Why I Don't Fly Southwest...

Usually, I don't use this blog to post my opinion as bluntly as I am doing now. The thing is - I am not a big fan of Southwest Airlines. Not at all. I have never been on one of their planes and have no intention to do so in the future. Not only does Southwest have the ugliest color scheme of any U.S. airline, I also believe that the company does not do a good job maintaining its aircraft, which is the main reason I am not flying them.

Several times in the past incidents occurred on Southwest flights that caused me to question their thoroughness in checking and maintaining their planes. The fact that a gaping hole appeared in-flight on a Southwest flight a few days ago confirms my suspicions. And Southwest has a long history of poor aircraft maintenance. In 2008, FAA inspectors submitted documents to the U.S. Congress, alleging that Southwest allowed 117 of its aircraft to fly carrying passengers despite the fact that the planes were "not airworthy" according to air safety investigators. This is the worst hit the airline has every experienced to its reputation. In 2009, a Southwest plane was grounded because of a hole in its fuselage. And now there's a similar story. I just don't believe it's a coincidence this happened to Southwest.

My recommendation: Don't fly Southwest until they have their safety issues figured out. I don't want my hair to get ruined by a gaping hole at 900 km/h. Can you imagine that kind of wind?

United A320 Makes Emergency Landing in New Orleans

I am sure it must have been a very unpleasant landing for the passengers (and crew) on board a United A320 that made an emergency landing in New Orleans yesterday.

United flight UA 497 was on the way from New Orleans to San Francisco when it encountered severe technical difficulties. Apparently, there was smoke in the cockpit and the pilots "lost all instruments" according to a Bloomberg article. Other reports mentioned that the Airbus's primary flight computer wasn't functioning.

As U.S. media love to do (see Sullenberger Hudson landing), the pilots were quickly portrayed as heroes. Big U.S. broadcasters described this landing as a "blind landing," which is a very misleading term as non-experts may believe the pilots didn't see anything. This is not true - blind landing means that the pilots do not have any working navigational instruments. They can still see when they look out of the cockpit.

United's A320 was still functional and returned to New Orleans. With help from the folks in the tower, UA 497 performed a visual landing, which pilots do every single day at airports across the world (e.g., at DC's Reagan Airport). The plane's fly-by-wire system worked, the flaps were retracted and the landing gear worked as well. Pilots should be trained to handle situations like these.

The incident was likely caused by a cable that was heating up and starting to burn, causing the instruments to black out. This has nothing to do with Airbus's technology, flight computers or fly-by-wire system and could have happened on any plane.

To read the Bloomberg story, please click here.

AF 447 Found in Atlantic

To be honest, I was not very hopeful that we would ever hear anything again about AF 447. So you can imagine how surprised and excited I was when I read the news two days ago about a submarine finding parts of the downed A330-200.

AF 447 was en route from Rio to Charles de Gaulle when it crashed into the Atlantic after passing a bad weather front in the ITCZ in June 2009. The emphasis here is on AFTER, not during - contrary to many media reports. Almost two years after the accident, even experts are still unsure about what happened to F-GZCP.

A popular theory is that the Airbus's fly-by-wire system, including all flight computers, broke down, rendering the pilots unable to fly the plane. Based on the automated messages AF 447 sent to the Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, this is not very likely. Another theory is that the pilots did not know the aircraft's exact speed, because the pitot tubes were jammed with ice (the plane was flying through a very moist bad weather front) and the Airbus did not receive any consistent airspeed data anymore. The automated messages confirm that this happened. However, this alone cannot be the cause of the crash. Yes, the pilots may not have had exact airspeed data, but they still had over-ground speed information based on GPS. This is not exact, but enough to fly the plane safely in a situation like this.

As in most cases, I strongly believe that many causes led to this fatal accident: Pilots who probably were not very familiar with the aircraft's computers and technology; a stressful and highly demanding situation they were not well trained for and never experienced before; multi-system failure; and it was in the middle of the night, so the crew probably couldn't see anything (contrary to earlier reports, the A330 has a manual horizon, so the crew always knew where up, down, right and left were).

Two years later, important questions remain, which make this accident so mysterious: Why didn't the crew radio to other planes traveling the same route that they were experiencing difficulties? They still had electricity and another Air France jet was directly behind them. A Lufthansa plane directly in front of them. Why did the Airbus hit the water belly first if the crew couldn't control it? Why was the captain not in the cockpit if it was a tricky situation?

Hopefully, in a few weeks from now, we will have answers to these questions. Fingers crossed that the search teams will find the black boxes!