Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 09 Feb 2020 21:32

UlanBatori wrote:How do you save fuel by using full throttle at takeoff? Violates 2nd law of thermo. Unless they were trying to use the rocket launch equation and use up all the fuel in one big impulse on the ground..


yak herder saar,

depending on the number of engines one buys, one is offered a variety of options to choose from as part of the standard fit for one's engines.

Larger customers always get the better (best) deal in terms of these optional modifications and upgrades that are given to them free as part of their large purchase.

This sometimes includes derating the engine from max power to some other professionally and safety decided value concurred by the manufacturer as well as the regulatory authority.

On a derated engine, max power is lower anyway thus "saving" fuel over another similar engine not derated.

This saves on needless wear and tear as also lesser fuel burn, lower maintenance reflected in the reduced total cost of ownership of the derated engine

Many operators, (who don't have the derating option) by virtue of company training and company mandated operating procedures restrict take off power to about 75% max setting, this is again TLC for the engine because of lower stresses, lower temps and probably more life in terms of engine cycles, maybe TBO, lower fuel burn ityadi. Generally, after about 1500 feet or so of climb, the max power anyway kicks in via the flight management system/auto throttle/FADEC whatever but then again, the air is now cooler at height, so the thrust, as well as fuel burn, is better for the climb to cruising altitude.

This 75% max allowed power is not set in stone but determined by altitude, temp, weight, runway condition, ityadi but 99.99% of the time it will fit the 75% power constraint.

the difference in fuel burn during take off and cruise can vary by more than 300%. So fuel management is a vital issue for these guys.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 10 Feb 2020 02:21

^Thx, all makes sense, but the allegation is that IndiGo pilots really "go", kicking in max throttle. I can see that reducing engine life but not saving fuel. Then again, they may be overloading planes and taking off using max thrust? If you can go to 100% thrust instead of 75%, that's 33% more thrust, which means maybe double the payload for the same runway length and climb profile. I can see THAT making a big difference and being on Corporate orders, until the injuns start failing.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 10 Feb 2020 03:28

UlanBatori wrote:^Thx, all makes sense, but the allegation is that IndiGo pilots really "go", kicking in max throttle. I can see that reducing engine life but not saving fuel. Then again, they may be overloading planes and taking off using max thrust? If you can go to 100% thrust instead of 75%, that's 33% more thrust, which means maybe double the payload for the same runway length and climb profile. I can see THAT making a big difference and being on Corporate orders, until the injuns start failing.


flying these highly automated and fly by wire aircraft is not anymore the old procedure of "kick the tyre and light the fire" type of operations where the pilots literally flew by the "seat of their pants"

It takes many people, including the pilots much time to prepare the aircraft for every flight. All parameters are then input into the aircraft's flight management system before take off.

On most aircraft, the precise weight of the loaded aircraft registers because of the weight sensors on the oleos.


not been able to confirm yet if the indigo engines are indeed derated but it looks like goair engines are pilot restricted to reduced thrust settings during take off.

No one overloads planes these days because it registers in the FDR which is by regulation routinely, periodically and religiously "milked" for the recorded data which is then fed into company-specific analysis software that immediately pinpoints the parameters that have exceeded the predetermined limits.

many parameters would be screaming for further analysis on the FDR on such "overloaded" aircraft. Single engine climb performance after a one engine failure past v1 would be an emergency that no pilot would be willing to risk or compromise under overload conditions. His job would be at stake irrespective of who told him to do it because the regulator would simply take his license away.

Though I know of one african no name airline operator, many decades ago, who once overloaded his passenger 707 by over 10 tons, and it scraped the boundary wall of the airport on takeoff and still managed an uneventful touchdown at the other end of its journey.

It sustained serious structural damage though. The pilot simply walked out of the airport and continued right on out of the country.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 10 Feb 2020 05:53

^ Old Alaskan tale:
Say, we shot these three moose. You think we can load all 3 on the plane and take off from this clearing?
Well... we did that a while back.
OK!

Plane labored, and hit trees on takeoff, and managed to crashland.
But! Didn't you say that you did this before?
Yup! And that's what happened the last time too!

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5833
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Dileep » 10 Feb 2020 12:35

The correct term would be 'max load'. Not 'overload'. I know Indigo takes a lot of freight on board.

Long time ago, when planes had to almost scrape the fence and screech to halt before hitting containers at our old airport, it was a circus during the afternoon flights. Jet (RIP) flies 737 NGs out of the 6000ft runway. The pilot calculates how many passengers and which all pallets of freight he can carry. Sometimes the poor passenger who showed up last doesn't get a seat because it is a clear, hot sky.

We used to fly freight out on them for export. Our logistics folk will confirm the dispatch after the plane takes off.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 10 Feb 2020 14:15

UlanBatori ji probably meant load over and above the "max" load which is why he said overload.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13444
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Suraj » 10 Feb 2020 22:53

Dileep wrote:Long time ago, when planes had to almost scrape the fence and screech to halt before hitting containers at our old airport,

Ah the old airport . They used to shut down the road under the approach on the other side of the runway, causing traffic jams all the way to Trivandrum. I have flown from both airports. The new one is so much more TFTA onlee.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby neerajb » 11 Feb 2020 00:40

Just guessing here. Maybe the pilots are using higher flex temp than needed or using TOGA during hot and high to have more buffer and this is what the report is alluding to. But in any case, it should not lead to failures if they are observing the operational limits.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1900
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 15 Feb 2020 11:37

Bombardier exits commercial aviation, ending bold bet on promising jet

End of an era. Posting in full...
MONTREAL/OTTAWA (Reuters) - Bombardier (BBDb.TO) exited commercial aviation on Thursday, selling a loss-making plane program that ended its high-stakes gamble on a new jet that once drove it to the brink of bankruptcy.

The Canadian plane and train maker sold its minority stake in the A220 jet, formerly known as the CSeries, to Airbus SE (AIR.PA) for $600 million, and said it would take a $1.6 billion charge on the program.

Bombardier once threatened to reshape global aviation with the first all-new narrow-body jet in 30 years, triggering a race by major rivals to develop their own new planes.

But the $6 billion program was beset with delays and cost overruns. Bombardier, which required government bailouts in recent years as it struggled to fund the program, finally sold a majority stake to Airbus in 2017 for one Canadian dollar, partly to avert a potentially devastating trade challenge from U.S. planemaker Boeing Co (BA.N).

The latest deal gives Airbus a 75% stake in the A220 program and the Canadian province of Quebec will own 25%. It also allows Bombardier to avoid future capital investments of about $700 million.

Quebec, which agreed to invest $1 billion in the program in 2015, said it would not spend further on the venture.

Airbus will buy back Quebec’s entire stake on Jan. 1, 2026, said provincial Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon.

“Yes, the aerospace sector has experienced some turbulence these past few years but I think this will soon be behind us,” Fitzgibbon told reporters in Quebec City. “I think this step was essential for the firm to continue its activities.”

The Canadian government, meanwhile, was confident that a C$372 million ($280.59 million) loan it gave Bombardier in 2017 will be repaid and Ottawa will not write it off, a government source said.

The source added it wasn’t yet clear whether Bombardier or Airbus would be responsible for paying the rest of the loan.

Bombardier has been shedding businesses to turn itself around. Chief Executive Alain Bellemare told analysts on Thursday that the “clean up over the past five years” would continue.

“We have options and we are going to continue looking at our options to see if there (are) ways that we can accelerate the deleveraging phase of the turnaround plan,” he said on a conference call.

The company forecast a near-positive cash flow, a closely-watched metric, for 2020. Its cash flow was a negative $1.20 billion in 2019.

The company is weighing a possible sale of its remaining business jet or rail divisions.

Bombardier’s shares were down 1% in afternoon trading after earlier dropping 9% on disappointment the company did not announce a deal to sell its rail unit to France’s Alstom (ALSO.PA).

Bombardier has faced higher rail costs due to a few challenging contracts and has $9.7 billion in outstanding bonds according to Refinitiv data.

The company sees 35-40 deliveries of its flagship Global 7500 business jet in 2020, which list for $73 million each.

Firstly, the Canadian Govt. (or Quebec...not sure which one) rejected sale of Bombardier C-Series production line to a Chinese company. But approved sale to Airbus, which renamed C-series to A220.

Bombardier Rail had made a pitch to IR about thier TRAXX-3 electric loco.

Anyways, it would be wise if GoI can encourage some Indian Pvt. conglomorates to bid for buying Bombardier's Business Jets & Rail groups. Would bring in decades worth of product development experience.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 363
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby arvin » 15 Feb 2020 13:36

https://www.urbantransportnews.com/alst ... 6-billion/

Their rail biz had already been snapped up by Alsthom for $ 7.6B. Their A220 design would have been worth laying hands on to cut short the learning curve.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1900
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 15 Feb 2020 22:21

I guess Alsthom wants to remove as many competition road blocks as possible to compete against the Chinese...so they are now going after Bombardier.

I guess Bombardier's business jets group is still a gold mine...may not make much sense from Business POV but from learning perspective...it is a great buy.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 16 Feb 2020 03:14

Dang! those are/were cozy jets, where one just stepped off down to the runway like a big Exec. Also single-class which is very unusual in Khanistan. I really liked those. Remember sitting next to 4-star Jarnail once.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 01 Mar 2020 10:47

arvin wrote:https://www.urbantransportnews.com/alstom-to-acquire-bombardiers-rail-business-for-usd-7-6-billion/

Their rail biz had already been snapped up by Alsthom for $ 7.6B. Their A220 design would have been worth laying hands on to cut short the learning curve.



come what may, they would NEVER have sold to India.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 01 Mar 2020 10:49

pigeon in goair flight


After rumours of him gone rogue, Griffin came out in a assertive display of aggression in this GoAir flight. This is symbolic as the Western Air Command has failed to detect this low flying object.



https://twitter.com/aniket0608/status/1233629761647214592

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby deejay » 07 Mar 2020 11:02

Anyone attending Wings India 2020 from 11th to 15th Mar 2020 at Hyderabad? Let me know here.

https://www.wings-india.in/

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1275
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Rishirishi » 08 Apr 2020 02:28

Solving the crowded Indian airport issue.

Seems the retired airbus 380 are selling for a cheap, as there are few buyers. What if the airlines are forced to pool their passengers in A380 on rutes between Del, Mumbai and BLR. A A380 can take up to 853 passengers (same as five 737's)

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1275
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Rishirishi » 08 Apr 2020 16:12

somdev wrote:A380 operating costs are estimated to be between $26,000 - $29,000 per hour. Whereas a twin-engine Boeing 787 has operational costs estimated to be between $11,000-$15,000 per hour


A 380 can carry up to 850 passengers (but in normal configuration 550)

787 can carry only 250 passengers

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8498
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 13 Apr 2020 02:12

Rishirishi wrote:Solving the crowded Indian airport issue.

Seems the retired airbus 380 are selling for a cheap, as there are few buyers. What if the airlines are forced to pool their passengers in A380 on rutes between Del, Mumbai and BLR. A A380 can take up to 853 passengers (same as five 737's)


Rishirishi,

Your suggestions in almost all threads are devoid of math, physics, engineering and economics. They defy any understanding of the problem. In this instance you fail again.

The A380 is so large, that accommodating it at several gates requires airport redesign, but this is only a minor problem. Flights between DEL, BOM, BLR, MAA, HYD and CCU are appealing when there are several flights a day to accommodate passenger demand. If governments force airlines to determine their routes and scheduling, beyond safety concerns, the scope for profit goes away. Then why should investors get involved in the airline business? Let Air India handle all flights. We aren't going back to the 1970s and 80s anymore.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1275
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Rishirishi » 13 Apr 2020 03:51

Mort Walker wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:Solving the crowded Indian airport issue.

Seems the retired airbus 380 are selling for a cheap, as there are few buyers. What if the airlines are forced to pool their passengers in A380 on rutes between Del, Mumbai and BLR. A A380 can take up to 853 passengers (same as five 737's)


Rishirishi,

Your suggestions in almost all threads are devoid of math, physics, engineering and economics. They defy any understanding of the problem. In this instance you fail again.

The A380 is so large, that accommodating it at several gates requires airport redesign, but this is only a minor problem. Flights between DEL, BOM, BLR, MAA, HYD and CCU are appealing when there are several flights a day to accommodate passenger demand. If governments force airlines to determine their routes and scheduling, beyond safety concerns, the scope for profit goes away. Then why should investors get involved in the airline business? Let Air India handle all flights. We aren't going back to the 1970s and 80s anymore.



You should at least substantiate your claims with maths and economics, which i strongly doubt you understand, beyond graduate level. Your posts are reproduction of concepts that most are familiar with. Progress only happens when you can look beyond the establish theories. Even though you are rude, i will try to answer some of your points.

1
Look at the traffic between BLR, DEL and Bom. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/mumbai-delhi-worlds-3rd-busiest-air-route/articleshow/62450940.cms
Mumbai and Delhi has 130 flights daily, mostly by 737's. Hence there should be sufficient volume to have a 380 flying every 30 min. BLR-DEL would have sufficient volume to handle a 380 every 40-50 min.




2
As for free market and airlines.
What will be the effect if they totally deregulated the bus or metro service? Imagine having to pay double the cost if you board a bus without and advance purchase? What makes the skies so much different? Aren't they also moving people, just like buses do? I my self have suffered having to beg to get an Indian airlines ticket days in advance between Mumbai and Delhi in the 80's. But does that mean all regulation is bad? The airline business today is in a mess. Service is good between hubs, but very poor in tier 2 and 3 cities. Ticket prices are unpredictable and very expensive if you have to suddenly change plans, Airlines are going bankrupt and further causing harm to peoples travel plans.

3
As for taking away the profits away from airlines.
Firstly you need to understand the role of the government and its relations towards the public. We do not make policy to maximize the profits for airlines. The idea behind "open skies" are that competition will lead to better service and the customer will be the "king". But that does not work, when there is only sufficient volume for a single flight per day. Try flying from Agartala to coimbatore. See how the free market is works. You may have to take several connection flights, with different airlines. what happens when there are delays? etc etc.

Shankas
BRFite
Posts: 232
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 19:41
Location: Toronto & Mumbai

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Shankas » 13 Apr 2020 04:52

Rishirishi wrote:Solving the crowded Indian airport issue.

Seems the retired airbus 380 are selling for a cheap, as there are few buyers. What if the airlines are forced to pool their passengers in A380 on rutes between Del, Mumbai and BLR. A A380 can take up to 853 passengers (same as five 737's)


Boeing 747-400D flew between Tokyo and Osaka (400 Km). Something like this with A380 will work. I belive A-380 has a configuration that can seat upwards of 800 people.

The Boeing 747-400D – The Jumbo Jet Designed For Shorthaul
Did you know that Boeing developed and built a short-haul version of the Boeing 747? Designed to fly around 660 passengers in a single configuration only a short distance, this Boeing design found a place operating for high-density routes in Asia.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-400d/

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8498
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 13 Apr 2020 05:37

Rishirishi wrote:
You should at least substantiate your claims with maths and economics, which i strongly doubt you understand, beyond graduate level. Your posts are reproduction of concepts that most are familiar with. Progress only happens when you can look beyond the establish theories. Even though you are rude, i will try to answer some of your points.



When you try to insert ideas which violate the laws of physics and you promote ideas which lack engineering concepts, you need to be called out for your nonsense. It just happens to be in this thread.


Rishirishi wrote:1
Look at the traffic between BLR, DEL and Bom. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/mumbai-delhi-worlds-3rd-busiest-air-route/articleshow/62450940.cms
Mumbai and Delhi has 130 flights daily, mostly by 737's. Hence there should be sufficient volume to have a 380 flying every 30 min. BLR-DEL would have sufficient volume to handle a 380 every 40-50 min.


The BLR-DEL-BOM routes using A380s is not practical as the cost of acquisition and maintenance is too high. A33X and B73X aircraft have standard maintenance with enough technicians available and accommodating the A380 at terminals and jet bridges is also not easy. If the airlines judge that A380 or B747 fills the need and is economical, then they'll do so. Who are you, I or the GoI to dictate which aircraft to use?

Rishirishi wrote:2
As for free market and airlines.
What will be the effect if they totally deregulated the bus or metro service? Imagine having to pay double the cost if you board a bus without and advance purchase? What makes the skies so much different? Aren't they also moving people, just like buses do? I my self have suffered having to beg to get an Indian airlines ticket days in advance between Mumbai and Delhi in the 80's. But does that mean all regulation is bad? The airline business today is in a mess. Service is good between hubs, but very poor in tier 2 and 3 cities. Ticket prices are unpredictable and very expensive if you have to suddenly change plans, Airlines are going bankrupt and further causing harm to peoples travel plans.


You are making a false analogy with bus and metro service. This transportation serves to take people from their homes to work, shopping, schools/colleges. This transportation is needed for society to function and economies run. To make it viable state governments get involved. Air travel is between cities is important, but not as immediate or critical as inter-city transportation. GoI provides for transportation between cities by rail to the mass public, but until the the railways travel at an average of 150 KM/Hr, it makes for very long journeys. Air travel to 2nd and 3rd tier cities will improve as the GDP gets over $5T. Air travel in India has only been deregulated since 1991 and since has a history of AAI and private players being at each other's throat. Air travel in India is erratic for all airlines including AI to 2nd tier cities. Until per capita incomes rise in these 2nd and 3rt tier cities, air travel will remain troublesome. Airlines go bankrupt due drop in air travel, fuel prices and bad business practices coupled with inconsistent rule making by AAI.

Rishirishi wrote:3
As for taking away the profits away from airlines.
Firstly you need to understand the role of the government and its relations towards the public. We do not make policy to maximize the profits for airlines. The idea behind "open skies" are that competition will lead to better service and the customer will be the "king". But that does not work, when there is only sufficient volume for a single flight per day. Try flying from Agartala to coimbatore. See how the free market is works. You may have to take several connection flights, with different airlines. what happens when there are delays? etc etc.


Government's role is to set safety and regulatory standards for commercial aviation. Think of it as building toll highway where the government collects the tolls, but does not tell the transportation company when and where they can travel on the highway. If you need to fly Agartala to Coimbatore, you may get one flight a day on AI connecting through CCU or MAA. GoI can not dictate private players to fly that route if there are very few passengers. If there is no profit incentive, then how will private players survive if government mandates them to fly unprofitable routes?

I would go even further to promote not just commercial aviation, but general aviation as eventually they'll have the income levels to support themselves. If aviation is deemed a critical industry, then AAI should step out of running airport operations and let private players operate entire airports. This could be implemented at 3rd tier cities so that they may be served better. These private players may make these 3rd tier cities as a hub or maintenance depot.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby deejay » 13 Apr 2020 14:00

Rishirishi wrote:Solving the crowded Indian airport issue.

Seems the retired airbus 380 are selling for cheap, as there are few buyers. What if the airlines are forced to pool their passengers in A380 on routes between Del, Mumbai and BLR. A A380 can take up to 853 passengers (same as five 737's)


They are selling cheap because the plane has bombed. Emirate is the biggest operator and is quietly working to rid its fleet of A380s in some time. There are issues beyond cost per hour here.

Passengers on long routes are ok with a single time option per day to catch a flight. So a 500+ seating capacity plane sounds good for routes with good density like - NY-London, London -Dubai, etc but the challenge is turn around times. Loading and Unloading takes a long time both for passengers and Cargo. Each flight requires a large number of crew (crew comrises of pilots and cabin crew and cabin crew nos are function of seating capacity). Which means large number of change over crew and their costs too (Salaries, Traning, Lodging in transit etc). Engine maintenance programs cater for 04 engines and hence come with their own premiums. Finally, A380s can't do the ultra long 777 routes. So they appear to be great but costs which are not visible start to hit with lower sortie rates and more crew costs per flight.

Passengers on short routes need multiple time options or "Shuttles" so to speak. Del-Mumbai with just 03 flight options per day vs 05 vs 10 vs 15 - and you will see that at least on these routes less number of flights won't work. Passengers need flexibility of time "options" specially business travelers. Add to this challenges of high turnaround and high crew requirement, Airlines always find the A320 or B737-(800/max) more attractive than even a B787.

Ultra Long routes are a no go for the two 04 engined behemoths so no point.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1275
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Rishirishi » 13 Apr 2020 22:21

Mort Walker wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:
You should at least substantiate your claims with maths and economics, which i strongly doubt you understand, beyond graduate level. Your posts are reproduction of concepts that most are familiar with. Progress only happens when you can look beyond the establish theories. Even though you are rude, i will try to answer some of your points.



When you try to insert ideas which violate the laws of physics and you promote ideas which lack engineering concepts, you need to be called out for your nonsense. It just happens to be in this thread.


Rishirishi wrote:1
Look at the traffic between BLR, DEL and Bom. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/mumbai-delhi-worlds-3rd-busiest-air-route/articleshow/62450940.cms
Mumbai and Delhi has 130 flights daily, mostly by 737's. Hence there should be sufficient volume to have a 380 flying every 30 min. BLR-DEL would have sufficient volume to handle a 380 every 40-50 min.


The BLR-DEL-BOM routes using A380s is not practical as the cost of acquisition and maintenance is too high. A33X and B73X aircraft have standard maintenance with enough technicians available and accommodating the A380 at terminals and jet bridges is also not easy. If the airlines judge that A380 or B747 fills the need and is economical, then they'll do so. Who are you, I or the GoI to dictate which aircraft to use?

Rishirishi wrote:2
As for free market and airlines.
What will be the effect if they totally deregulated the bus or metro service? Imagine having to pay double the cost if you board a bus without and advance purchase? What makes the skies so much different? Aren't they also moving people, just like buses do? I my self have suffered having to beg to get an Indian airlines ticket days in advance between Mumbai and Delhi in the 80's. But does that mean all regulation is bad? The airline business today is in a mess. Service is good between hubs, but very poor in tier 2 and 3 cities. Ticket prices are unpredictable and very expensive if you have to suddenly change plans, Airlines are going bankrupt and further causing harm to peoples travel plans.


You are making a false analogy with bus and metro service. This transportation serves to take people from their homes to work, shopping, schools/colleges. This transportation is needed for society to function and economies run. To make it viable state governments get involved. Air travel is between cities is important, but not as immediate or critical as inter-city transportation. GoI provides for transportation between cities by rail to the mass public, but until the the railways travel at an average of 150 KM/Hr, it makes for very long journeys. Air travel to 2nd and 3rd tier cities will improve as the GDP gets over $5T. Air travel in India has only been deregulated since 1991 and since has a history of AAI and private players being at each other's throat. Air travel in India is erratic for all airlines including AI to 2nd tier cities. Until per capita incomes rise in these 2nd and 3rt tier cities, air travel will remain troublesome. Airlines go bankrupt due drop in air travel, fuel prices and bad business practices coupled with inconsistent rule making by AAI.

Rishirishi wrote:3
As for taking away the profits away from airlines.
Firstly you need to understand the role of the government and its relations towards the public. We do not make policy to maximize the profits for airlines. The idea behind "open skies" are that competition will lead to better service and the customer will be the "king". But that does not work, when there is only sufficient volume for a single flight per day. Try flying from Agartala to coimbatore. See how the free market is works. You may have to take several connection flights, with different airlines. what happens when there are delays? etc etc.


Government's role is to set safety and regulatory standards for commercial aviation. Think of it as building toll highway where the government collects the tolls, but does not tell the transportation company when and where they can travel on the highway. If you need to fly Agartala to Coimbatore, you may get one flight a day on AI connecting through CCU or MAA. GoI can not dictate private players to fly that route if there are very few passengers. If there is no profit incentive, then how will private players survive if government mandates them to fly unprofitable routes?

I would go even further to promote not just commercial aviation, but general aviation as eventually they'll have the income levels to support themselves. If aviation is deemed a critical industry, then AAI should step out of running airport operations and let private players operate entire airports. This could be implemented at 3rd tier cities so that they may be served better. These private players may make these 3rd tier cities as a hub or maintenance depot.



I am not going to bother answering you, as I find your post argumentative, with the sole purpose to defend your self.

It is a bit of a shame, as I always found BRF a place where people come to discuss and learn. Most here (including my self) am happy to be corrected or given an alternative point of view.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1275
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Rishirishi » 13 Apr 2020 22:34

They are selling cheap because the plane has bombed. Emirate is the biggest operator and is quietly working to rid its fleet of A380s in some time. There are issues beyond cost per hour here.

Passengers on long routes are ok with a single time option per day to catch a flight. So a 500+ seating capacity plane sounds good for routes with good density like - NY-London, London -Dubai, etc but the challenge is turn around times. Loading and Unloading takes a long time both for passengers and Cargo. Each flight requires a large number of crew (crew comrises of pilots and cabin crew and cabin crew nos are function of seating capacity). Which means large number of change over crew and their costs too (Salaries, Traning, Lodging in transit etc). Engine maintenance programs cater for 04 engines and hence come with their own premiums. Finally, A380s can't do the ultra long 777 routes. So they appear to be great but costs which are not visible start to hit with lower sortie rates and more crew costs per flight.

Passengers on short routes need multiple time options or "Shuttles" so to speak. Del-Mumbai with just 03 flight options per day vs 05 vs 10 vs 15 - and you will see that at least on these routes less number of flights won't work. Passengers need flexibility of time "options" specially business travelers. Add to this challenges of high turnaround and high crew requirement, Airlines always find the A320 or B737-(800/max) more attractive than even a B787.

Ultra Long routes are a no go for the two 04 engined behemoths so no point.


A380 is a flop and they are selling for cheap (70 million dollars). Flexibility is the name of the game, and the dreamliner size is currently winning. But India has a particular problem, shortage of runway slots in Mumbai and Delhi. The traffic is growing fast. One way to solve the problem, is to use larger aircrafts. The flexibility is not a problem, as long as there is a flight every 40-50 min. By using larger aircrafts between BLR, CCU,BOM,DEL and HYD, it will be possible to free up runway slots.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8498
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 14 Apr 2020 02:23

Rishirishi wrote:
A380 is a flop and they are selling for cheap (70 million dollars). Flexibility is the name of the game, and the dreamliner size is currently winning. But India has a particular problem, shortage of runway slots in Mumbai and Delhi. The traffic is growing fast. One way to solve the problem, is to use larger aircrafts. The flexibility is not a problem, as long as there is a flight every 40-50 min. By using larger aircrafts between BLR, CCU,BOM,DEL and HYD, it will be possible to free up runway slots.


They may be selling for cheap, but operating costs are still high. Used A380 may be best for air cargo or maybe the IAF can pick them up and use them as refueling aircraft. My guess is they don't want them either.

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Bart S » 14 Apr 2020 02:32

Mort Walker wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:
A380 is a flop and they are selling for cheap (70 million dollars). Flexibility is the name of the game, and the dreamliner size is currently winning. But India has a particular problem, shortage of runway slots in Mumbai and Delhi. The traffic is growing fast. One way to solve the problem, is to use larger aircrafts. The flexibility is not a problem, as long as there is a flight every 40-50 min. By using larger aircrafts between BLR, CCU,BOM,DEL and HYD, it will be possible to free up runway slots.


They may be selling for cheap, but operating costs are still high. Used A380 may be best for air cargo or maybe the IAF can pick them up and use them as refueling aircraft. My guess is they don't want them either.


Yes, the best use would be to convert it to cargo plane and use it to handle the portion of our IL76 and C17 logistics that uses good runways.

If the argument is that they are going cheap and hence a great deal, then it is even cheaper for the Airlines who are selling them as they aren't even paying the 70mil. Truth is that it is a white elephant with no future in the passenger transport segment, which is why they are trying to get rid of the platform.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8498
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 14 Apr 2020 02:47

Bart S wrote:
Yes, the best use would be to convert it to cargo plane and use it to handle the portion of our IL76 and C17 logistics that uses good runways.

If the argument is that they are going cheap and hence a great deal, then it is even cheaper for the Airlines who are selling them as they aren't even paying the 70mil. Truth is that it is a white elephant with no future in the passenger transport segment, which is why they are trying to get rid of the platform.


Yes, on good runways.

Maybe to make people here on BRF happy is to put solar panels on the wings and fuselage, since it has such a large surface area, that these used A380s can operate on solar power and transport people without the cost of fuel between the metros.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 22 May 2020 22:52

Pakistan plane crash: Dozens die as jet hits homes in Karachi

A Pakistan International Airlines Airbus A320 flying from Lahore has crashed in the densely populated Model Colony residential area of Karachi.

Flight PK8303, carrying 91 passengers and eight crew, was trying to land at Jinnah International Airport.

Provincial health officials confirmed at least 37 fatalities, but a far higher death toll is feared. At least two passengers survived.

The pilot had reported a loss of engine power and subsequently issued a mayday.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 22 May 2020 23:13

"Mayday, Mayday": Terrifying Last Moments In PIA Cockpit On Flight Audio



New Delhi: The final moments of the conversation between one of the pilots of the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane which crashed while making an attempt to land in Karachi and the Air Traffic Controller have been recorded on a flight-tracking website.
In the audio clip posted by liveatc.net - a well-known website used by aviation watchers worldwide - the pilot of flight PK 8303 is heard saying he has lost both engines and then "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday," the international distress message.

The Air Traffic Controller was attempting to guide the airliner, with 99 passengers and crew, down to make a landing after it had aborted a previous attempt to land. The pilot says he has lost both the engines on the Airbus A320 aircraft.

The conversation goes like this:

Pilot: PK 8303 [to] Approach

ATC: Ji Sir

Pilot: We are to be turning left?

ATC: Confirmed

Pilot: We are proceeding direct, we have lost both the engines.

ATC: Confirm you are carrying out a belly landing?

Pilot: (Unclear)

ATC: Runway available to land on 2 5

Pilot: Roger

Pilot: Sir, Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Pakistan 8303

ATC: Pakistan 8303, Roger Sir. Both runways are available to land.

That's where the audio cuts off.

Moments later, the PIA plane crashed into a residential area of Karachi on Friday, with many feared dead, officials said.

Smoke billowed at the scene where flight PK 8303 came down, some roofs were caved in, and debris lay scattered in streets as ambulances rushed through chaotic crowds of people.

"The areoplane first hit a mobile tower and crashed over houses," witness Shakeel Ahmed told news agency Reuters near the site, just a few kilometres short of the airport.

The jet, which tracking website FlightRadar24.com identified as a 15-year-old Airbus A320, was flying from the eastern city of Lahore to Karachi in the south just as Pakistan was resuming domestic flights in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

"The last we heard from the pilot was that he has some technical problem," the state carrier's spokesman Abdullah H. Khan said in a video statement.

"He was told from the final approach that both the runways were ready where he can land, but the pilot decided that he wanted to do (a) go-round ... It is a very tragic incident," he said.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby SriKumar » 23 May 2020 06:00

1. The ATC recording of the conversation says 'we lost engines' and not 'we lost both engines'.
2. There is one video of the plane in its final moments....pretty clear video (plane going from right to left across the screen).
Pretty high Angle of attack. Saw it on TV news but not found on the web yet (there is another video on web ....long shot, grainy, plane going from left to right of screen, no smoke traling from engines or anything).
3. FDR And CVR should be easy to locate.
4. From the smoke after crash, it was clear there was some fuel still left in the plane
5. Pilot seemed pretty calm while calling out Mayday,He must have known how things would pan out.

Wonder why the first landing attempt was un-successful. Poster vips says the landing gear did not deploy.
ATC conversation recordings should have captured this, if true.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 455
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 23 May 2020 08:13

SriKumar wrote:1. The ATC recording of the conversation says 'we lost engines' and not 'we lost both engines'.
2. There is one video of the plane in its final moments....pretty clear video (plane going from right to left across the screen).
Pretty high Angle of attack. Saw it on TV news but not found on the web yet (there is another video on web ....long shot, grainy, plane going from left to right of screen, no smoke traling from engines or anything).
3. FDR And CVR should be easy to locate.
4. From the smoke after crash, it was clear there was some fuel still left in the plane
5. Pilot seemed pretty calm while calling out Mayday,He must have known how things would pan out.

Wonder why the first landing attempt was un-successful. Poster vips says the landing gear did not deploy.
ATC conversation recordings should have captured this, if true.



SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby SriKumar » 23 May 2020 23:26

Above video, if zoomed in, appears to show that the landing gear is deployed, i.e. in the second landing attempt.
Survivor's statements indicate that in the first attempt at landing something did not go right. People started praying after that.
The fact that the plane could acsend up after first landing attempt suggests the engines were fine (atleast one of them) at that point which was maybe5 about 10 minutes before it went down.

Correction based on a comment from one of the 2 survivors.
Last edited by SriKumar on 23 May 2020 23:40, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 23 May 2020 23:34

SriKumar wrote:Above video, if zoomed in, appears to show that the landing gear is deployed, i.e. in the second landing attempt.
Survivor's statements indicate that in the first attempt at landing something did not go right. People started praying after that.
The fact that the plane could acsend up after first landing attempt suggests the engines were fine (atleast one of them) at that point which was maybe 5 minutes before it went down.


they seem to have lost electrical power.

They should have started the APU but they may have missed this because of the very heavy workload in the cockpit at this point.

Instead they chose to deploy the RAT, maybe for some emergency electrical power.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby SriKumar » 23 May 2020 23:49

^^^ One of the survivors reports a big jolt to the plane (maybe twice?) and the pilot came on soon after warning about a 'troublesome landing', the jolt may be deploying the Ram Air turbine you refer to. Anyway, it has been reported that the 'black boxes' have been found. So the authorities will know what happend, however the Pakistani pilot's association does not seem very trusting of the investigation. They have called for inclusion of members from the International Pilots' association in the investigation.

It seems that a lot of passengers may have survived the kinetic impact of the crash, both the survivors report crying/screaming of adults, kids after the crash. Unfortunately, most of them must have not been able to get out of the plane in time to escape the fire.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 24 May 2020 00:37

SriKumar wrote:^^^ One of the survivors reports a big jolt to the plane (maybe twice?) and the pilot came on soon after warning about a 'troublesome landing', the jolt may be deploying the Ram Air turbine you refer to. Anyway, it has been reported that the 'black boxes' have been found. So the authorities will know what happend, however the Pakistani pilot's association does not seem very trusting of the investigation. They have called for inclusion of members from the International Pilots' association in the investigation.

It seems that a lot of passengers may have survived the kinetic impact of the crash, both the survivors report crying/screaming of adults, kids after the crash. Unfortunately, most of them must have not been able to get out of the plane in time to escape the fire.


there is no jolt when deploying the Ram Air turbine

he was probably trying to get his U/C down and locked

the RAT is the little doodah under the belly of the A320


Image



NOTE
The RAT extends automatically if AC busses 1 and 2 are not electrically powered and the speed is above 100 knots, or by pressing the EMER ELEC PWR MAN ON switch on the overhead ELEC panel. In either case, the RAT pressurizes the blue hydraulic system, which drives the emergency generator via a hydraulic motor.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 24 May 2020 16:13

The aircraft seen after the go around, RAT deployed, scrape marks on both engines and white smoke coming out of the engine. It's obvious that the landing gear was not deployed during the first attempt to land resulting in the engine scrape. (Photo: Pakistan Plane Spotters/Hamza Omer):


Based on a karachi airport report after inspection of the runway, it revealed scrape marks of the left engine starting at 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks beginining at 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end. It looks like both engines scraped the runway again before the aircraft climbed out for the go around.


Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 24 May 2020 17:05

live ATC transmissions of PIA A320 flight PK-8303 from Lahore to Karachi, at Karachi on May 22nd 2020




https://archive-server.liveatc.net/opkc/OPKC-May-22-2020-0930Z.mp3

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby SriKumar » 24 May 2020 19:46

chetak wrote:
The aircraft seen after the go around, RAT deployed, scrape marks on both engines and white smoke coming out of the engine. It's obvious that the landing gear was not deployed during the first attempt to land resulting in the engine scrape. (Photo: Pakistan Plane Spotters/Hamza Omer):


Based on a karachi airport report after inspection of the runway, it revealed scrape marks of the left engine starting at 4500 feet down the runway, the right engine scrape marks beginining at 5500 feet down the runway. About 6000-7000 feet past the runway threshold the scrape marks end. It looks like both engines scraped the runway again before the aircraft climbed out for the go around.


Image


Unbelievable!
I read some news reports 3 days ago that quoted an eye-witness saying that ithe plane had scraped the runway in the first attempt and I did not find that credible and hence did not post that here (I had assumed cockpit warnings would go off if the landing gear did not deploy; plus for an eye-witness to see all that, he would have to be looking at the runway, which is not usually the case, normallyy people see planes in the sky and not after it lands). However here, it is a plane-spotter, and that explains it. So the eye-witness report was credible. DOnt know how something like this could have happened. Without LG deployed, the engines would have taken the entire weight of the plane :eek: :eek:.... and the nacelles even though they have burn marks, they have hardly deformed :eek: . This is amazing, I had no idea the nacelles are designed so robustly!

I really wonder how to pilot was able to rotate the plane after landing on the engines. And after all the damage due to landing impact and subsequent dragging, the engine was functional enough for the plane to ascend from 0 ft to 3000+ ft!!

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby SriKumar » 24 May 2020 20:14

https://www.dawn.com/news/1559061

This witness would be credible, he is sweeper in the airport and was waiting for hte plane to land so he could get in to clean it. Sweeper's name is Masih (not surprising). He said it tried to land twice and the landing gear was not coming out. The second time it hit the runway, one of the engines caught fire.
“It tried to land twice but its wheels were not coming out. And its belly touched the runway before the pilot pulled it up again. The second time he did that I saw one of its engines was on fire because it had brushed the runway. It didn’t return a third time but crashed here,” said Ijaz Masih, who witnessed the crash of the Pakistan International Airlines flight PK8303 in Model Colony, just a stone’s throw away from the Karachi airport on Friday afternoon.

It just gets more confusing. There would be standard protocols when LG does not deploy and it does not seem like they were followed here. This must be a first in aviation where a belly-landed plane was made to take off and it did so successfully.
Last edited by SriKumar on 24 May 2020 20:50, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22758
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 24 May 2020 20:23

Take a look at the bottom part of the CFM-56 engine. That is where the heart of the engine resides.

that is what the "scrape/impact" completely totalled.

It is a maze of oil lines, some fuel lines and things like oil pumps, maybe even the FADEC controller etc feeding the engine including the all important electrical generator. Most of these components were totalled on both engines after the nacelles impacted and scraped along the runway. Both engines seem to have impacted twice, the first time in a left right pattern because the wings were not levelled and the second time when the aircraft was level, both engines have impacted/scraped again together.

It was the damage to these vital parts that caused both engines to lose all thrust. Before the engines completely failed, they did manage to get the aircraft to some height between 2-3000 ft but obviously that wasn't enough to get them safely back on the runway again after the go around attempt.

The videos of the high angle approach in the final stages was a last ditch effort by the pilot to trade height for distance. They were unlucky.

In actual fact, they had totally lost control over the situation when they decided to continue their unstabilized approach into karachi airport and the dice for the crash were cast at that very decision point.

It appears that the aircraft was fully serviceable in all respects until the moment when it impacted the runway with the gear up.



Image
Last edited by chetak on 24 May 2020 21:10, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vips and 6 guests