What's Wrong with JetBlue?

Since its inception more than ten years ago I have been a big fan of JetBlue. Whenever I have the choice of flying JetBlue or another airline, I pick JetBlue. I like the airline's culture, its fleet and its service. It's just fun to "jet" with JetBlue. Their fleet consists of the newest planes in the North American market, operating only A320s and Embraer 190s - two of my favorite aircraft.

However, on a flight from JFK to Vegas last week, at least one person on board flight 191 did not seem to have too much fun - the A320's captain, Clayton Osbon. According to various media reports, the pilot suffered some kind of mental breakdown while flying the A320. According to media reports, first officer Jason Dowd noticed Osbon's weird behavior shortly after take-off. Dowd asked Osbon to leave the cockpit and then locked the door, so the confused pilot could not re-enter. According to CNN, Osbon said "Pray f***ing now for Jesus Christ" and mumbled about Jesus, September 11, Iraq, Iran and terrorists. Eventually, a group of passengers could subdue Osbon and the flight was diverted to Amarillo, Texas. Luckily, there was another JetBlue A320 pilot on board who took over (which would not have been totally necessary, but it's always easier to fly and land a plane with two people in the cockpit).

This is not the first time a JetBlue cabin crew member has acted weird on board one of the airline's planes. Remember the weirdo JetBlue flight attendant at JFK airport in 2010? The one who said "I've been in this business 20 years. And that's it, I'm done!" over the speakers and then activated the emergency slide and left the plane on the tarmac? What is it with JetBlue that encourages its employees to go nuts? Well, honestly, this is not really a JetBlue-only problem. Just recently, an American Airlines flight attendant said funny things about the plane crashing and the 9/11 attacks. Everybody who has been on a Southwest Airlines flight would agree that some of their flight attendants are crazy, but at SWA, it's integrated into their job - they rap over the speaker phones, dance, etc.

We should never forget that pilots and flight attendants are human beings like everyone else. They have personal problems, work long hours and don't really make a lot of money. So let's be realistic - four or five such incidents over the last couple of years are not really that disturbing. I am a bit surprised things like this don't happen more often. Whenever I'm stuck between two 200-kilo people on a plane I want to go crazy. I can't imagine dealing with all these stupid passengers every day.

I don't even think Osbon should go to prison for this. He had a mental breakdown. I really don't think he did this intentionally. I'm not sure he should ever fly a plane again, but this man was ill and he needs treatment, no prison.

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.

JetBlue A320 Hard Landing in Sacramento

Passengers of a JetBlue A320 experienced a pretty hard landing yesterday when the plane blew four tires while landing at Sacramento airport. Four people suffered minor injuries during landing and about a dozen were injured while leaving the plane. JetBlue flight 262 was en route from Long Beach in south California to the state's capital with 86 passengers and five crew members on board when the cockpit crew reported problems with the plane's brakes.

What happened? Apparently, the brakes of the A320 were locked and wouldn't release. This means that the tires did not move/roll when the plane touched down on the runway. In turn, that caused the tires, and the air within, to heat up very quickly (because of friction) and, eventually, lead to the bursting of the tires (since air expands when it gets hot). The friction also caused minor flames on the tires and the brakes, so all passengers left the plane through emergency slides before the fire could spread to other parts of the plane (which would have been unlikely though).

The Aviation Insider will keep you posted on what the mechanical problem here was.

To read the CNN story, please click here. The followings is a video from a local FOX station:

Should Airbus and Boeing Update their Narrowbody Planes or Develop Completely New Aircraft?

It is a hard decision to make. But by the end of this year, Airbus and Boeing will have to make up their minds: Will they update their A320 series and 737 planes with more fuel-efficient engines and add-ons (such as winglets, better wings, etc.) or will they stop investing in those planes and rather pursue the launch of completely new narrowbody aircraft? With rising competition, such as Embraer's E jets and Bombardier's upcoming C series, the two plane manufacturers have to keep up with rising (fuel) efficiencies to remain competitive.

According to reports in Aviation Week, both plane makers are not sure yet, what to do. It almost looks like one is waiting for the other to make the first move. And it is indeed a tricky game. The A320 series and the 737 are already fairly fuel-efficient planes. They can, however, not compete with lighter and, thus, even more fuel efficient models, such as the upcoming Bombardier C series. And with more players in the narrowbody market, it will be harder for Airbus as well as Boeing to stay at the top of the game. Just look at the success of Embraer's E jets - since the launch of the plane in 2002, more than 600 craft of that type have been sold. Hardly anyone would have predicted that.

But what are the options at this point? The idea is to keep the A320 models and the 737 basically as they are, but make some changes so they become more fuel efficient. This means: changing the structure of the wings (to increase lift and reduce weight), use more fuel efficient engines (to be outsourced to third-party manufacturers, such as Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney) and add certain fly-by-wire systems (for the 737). This is basically it. The goal is to reduce fuel consumption by 6 to 12 percent.

That was option 1. Option 2 is to not pursue the updates at all but rather come up with completely new narrowbody models. Say, an Airbus A360 or a Boeing 797. Those planes would not be based off of the A320 series or the 737, but engineers at Airbus and Boeing would start from scratch, maybe using completely new light materials, totally different shapes for the fuselages and so on. Obviously, this would be the more time-consuming option and would cost a lot of money. A LOT of money! The question though is: Will airlines want new models at this point? Looking at the orders for the A320 series and the 737, you can argue if there is a need for new models in the short run as both Airbus and Boeing are currently boosting their production rates for the A320 and the 737 to cope with increased demand.

So what should they do? My opinion is that - at this point - there is no need for completely new narrowbody planes. The demand for the A320 planes and the 737 is still there and I am convinced it is a wiser choice to update the current models than to come up with new models. Also, engineers are already swamped with Boeing's 787 and the 747-8, as well as with Airbus's A350. It would be very hard to make time to start new models from scratch right now. Updating current models wouldn't be that much of an effort and is way more efficient at this stage.

I also believe that Boeing should make the first move here (even though they appear to be more reluctant than Airbus). The simple reason is - the technology of the 737 is already outdated. Even the "Next Generation" 737s do not have fly-by-wire (fbw) systems. So just comparing the current models of the 737 with the A320 shows that there is a greater need for an update of the 737 than there is for the A320 aircraft (which all have fbw). Additionally, it has been a better year for the A320 series so far than for the 737. Airlines around the world slightly prefer the A320 over the 737 already, maybe because of its more advanced technology.

As mentioned above though, Boeing seems to be more reluctant to start with the updates of its 737. Experts hypothesize that Boeing is waiting for Airbus to make the next move. If the European aircraft manufacturer announced sometime this year they would start updating the A320 series, then Boeing could just say: Hey, we will not be updating the 737, but come out with a totally new, state-of-the-art plane in 5 years! The rationale is: Why would an airline buy updated versions of the A320 series planes when Boeing is coming out with a brand new, better and even more fuel efficient plane five years later? The hopes are that nobody would order the next-generation A320 planes, but wait for the new Boeing aircraft.

Still, I believe the best thing to do now is update the A320 series and the 737. Airlines haven't really voiced their demand for new narrowbodies yet. With the E jets already on the market, the C series coming out soon and the continued demand for the A320 and the 737, it is just smarter to update current models than create new ones. And if the updated versions are really 6 to 12 percent more fuel efficient, then it will be hard to come up with all-new models that can top this. In my opinion, Airbus and Boeing should listen to what the market wants and I honestly do not see a high demand for all-new narrowbody planes right now.

Virgin America Orders 40 Airbus A320

It has been a great Farnborough air show for Airbus so far and the orders just keep coming in. Virgin America today announced it will add 40 Airbus A320s to its fleet. The list price for the planes is around $81 million, but Virgin probably got a decent discount.

The U.S. airline, which is partly owned by UK billionaire Richard Branson, has an Airbus-only fleet and, at this point, only serves cities in the U.S. from its California hubs Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. With the additional aircraft, Virgin Atlantic is planning to extend its routes. New destinations in the U.S. will likely be Austin, Chicago and Dallas. The airline also plans on flying to its first ex-U.S. destinations by year's end. Those international destinations will likely be Cancun and San Jose del Cabo, both in Mexico.

To read the Bloomberg piece, please click here.

Bruce Dickinson Flying the A320

Beautiful video on the fly-by-wire system of the A320.

And Another Bumpy Landing

Another very nice bumpy landing on an Airbus:

So What Happened in Hamburg in March 2008?

The weather in Hamburg was nasty on March 1, 2008. It was nasty pretty much all over Europe. LH 44, an Airbus A320, was en route from Munich to Hamburg during the storm "Emma" when it tried to land at Hamburg's Fuhlsbüttel airport in strong crosswinds. Seconds before touch down, the Airbus was hit by a strong gust of wind and its left wingtip made contact with the rundway, causing the pilots to go around. The plane landed without any problems a few minutes later and nobody was injured. However, thousands of people who watched the video online or on TV have been asking themselves what happened here? Was it the pilots' fault? Was the wind just too strong and should they have shut down the airport during the storm? Was there a problem with the fly-by-wire system? Last week, the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU) issued its final report on the accident.

But before I summarize the report's key facts, you should watch the video again:



Initially, people praised the pilots for their "heroic" reaction. They pulled the plane back up and, consequently, avoided a crash. Then, experts started to doubt this version and asked why the pilots didn't use a different runway at the airport in the first place, one that was better suited for landing in strong winds? And why was the 24-year old, inexperienced co-pilot flying in such bad conditions and not the captain himself? Finally, Airbus's fly-by-wire system was blamed for causing the accident. By switching to "Ground Mode" when the plane's first pair of tires hit the runway, the system didn't allow the pilots to fully control the plane anymore - it limited the inputs the pilots could give via the sidesticks, which prevented them from leveling the wings again quickly.

The BFU's report offers some interesting insight into what really went wrong on March 1, 2008. First of all, the crew was well trained to land the plane in weather conditions like those present on this day in the spring of 2008. Even the 24-year old co-pilot had adequate training to land the A320 in strong crosswinds and the captain is not to be blamed for letting her land the plane. He took over control as soon as it was clear a go-around was necessary. However, the cockpit crew is is still at least partly to be blamed for this accident. They knew that there were crosswinds with gusts of up to 55 kts and they still decided to land on one particular runway that was not the wisest pick under the given conditions. Also, the A320 is only approved for crosswinds of up to 38 kts. The cockpit crew should have been aware of that. The BFU report states that most pilots are not aware of the crosswinds limits and the BFU blames Airbus and Lufthansa for not communicating those limits clearly enough. I think this is pretty ridiculous, since even I know that there are limits for landing a plane in crosswinds and I am not (yet) a pilot. So this is a pretty lame excuse.

Another factor here was the impact of Airbus's fly-by-wire (FBW) system. As soon as an Airbus plane touches the runway with one of its tires, the FBW automatically switches from "Flare Mode" (which is operating during the approach) to "Ground Mode" (which applies when a plane is on the ground). During Flare Mode the pilots are allowed to give inputs within the entire scope of permissible commands, during Ground Mode this is no longer the case. But why did Airbus design the FBW to switch into Ground Mode before at least all of the tires in the rear of the plane touch the ground? Well, the reason for this is: Airbus wants to prevent pilot-induced oscillation shortly before the plane touches the runway, which is actually pretty smart. This means, the pilots' controls over the ailerons are very limited when the system switches to Ground Mode. Ironically, this was implemented to prevent the plane from hitting the ground with its wingtips. In this specific instance, however, it caused some trouble, since the plane didn't react to the pilots' inputs and the FBW took over control for several seconds, leaving the pilots with very limited control over the plane. The only option for them was: Get the plane to switch into Flare Mode by increasing speed and taking off again. However, the pilots said they were not aware of these Ground Mode limitations either.

To summarize this: In the end, several factors contributed to the accident. I have to say though that this was not as severe as some people and the media made it look like. This was not an "almost crash" at all. There was some minor damage to the plane, but it absolutely didn't render it uncontrollable. The first factor was: The pilots landed in crosswinds that were too high for the A320 and they should have known that. However, they didn't. I blame Lufthansa more than Airbus. Lufthansa should inform all their pilots about crosswind limits for all its planes. Second, the crew didn't choose the best runway for the wind conditions. They should have chosen the runway they used for their second (successful) landing attempt in the first place. Third, pilots have to be aware that Airbuses switch into Ground Mode as soon as one tire hits the runway. It wouldn't have helped in this case, since there was nothing they could have done, but at least it wouldn't have been a surprise.

Should Airbus change their FBW system and make it switch to Ground Mode only after the tires on both sides touch the ground? Absolutely not! This was probably the first time an accident happened because of the FBW during landing in crosswinds. I am sure it has already prevented dozens of accidents in the past.