on the Airbus A320.

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

03 Sunday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

A320, Airbus, Alleviation, Function, LAF, Load, Saleem, Sharklet, VT-IFH, VT-IFI, Zaheer

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 theflyingengineer in Airport Operations, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

27, A319, Airbus, Blast Shield, Blastwall, Jet, Mumbai, N1, Runway, Taxiway, VABB

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 theflyingengineer in Manufacturer, Operations

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

A320, Air, Airbus, Go, India, Sharklet

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 theflyingengineer in Manufacturer, Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

A320, Airbus, Delivery, Fuel, Indigo, Saving, Sharklet, VT-IFH

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.

Airbus Sharklets and Winglets!

17 Thursday Jan 2013

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

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

9M-AQQ, Air, AirAsia, Airbus, Asia, Burn, Fuel, Go, Indigo, Sharklets, VT-GOL, VT-IFH, winglet

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.

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

20 Saturday Oct 2012

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

A321, Airbus, Airlines, Airspace, BIA, BPL, Cost Index, Cruise, DPN, Flaps, fuel burn, Fuel Flow, HIA, Kingfisher, MAC, RVSM, VT-KFY, W20S, W57S

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 theflyingengineer in Aircraft Production, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

A300, Airbus, Boeing, Boeing 727, definition, The original Airbus

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”.

“Diving” into the A320: Dive Speeds

18 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by theflyingengineer in Aerodynamics, Flight Safety, Operations

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

0.89, 381kts, A320, A380, Airbus, Airbus A380, Authority, Dive Speed, Expedite Descent, Flight Test, High, HSP, Mach, MD, MMO, Overspeed, Proection, Sidestick, SPeed, Structural Damage, VD, VD/MD, VMO, Warning

An apparently “lesser known” fact about the Airbus A320 is the dive speed, its significance, and the associated consequences.

A Flight Crew Bulletin detailing the dive speeds and other speeds above VMO/MMO. (Click to enlarge)

The dive speed is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

On the Airbus fly by wire aircraft, it is not possible to reach the dive speed, due to the flight envelope protections available in normal law. If the sidestick is maintained full forward, and the airspeed crosses VMO/MMO, the pitch nose-down authority smoothly reduces to zero at approximately VMO +16 / MMO + 0.04. This however, does not guarantee the airspeed stabilizing at this speed.

If MMO + 0.04 / VMO + 20kts is reached or exceeded, then a structural inspection is necessary. Beyond MD (= MMO+0.07) / VD (= VMO + 31kts) (A320 family), structural disintegration can occur.

Here are the speeds for the A320, in Mach number and Kts. The lesser value must always be respected, at all times:

Graphical representation of the speeds, their significance & consequences. HSP is High Speed protection range.

Dive Speeds:

MD/VD = M0.89/381kts

Maximum Operating Speeds:

MMO/VMO = M0.82/350kts.

Expedite Descent (as on FCU, if available)

M0.8/340kts

The graphical representation of speeds above VMO/MMO, on the left (made by The Flying Engineer), gives you a clearer picture of the speeds, their significance for the FBW system, and the consequences.

To understand the seriousness of the VD/MD, take a look at the video below, which involves the VD/MD testing of the Airbus A380. The MD for the A380 is Mach 0.96, and the test crew dread taking the airplane that far.

Fixed Wing Aircraft at India Aviation 2012

15 Thursday Mar 2012

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2012, Airbus, Airshow, beechcraft, Boeing, Bombardeir, Embraer, Gulfstream, Hawker, Hyderabad, India Aviation 2012, March, Piaggio, Sukhoi

Making your presence felt goes a long way in winning customer confidence in the product. They can see it, feel it, and fly it, and decide on the spot. The pampering really can make a huge difference.

Here is the listing of 18 fixed wing aircraft on static/flying demo at India Aviation 2012, arranged by the manufacturer, in alphabetical order:

Airbus

Airbus ACJ (Regn: A6-AJC)

Boeing

Boeing 787-8 (Regn: N1015B)

Bombardier

Challenger 300 (Regn: N305CL)

Global 5000 (Regn: A7-CEE)

Learjet 60XR (Regn: N383LJ)

Q400 (Regn: VT-SUG) Note: On display for 2 hours only

Dassault 

Falcon 7X (Regn: VT-RGX)

Falcon 2000LX (F-HBIP)

Embraer

Legacy 650 (Regn: PT-TIE)

Phenom 100 (Regn; VT-AJI)

Phenom 300 (Regn: PT-TRT)

Gulfstream

Gulfstream G150 (Regn: N150GV)

Gulfstream G450 (Regn: N450GD)

Hawker-Beechcraft

Beechcraft King Air C90GTX (Regn: N8020J)

Hawker 900XP (Regn: N964XP)

Hawker 4000 (Regn: N860AP)

Piaggio Aero

P-180 AVANTI II (Regn: VT-RNB)

Sukhoi

Sukhoi Superjet 100 (Regn: RA97005)

The Jeppesen “Grey Area” for flight crew members.

09 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by theflyingengineer in Flight Safety, Operations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Airbus, AWO, Boeing, CAR, CNPA, DGCA, Flight Safety, grey box, ILS 09, Jeppesen, NPA, Operations, VOBL

The DGCA, India, issued a new Civil Aviation Requirement, SECTION 8 – AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS SERIES ‘C’ PART I (click for PDF) on the 13th of June, 2011, on All Weather Operations (AWO). Due to the extended operational impact of this CAR, a great amount of Jeppesen charts were affected. (See Chart Alert), the most noticable of which is a grey shaded box in the profile.

Note the "Grey Area" in the approach profile.

The CAR lays out that all non-precision approaches (NPA) shall be flown using the Continuous Descent Final Approaches (CDFA) technique unless otherwise approved by the DGCA for a particular approach to a particular runway.

Compared to the traditional descent  approach technique, where the aircraft descends step-by-step prior to the next minimum altitude, the CDFA technique has safety and operational advantages, such  as standardization of procedures, simplification of the decision process  (one technique, one decision at one point), increased height above obstacles, use of a  stable flight path,  reduced noise and reduced fuel burn. The CDFA technique can be flown on most published approach when VNAV or ILS is not available. When electronic  or a pre-stored computed vertical guidance is not used, vertical speed or flight path angle may be used to achieve a CDFA profile.

This has few implications. Air crews can no longer level out at the MDA and fly to the MAP to execute a go around. Instead, the go-around must be executed at the MDA, or the MAP, whichever occurs first. Also, the go around must be flown through the MAP, unless otherwise specified. Hence, the pull up arrow is at the point where the CDFA and the MDA intersect.

In case of ILS approaches, the CDFA and the Glide path are identical. The CDFA is enforced when the Glide Slope is out of service, in which case, go-around must be initiated at the point where the glide path and the MDA intersect.

Because the concept of levelling off at MDA no longer exists, there are chances of flying below the MDA, in case of executing a missed approach at MDA when flying a CDFA. Further, the MDA may be reached either before or after the intended vertical path, due to vertical path errors involved with a non-precision approach. For this reason, the MDA is emphasised in the segment between the MAP and the ALTITUDE-DME check preceding the MAP.

The Jeppesen chart profile depiction will be modified to show the continuous descent on final approach. DGCA published minimum altitudes will be shown as segment minimum altitudes in the profile (grey shaded box). These minimum altitudes are typically provided for obstacle clearance and must not be violated to remain clear of obstacles or terrain.

Zoomed in to the vertical profile

What the Sharklets could mean for Indigo.

28 Wednesday Dec 2011

Posted by theflyingengineer in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

A320, aerodynamic efficiency, aerodynamic surfaces, Airbus, aircraft wings, boeing 747 400, engine thrust, Fuel Savings, Indigo, Sharklets, winglet, Winglets

Despite the advances in other areas, Airbus lagged behind when it came to wingtip devices. The conventional and all too familiar wingtip fences that we see on the Airbus A300s, A310s, A320s and the A380s did their job, but a scope for improvement always existed. The Airbus A330s and the A340s broke from the norm by employing conventional winglets, similar to the ones seen on a Boeing 747-400.

On the 30th of November 2011, when the first ever A320 to be produced: MSN 0001 took to the skies, this wingtip complacency was relegated to a page in history. With the first flight of an A320 with “Sharklets”, the Airbus lingo for winglets, Airbus was ready to give to the world a much awaited confirmation and assurance of a winglet that will finally make its way to production aircraft.

Vortices which result at the tips of wings as a result of the pressure difference that exists between the upper and lower surfaces of the wings induce a drag which reduces the wing’s aerodynamic efficiency. Winglets are small , nearly vertical aerodynamic surfaces which are designed to be mounted at the tips of aircraft wings. A properly designed winglet impedes these vortices, shifting them instead further up to the tip of the winglet, resulting in much weaker vortices. As a result, the induced drag is significantly reduced, improving the lift to drag ratio of the new compound wing structure.

An increased lift to drag ratio implies lesser engine thrust requirement for a desired amount of lift, which directly relates to fuel savings. Like other winglets, these Sharklets bring with them a bundle of realistic promises, the biggest of which is a 3.5% fuel saving over 3000NM-long flying sectors, and around 1% fuel saving over 500NM long sectors, in comparison to A320s flying with the conventional wingtip fences.

For an A320 operator like Indigo, which deploys its A320s on a mix of medium haul international and short haul domestic routes, the savings can be huge. Based on the flight schedule, Indigo can comfortably deploy one A320 on the Bangalore-Mumbai-Singapore-Mumbai-Bangalore pattern every day. Fuel cost at Bangalore and Mumbai have been approximated to be the same.

Projected savings on a single A320. Fuel Prices as of Dec 25th, 2011. 3% fuel savings (assumed) used for 2000NM and 1% fuel savings (Airbus data) for 500NM.

With this pattern, the same A320 operating with Sharklets can save about US$400,000 per annum on fuel related costs.

According to John Leahy of Airbus, the price for the winglet will be similar to the forward fit, of around US$950,000, although the retrofit kit could add to the cost, though not substantially. A pair of Sharklets attached to an A320 flying the above pattern can pay back for itself in 2.5 years. Six A320s in Indigo’s fleet (INA-INF) are 5 years old. If Indigo plans to get rid of aircraft around 5 years old, a potential US$ 1M is saved by the airline, per aircraft.

But these are not the only savings. Either the revenue payload can be increased by 500kgs, or the range can be extended by 100NM at the original payload. The increased lift to drag ratio of the wing will result in higher available takeoff weights, notably from obstacle-limited runways, and where runway performance is not limiting, operators could profit from a reduction in average takeoff thrust (with consequent savings in engine maintenance costs by around 2%). The Sharklets lend the aircraft a better takeoff performance and rate-of-climb, higher optimum altitude, higher residual aircraft value, and greater safety margins in the event of an engine failure.

All these mean money for the operator.

The Flying Engineer’s tweets

  • SVEEP 2013: "Sveeping" people to the polls! wp.me/pRsSu-nX 10 hours ago
  • A beautiful flight at Bijapur: Post the crazy winds, and long wait! wp.me/pRsSu-nQ 4 weeks ago
  • Flying over the Office of the Deputy Comissioner, Karwar wp.me/pRsSu-nF 1 month ago
  • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go! wp.me/pRsSu-nC 1 month ago
  • Air Asia: Hiring Indian Captains and First Officers wp.me/pRsSu-nd 1 month ago
  • Powered Para Gliding! wp.me/pRsSu-n0 1 month ago
  • Radio Etiquette wp.me/pRsSu-mX 1 month ago
  • Peeling away ten Thousand dots, for British Airways' first A380! wp.me/pRsSu-mS 1 month ago
  • Flying just 200ft over the heart of Bangalore! wp.me/pRsSu-mG 1 month ago
  • A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn't quite right. wp.me/pRsSu-mv 1 month ago
Follow @TheFlyingEnggnr

Blog archives of The Flying Engineer

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,474 other followers

Recent Posts!

  • SVEEP 2013: “Sveeping” people to the polls!
  • A beautiful flight at Bijapur: Post the crazy winds, and long wait!
  • Flying over the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar
  • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go!
  • Air Asia: Hiring Indian Captains and First Officers
  • Powered Para Gliding!
  • Radio Etiquette
  • Peeling away ten Thousand dots, for British Airways’ first A380!
  • Flying just 200ft over the heart of Bangalore!
  • A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn’t quite right.

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.