Browsing Posts published in July, 2010

The details of the British Airways 747 near-accident in South Africa are out, and man, was that scary for the pilots. They did a great job of keeping that bad boy in the air, but it could have ended very differently. Here’s what happened.

On May 11, 2009, BA flight 56 prepared for its evening departure to London/Heathrow. Afternoon rain had cleared out and it was a clear evening with light northerly winds and temps in the mid-50s (something like -358 degrees Celsius, I’m told). Boeing 747 G-BYGA was ready to bring 265 passengers and 18 crew members back to the UK, so it was about 80 percent full. It probably looked a lot like this one (though this was in Cape Town, not Jo’burg):

Cape Town Airport
Photo via Flickr user Sara&Joachim

They buttoned up and headed for the runway. Engines spooled up as usual and they started rocketing to the north on runway 3L for the long flight home. When the airplane hit 167 kts, just about the time for it to rotate, all hell broke loose. Somehow, due to a technical fault, the airplane showed that thrust reversers had been deployed. Thrust reversers deflect the air within the engine to push it forward instead of backward. This is generally only a good idea when you want to stop the airplane, so it happens with wheels on the ground during the landing rollout. Here’s what they look like on a Lufthansa 747.

Lufthansa 747-400
Photo by Flickr user wbaiv

Fortunately, the thrust reversers didn’t actually deploy and it was merely a faulty warning, but it did bring with it some unintended consequences. When the thrust reversers deploy, the slats Krueger flaps automatically retract. What the heck is a slat Krueger flap? I’m glad you asked.

See those little things hanging over the front of the wing? Those are slats Krueger flaps. Like flaps behind the wing, they’re meant to help increase the surface area camber of the wing to provide more lift. When you’re cruising, you don’t want this because it provides drag and slows you down. But when you’re taking off and landing at slow speeds, it makes it more stable and allows you to fly slower. That’s good.

When it’s not good is when they retract just when you need them most. So picture a 747, just about reaching take-off speed, that suddenly loses its slats Krueger flaps because they think it’s time to retract. Lift goes away and the pilots see less and less runway ahead. Holy crap. So what happened? Well, they took off and sat at about 40 feet above the ground trying to pick up speed. It kind of looked like this:

Ok, so I lied. It looked nothing like this. Instead, replace that airplane with a hulking, slat-less 747 barely clearing the terrain below. Yeah, I’d freak out too. Ultimately, the slats Krueger flaps were back in their deployed position a mere 23 seconds after they ran away, but those were the 23 most critical seconds of the flight. The airplane then started climbing, but the pilots weren’t content to continue on. They dumped fuel and eventually returned with everyone safe.

My guess is that there might have been some people in the back wondering what was going on, but it happened so quickly that they unlikely would have had a chance to even register that this was a real issue. The pilots, however, must have absolutely flipped. Fortunately, they did a fantastic job. The pilot in command happened to have aerobatic training and was well-versed in how to fly at near-stall speeds. There’s no question that those guys saved that airplane and all the people onboard.

But it’s not just them. There was some serious luck here. Johannesburg sits a mile high, and that reduces aircraft performance. But had this been in summer instead of winter, it would have been much worse. Hot weather makes it harder for airplanes to gain altitude, so the mild temperature undoubtedly helped here. It’s also a blessing that the airplane was only 80% full instead of 100%. The added weight would have hurt. On the other hand, it certainly didn’t hurt that they had a slight headwind and the the weather was good.

Anytime there’s an accident, it always requires a handful of things to go wrong. In this case, while one awful thing went wrong, everything else went right. And that’s why the airplane was saved. One other thing going wrong could have resulted in disaster. Fortunately, that didn’t happen here and changes required by the FAA mean this particular incident shouldn’t happen again.

Update at 917p on July 9 – Thanks to the readers who corrected me here. There are no slats on the 747 but rather Krueger flaps. Wikipedia has a good explanation of the difference:

While the aerodynamic effect of Krueger flaps is similar to that of slats or slots, they are deployed differently. Krueger flaps, hinged at their leading edges, hinge forwards from the under surface of the wing, increasing the wing camber and maximum coefficient of lift. Conversely, slats extend forwards from the upper surface of the leading edge.

Everyone loves to complain about luggage fees, but other than flying Southwest or JetBlue, there hasn’t really been a way to avoid them that makes economic sense. I mean, sure, you could FedEx your suitcase, but that ain’t cheap. UPS has apparently been watching luggage fees rise and now has its Luggage Box to try to steal some of the market for luggage shipping. It’s got a ways to go, but I suppose this is a step in that direction.

The luggage box is absolutely not revolutionary in any way. There are no special rates for transport at all. It’s just this:

UPS Luggage Box

So who cares? Well, it’s all about weight. UPS charges you by the pound to ship things, and this weighs a lot less than your usual suitcase. In fact, they say it can save about 7 pounds on average. The big one is 26″ x 16″ x 12″ and has a suggested retail of just under $18. Of course, you can use it multiple times, so that cost is nothing.

If I need to ship 50 pounds over to my in-laws in Indiana, it’ll cost $55.85 for this box. It it was only 43 pounds (minus the 7 pounds the extra luggage weighs), then it’s $49.08. Getting it under $50 makes it more attractive for sure.

There is one enormous problem. This is sent via UPS Ground. So you need to send it days in advance of your arrival. If you’re going from LA to Minnesota in winter, that won’t be a problem. You don’t exactly need your winter clothes here in SoCal, but in general you need your stuff. So I’m not quite sure how they’re going to get over that hump. That same $49 shipment costs $113 to do it in 3 days, $193 to do it in 2 days, and $224 to do next day. That’s not competitive at all.

Besides, the airlines are charging you $25 for the first bag or $35 for the second, in general. So you have to pay a premium for it take the better part of a week to get to your destination. At least you don’t have to lug that bag around with you, but I personally can’t imagine paying more for it to take that long. It’s just not likely to work out.

Now, if you need to check more than two bags, this starts to get much more interesting. That third bag will cost you over $100 and the fourth one can be $200. In those cases, shipping becomes a no-brainer. Besides, if you have to check that much stuff, you would have to be able to part with at least one or two of the suitcases for a few days.

So, UPS has done a good job of trying to make this more attractive, but I would be surprised if it ended up getting much new business for them. It’s more of a gimmick than anything else. Still, if airlines keep raising fees, this will become more and more attractive.

I assume the feds knew they were playing with fire when they decided to attach incredibly onerous conditions to the proposed slot swap between US Airways and Delta in Washington and New York. Now, US Airways and Delta have officially decided to reject the requirements and stick with the status quo, unless they can win in court. Absolutely nobody wins here, and that’s why the tentative order issuing the feds a Cranky Jackass award is now a final order. This was just a bad move.

Delta and US Airways play game of chicken with FAA

I’ll spare you the history again since it’s been recounted here multiple times. In short, Delta wanted to trade much of its slot holding at Washington/National to US Airways for that airline’s slots at New York/LaGuardia. The feds came back saying they’d only approve it if the two agreed to divest a bunch of slots to new entrants before the transaction occurred. That wasn’t palatable to anyone, but Delta and US Airways did come back offering to divest some of the slots to carriers with whom they had already set up agreements. It looked like the FAA had achieved its goal of giving slots to new entrants, but the agency wasn’t satisfied. The feds stuck to their guns and that’s how we got where we are today. (More details here)

US Airways and Delta had asked for more time to consider the swap, and the feds gave it to them. But last week, they decided to reject the requirements for divestiture and sue the pants off the government for such an absurd requirement. So let’s review exactly what the feds have thrown away here:

  • US Airways would have used larger planes in Washington and would have opened nonstop serviceCranky Jackass to several cities that don’t have it today.
  • Delta would have used larger planes in New York to create a hub operation at LaGuardia.
  • Terminal changes in New York would have made it easier for customers.
  • US Airways would have received rights to fly to Japan; a new entrant into that market providing more competition.
  • US Airways would have received rights to fly to Sao Paulo; again, a new entrant in that market.
  • JetBlue would have received 4.5 slots at National. (The last .5 slot was available in off peak times.)
  • WestJet would have received 5 slots at LaGuardia, providing competition to Canada.
  • Spirit would have received 5 more slots at LaGuardia, providing low fare service.
  • AirTran would have received 5 more slots at LaGuardia, providing low fare service.

And now, none of this will happen. What’s the cherry on top? The feds get to waste our taxpayer money defending themselves in a lawsuit that will undoubtedly drag on for awhile. In short, the feds decided to play a game of chicken and they lost. Now, everybody loses. Way to go, guys. I bet you thought they’d give in, but they didn’t. You blew this one.

[Original photo via Flickr user Chief Trent]

Tips to minimize the impact of a flight cancellationThe Detroit News
With the 3 hour ground delay rule likely causing an increase in cancellations, the Detroit News looked at what people should do. They came to Cranky Concierge for advice.

Virgin America’s First Quarter Loss Means More Work Ahead for Troubled AirlineBNET
The first quarter numbers are in, and once again, it’s a loss.

Subsidy reservations: Kansas taxpayers support airlines in Wichita, but KCI complains of turbulenceKansas City Star
It’s an interesting situation in Wichita these days when it comes to airline subsidies, and the Kansas City Star dug in on the subject.

Facebook Fan Numbers Aren’t Nearly as Important as Airports May ThinkBNET
There’s a lot of hype about Facebook and Twitter, but it shouldn’t be a race to collect fans. It’s all about how to deal with them.

Random Expansion: Virgin America Is Going to Regret Its New Flights to MexicoBNET
My take on Virgin America’s move into Mexico. Wanna guess how I feel?

Open Skies Turns to Trains to Help Fill AirplanesBNET
Open Skies has no feed on either end of its network, so it’s looking at trains. I like it.

Google Acquires ITA Software, and the Likes of Kayak and Bing Cry a LittleBNET
Personally, I think the acquisition of ITA by Google could be just awesome. But there are definitely going to be some unhappy campers.

When I started business school in 2002, there was plenty of construction going on around San Jose Airport. Now, 8 years later, nothing has changed. There’s been virtually nonstop construction since then, but a huge milestone has been reached now that the passenger terminals are complete. That means, a little nostalgia is in order.

San Jose Terminal C

For a long time, San Jose has had Terminal A and Terminal C. There was a huge spot in the middle just waiting for a Terminal B, but it wouldn’t be built for years. Terminal A was the home of the shrinking American hub (and Reno Air before that) and growing Southwest operation. The cats and dogs were in the old Terminal C, which still boarded via air stairs.

Now that Terminal B has been finished, C is toast. Terminal A, which was woefully underbuilt for its purpose (and I mean, it was just rough), is now connected to Terminal B behind security and there’s now a cohesive airport. But not everyone is celebrating.

Personally, I love the old terminals, and C was old at about 45 years of age. Above, you can see a great shot of it from the ramp side, completely dwarfed by the massive new parking garage that was just a surface lot when I used to fly in and out. Like most old terminals, Terminal C was an absolute mess. Most of the decent food was outside security, and the security checkpoints were awkward; shoehorned into a space that was obviously never designed to handle it. But that’s part of the fun of these old buildings. They have some serious character.

Now, San Jose has a huge, bright, and airy new terminal that cost a ton of money. In fact, the cost per enplanement is expected to approach $16 by next year. That’s way too high for an airport like this, and some airlines have pulled back service knowing where these costs were going.

In fact, San Jose knows it needs to get costs down, but the aviation director doesn’t really provide any compelling ways for that to happen. It’s not easy when you have a huge amount of debt that you have to pay off. Unlike Terminal A back in the day, this has been overbuilt now. And the airport may suffer for awhile until it’s able to really pay down its debts, just like SFO did for a few years after building its massive international terminal.

But for now, let’s not worry about that and just say goodbye to Terminal C and the small piece of history that dies with it.

Happy 4th of July to all the Americans reading here. (Thanks for screwing that one up, King George III!) I’ll be back here again on Tuesday.

[Photo via Wikimedia Commons]


About | Directory | Shop | Awards | In the News | Ethics | Cranky Concierge
Powered by WordPress | SRS Solutions | © 2006-2012 Brett Snyder All Rights Reserved | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Bad Behavior has blocked 11575 access attempts in the last 7 days.