aviation

Cockpit automation increases planned for clean sheet narrowbodies

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Airbus and Boeing are both planning to hit the marketplace with completely new narrobodied aircraft in the mid to late 2030s, but what will they look like? Will they have pilots?

Nothing is set in stone, but it appears most likely that airframes will still be variants of the wing-and-tube format. And, at present, power unit technology is still predicted to be hydrocarbon-fuelled, but using 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) at service entry, driving higher-bypass rotors, whether ducted or unducted, with a promised 20%-30% increase in fuel efficiency. Both manufacturers still promise net-zero emissions by 2050.

Airbus’ NGSA (Next Generation Single Aisle) aircraft is expected to feature long, slender wings with folding wingtips (above), whereas Boeing, working with NASA, is trialling the “transonic truss-braced wing” (see below), also with a very high aspect ratio and folding wingtips

Surprisingly, no-one is talking specifically about artificial intelligence (AI). That may be because, by then, it will be impossible to tell, in integrated aircraft management systems, where AI ends and passive software begins. Meanwhile Airbus and Boeing both say they plan to keep pilots “in the loop”, and in an executive role. At this point a two-pilot crew is the model they are working with, but how long that will remain the status quo is not clear.

France-based Thales, which supplies the integrated modular avionics on the Airbus A320NEO, sees the NGSA offering the flightcrew a high degree of integral assistance.

“That aircraft will incorporate a lot more help for the pilots through automation, or recommendation, so they are assisted at any moment of the flight – whether it is a normal phase or if there are issues,” according to Yannick Assouad, executive VP of the avionics division. Flight management systems will assist pilot decision-making, going further than today’s Airbus Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) system or Boeing’s Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS), by proposing solutions with supporting information, but leaving the decision to the pilots.

If there is a difference between the two manufacturers’ approaches to future flight deck systems human/machine interface, it is subtle. Boeing emphasises pilot-assist technologies designed to keep the pilot central while improving training, and “human-machine teaming”, whereas Airbus focuses on automation and autonomy to reduce workload and improve safety through use of assistance systems. Airbus talks of “making the aircraft the pilot’s smart assistant”, one that can anticipate and act.

Technology advances include more efficient, higher bypass engines, including open fan designs; long, high aspect-ratio foldable wings enabling significant aerodynamic efficiency gains while maintaining manoeuvrability during taxiing and docking at high density airports; also, next-generation batteries to enable hybrid architectures where electricity is increasingly used to support propulsive and non-propulsive functions aboard the aircraft, and increased use of advanced lightweight materials and integrated systems.

Boeing 737: the beginning of the end.

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It hasn’t surprised anyone in the industry to hear rumours – via the pages of the Wall Street Journal – that Boeing is working on the design of a new narrowbody jet, because it’s what everyone – including Boeing – knows the manufacturer should have done instead of launching the 737 Max.

The confidence in that statement is completely un-influenced by hindsight.

Now the Max has been purged of the ghastly design mistake that was MCAS (manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system), and Boeing has radically overhauled its corporate safety culture under a new leader – former Rockwell Collins engineer CEO Kelly Ortberg – the 737 series can once again trade on the lazy confidence that comes from the fact that – with all its faults and its antique technology – it’s a known quantity.

As a result the 737 is selling well, but nothing like as well as its competitor the Airbus A320 series.

The first 737-100 entered service in 1968, initially to fly the routes that the larger 727 series trijet was too big for. Its basic control technology was – and still is – just-post-war, except that in the latest versions the power-assisted cranks and pulleys are overlaid with electronic flight instrument systems and flight management computers to the extent that the pilots could almost believe the aircraft is fly-by-wire. They know, however, that they themselves are the flight envelope protection.

The industry needs a new-technology narrowbody competitor to the A320, and if Boeing doesn’t supply it, perhaps a development of China’s Comac C919, Russia’s Sukhoi Superjet 100, or a new product from Brazil’s Embraer will fill the gap.

Boeing’s first fly-by-wire airliner was its highly successful 777 widebody, which entered service in 1995 with virtually no birthing pains.

In 2011 it launched the 787 Dreamliner series, also highly commercially successful, but suffering from multiple early problems, some of them still being worked on.

Right now Boeing is struggling to re-launch the 777 as the 777X. The fact that it had a planned 2019 in-service date, but now its launch customer – Lufthansa – will not receive it until 2026, suggests how difficult a task bringing an entirely new narrowbody (the 797?) to service readiness may yet be.

The challenge is always to deliver a safe, trouble-free product, but the staggeringly advanced, fully-integrated electronic technology by which the aircraft and all its systems will be managed and controlled, plus the fact that there must be fallback systems that the pilots can access easily if it all goes wrong, mean its service entry will not be quick.

Look beyond this to the fact that the new systems will inevitably employ artificial intelligence, which makes passengers – and even engineers – nervous when it comes to managing safety-critical systems, and the size of the challenge becomes clear.

So the venerable 737 series will be with us for many years yet.

Air India suffers the first fatal crash involving a 787

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boeing’s long-range widebody 787 has been in service since 2013, and had some worrying technical problems in early service. Those, however, were corrected and it had been crash-free until now.

There has been very little information for investigators to work with since the Air India 787-8 crashed just after take-off from Ahmedabad today.

There are reports of an urgent Mayday call from the crew during the brief airborne period. The 787 appears to have reached a maximum height of about 600ft before descending, wings-level, in a nose-high attitude, to impact with buildings about 1.5nm from the runway’s end. An explosion followed, resulting from the large amount of fuel on board contacting hot engine parts when the crash breached the fuel tanks. The aircraft had been fuelled for the scheduled ten-hour flight to London Gatwick.

Powered by twin GE Aerospace GEnx engines, the 787-8 took off from Ahmedabad at 13:40 local time in good weather, carrying 242 passengers and crew. Initial reports from the site indicate that all on board died except for a single passenger who was thrown clear, and has survived. There are expected to be many casualties on the ground, but the numbers are not known at present.

Looking at a video of the last few seconds of the flight, the landing gear still remains down, the flaps look as if they are still at a take-off setting – but the video quality is so poor that cannot be stated with certainty – and the aircraft is in a steady descent which only ended in impact with buildings and the ground.

At this point after take-off, the gear would normally have been retracted and the aircraft would have been climbing rapidly. The steady descent actually witnessed in the video suggests the crew could not command sufficient power from the engines to keep the aircraft level, let alone to climb.

If that is true, what had happened to deprive the pilots of power from the engines? Had they suffered a multiple birdstrike that damaged both engines? No-one so far has reported a flock of birds in the departure path.

And failure of a single engine should not cause a crew to lose control of a modern airliner, even in the critical early climb phase. The video shows an aircraft that looks under control, but unable to climb.

Simultaneous engine failures for unconnected reasons simply do not happen, according to the entire history of aviation accidents. So if there was a failure of both, what could have caused it?

Frankly, we don’t know for certain in this case if engine power was the problem, but if you go looking for a potential cause of multiple engine failure, fuel contamination could do it. Again, however, history is against that potential cause in observed reality.

Could the pilots not demand the nose-up attitude they actually wanted because of some technical limitation? Well, that happened in the notorious 737 Max cases, but there is virtually no commonality in the way the 737 Series controls work and the manner in which the 787 Series operates.

So we have to wait for the investigators to report. These days, if the Indian investigators follow today’s recommended protocol, after about a month they will provide factual data of which they are certain, even if the final verdict is not yet clear. The aircraft’s “black boxes” – the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder – will provide data on what the aircraft actually did, and may throw some light on why it did it.

Meanwhile, be patient. This kind of accident is incredibly rare these days, and finding the truth behind it could not be more important.

Trump, Musk and the FAA

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Just as President Donald Trump rushed to claim that the 29 January mid-air collision over the Potomac River was the result of air traffic control incompetence resulting from the Federal Aviation Administration’s application of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies in controller recruitment, so others have lined up to point out that there has been an unusual cluster of serious US fatal air accidents since his appointment as POTUS.

Anyone with a brain knows that neither claim has any causal connection with reality.

But I am serving notice today that this blog will examine any proposals that emerge from the Trump-appointed DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) regarding the funding or reorganization of the FAA, and I invite senior executives and employees of the FAA, the airlines and general aviation bodies to report on substantive changes ordered by DOGE by responding to this blog.

Like others who care about maintaining and advancing aviation safety, I am wary of politically-inspired tinkering with an important oversight agency by leaders who have no expertise in the management of aviation safety. Trump’s first lieutenant Elon Musk, a man of many talents, has been entrusted with heading DOGE. He has a businessman’s appetite for risk-taking.

As Boeing acknowledges, business skills wielded by those for whom safety and quality control is an important concern, but whose primary objective has become shareholder returns, can get the balance wrong and damage both.

The USA has led the post-war world in advancing civil aviation safety, with the FAA being its general and the Flight Safety Foundation its standard-bearer. If the FAA’s ability to oversee industry safety performance and to manage the USA’s airspace is diminished in the name of “efficiency”, it affects global aviation, so the world will be watching with its own interests at heart. The FAA is an agency, a public service, it is not a business.

This appeal for reader feedback will have to be carefully managed, because at this stage the proposed Trump/Musk policies inspire apprehension without advancing any substance worthy of appraisal.

But soon actions will loom, and appraisal must begin.

Will the MH370 wreck be found this time?

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If a new search of the southern Indian Ocean goes ahead as proposed, the expedition may clear up once and for all the most perplexing aviation mystery since the second world war: the fate of the missing Flight MH370, and all 239 people lost with it.

The majority of those on board the lost flight – which took off from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing more than ten years ago – were Malaysian or Chinese. Now Malaysian transport minister Anthony Loke has provisionally accepted a “no find, no fee” bid by Southampton, UK-based survey company Ocean Infinity, to search a new area of the remote southern Indian Ocean, where previously rejected data suggests the MH370 wreck could be resting on the sea bed.

Loke explained his rationale for a new search: “Our responsibility and obligation and commitment is to the next of kin…We hope [the search] this time will be positive, that the wreckage will be found and give closure to the families.”

Ocean Infinity vessels took part in a previous search near the planned fresh objective, but they were carried out under the direction of government agencies from Malaysia, China and Australia, and were unsuccessful. This time the company will be using independently supplied data from multiple expert sources, and it will consider alternative theories as to how the aircraft was directed in the last sector of its flight before it finally entered the ocean. This will take the search further south than Ocean Infinity’s vessels have scanned before.

On 8 March 2014, the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 took off from Kuala Lumpur on a scheduled flight to Beijing. Over the South China Sea, only 39 minutes into the flight, all radio communication with air traffic control was lost, and the aircraft’s data disappeared from ATC radar.

Military radar later revealed that, when it disappeared from ATC radar because the aircraft’s transponder had been switched off, MH370 almost did a U-turn and headed back across Malaysia, out into the northern Andaman Sea, and finally went out of radar range. What it did then has been the subject of endless speculation, but all plausible theories led to the south-eastern Indian Ocean, where the previous (unsuccessful) searches have taken place.

Since that time a few pieces of wreckage identified as part of the missing Boeing 777 have been found washed up on beaches around the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from the aircraft’s flight planned route.

But the resting place of the wreckage and the remains of 239 people who had set off innocently on a commercial flight are, to this day, still undiscovered.

If the Malaysian government confirms its planned agreement with Ocean Infinity, the world may finally learn the fascinating truth about this mysterious flight.

2024 airline accidents are up

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are still two months to go before the end of 2024, but the number of fatal airline accidents worldwide this year already comfortably exceeds the 2023 total. We’re not in disaster territory yet because the previous year’s total was exceptionally good.

Prominent risks facing the airlines today, according to incidents this year, include repeated runway incursions and airport air traffic control errors causing collision risk, and a rising number of in-flight turbulence incidents in which passengers and crew are severely injured or – in one case – killed.

Two countries that have had bad safety performance levels for many years – Indonesia and Nepal – have each suffered fatal accidents already this year, suggesting they have yet to get to grips with their national aviation safety cultures.

Each year for the last 44 years I have produced the world airline safety review for FlightGlobal and Flight International, and I have been commissioned once again to carry out their reviews for the current year. As usual, in January, it will provide fine detail of significant accidents and incidents, and analyze changes, trends and safety culture issues around the globe. The last annual review is here.

We wait to see whether November and December will add to the year’s accident total. Or not.

Solution to cabin air contamination looms

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aircraft cabin air contamination, a persistent issue for airlines because their crew and passengers face the risk of consequent neurological harm, may soon be alleviated by advances in chemical science, according to a new scientific paper published in the UK-based Journal of Hazardous Materials.

The study, sponsored by French industrial lubricant manufacturer NYCO, says: “The research underscores the urgency to replace hazardous industrial OPs [organophosphates] due to their documented neurotoxic effects and associated risks.” The study states analysis of OP chemical structures reveals that “one of the identified clusters had a favourable safety profile, which may help identify safer OPs for industrial applications”. Those applications include aero-engine lubricants, which at present are proven to be the source of contaminants released into aircraft air conditioning systems when “fume events” occur. NYCO has, for years, been researching the possibility of producing aero engine lubricants that are as effective as existing ones, but less toxic.

Findings and consequences from the paper, entitled “Organophosphate toxicity patterns: A new approach for assessing organophosphate neurotoxicity”, will be revealed at the 17-18 September 2024 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference at Imperial College, London.

Also to be presented at the conference is the detail of new tests on passengers and crew that can reveal “biomarkers” in their blood proving that they have been exposed to toxins specific to aircraft cabin air contamination, enabling appropriate remedial actions to be taken by those affected.

In terms of mitigation options while the OP risk to airline passengers and crew remains at its present level, also presenting at the conference are Sweden-based CTT on the subject of cabin air humidification and active carbon filters; BASF on dealing with volatile organic compounds and ozone conversion; and PTI Technologies which will reveal its latest bleed air filtration capabilities.

Contrail cure? Nearly…

David Learmount Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Having recently revealed in Learmount.com that air travel could easily be rendered less of a global-warmer than it is (see previous article Airline climate harm can be halved), another significant discovery enabling further advances on that front has just been chalked up.

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), if used at 100% concentration rather than a mix of about 50% with fossil-derived aviation fuel, appears to be able to reduce – by more than half – the global warming effects of high level cirrus cloud formed from persistent aircraft contrails.

Use of SAF is, at present, the most tangible action airlines can take to reduce their global warming effect, although its production is nowhere near sufficient to power the entire world fleet. Deriving from waste vegetable oil and production processes that consume global warming gases, its sustainability is its most obvious benefit. It is turning out, however, also to have unpredicted advantages, like a higher energy output per unit weight as well as a much cleaner burn.

This clean-burn effect has come to light as a result of trials conducted by Airbus, using one of its A350-900s, fueled with 100% SAF and cruising at 35,000ft over the Mediterranean Sea, trailed by a Dassault Falcon 20 chase aircraft carrying out contrail sampling. The trial has found that burning 100% SAF produces 35% fewer soot particles per unit burned than normal aviation kerosene, and an even higher reduction in ice particle formation, at 56% less. Visible contrails result from the water produced by fuel combustion condensing on soot or other particles in the atmosphere, and it is when high level aircraft contrails consist of ice particles that they persist longest in the upper atmosphere, creating cirrus cloud that would otherwise not exist.

Air travel has recovered vigorously from the dip experienced as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic. Indeed the pandemic lock-downs seem to have heightened travellers’ desire to fly, so any progress the industry can make toward reducing its climate change effects is more than just desirable, it is essential.

For greater detail on the Airbus trials, and more on the science of contrails, see David Kaminsky Morrow’s article on FlightGlobal.com and the Learmount.com article immediately preceding this one.