moeman

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    2,075
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

moeman last won the day on November 16

moeman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

150 Excellent

About moeman

  • Rank
    6

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,565 profile views
  1. https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-airbus-a220-repaint Last week Air Canada’s stunning new Airbus A220 livery was revealed. However, it has already been repainted due to an issue with the original paint job. The airline’s logo was incorrectly applied to the tail. The Air Canada logo consists of a red maple leaf surrounded by a red circle. However, the red circle is not complete, with a break at the base of the maple leaf. Despite being paid an awful lot for the new aircraft, it seems that Airbus Canada had mistakenly applied the Air Canada logo to the aircraft back to front. How was the mistake made? While vinyl wraps can be applied to aircraft, such as this Boeing 787, aircraft are typically painted in layers. Usually base colors are painted onto the aircraft first, with more intricate details painted on top. Stencils can be used to complete details such as an airline’s name. The tails of aircraft are, however, sometimes supplied to the final assembly line already painted. Here’s why that sometimes happens. However, Airbus A220 aircraft are assembled with the tails unpainted. As such, it is down to the painters to apply the airline’s livery to the entire aircraft in the paint shop. What happened? While applying the Air Canada logo to the tail, Airbus’ painters made a subtle error. The logo was painted back to front. The error was much more subtle than when “Cathay Paciic” was painted onto the side of a Boeing 777. In fact, until it was pointed out by readers, Simple Flying didn’t spot the error. Unlike some tails, the logo painted on the Air Canada tail is almost symmetrical. The only difference is where the maple leaf attaches to the circle surrounding it. It only attaches to one side of the circle. Unfortunately, the aircraft’s painters chose the wrong side. Seemingly the error was so subtle that even Airbus’ press department didn’t realize. In fact, photos of the mistake were proudly published with a press release, before the mistake was spotted by those outside Airbus. Already fixed Thankfully, Airbus has already taken steps to repaint the aircraft for Air Canada, this time with the correct logo applied. An Airbus Canada representative told Simple Flying: “Certain elements of one rondelle were executed incorrectly in painting the tail of Air Canada’s first A220 and this has already been rectified. There is no impact on the aircraft delivery schedule.”
  2. Which was to make the aircraft "feel" just like the NG...Circular logic.
  3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/29/faa-admin-boeing-737-max-will-it-fly-again-column/2487912001/ Seems like it's return isn't guaranteed.
  4. https://news.aviation-safety.net/2019/10/28/canada-issues-emergency-ad-to-limit-airbus-a220-engine-power-settings-after-recent-incidents/?fbclid=IwAR1vb7cX0qvUPI62LamJ_Ztl521SsZF0Ui63nVjG7GBvSOmpF38Ayu-Op0w Canada issues Emergency AD to limit Airbus A220 engine power settings after recent incidents 28 October 2019 Regulator Transport Canada issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) to limit certain engine power settings on Airbus A220 aircraft following three recent failures. Three inflight shutdowns occurred within three months time: July 25, 2019, September 16, 2019, and October 15, 2019. In all cases, the aircraft involved was a Swiss International Air Lines Airbus A220-300 (formerly named Bombardier CSeries 300) with Pratt & Whitney PW1524G-3 engines. These inflight shutdowns were due to failure of the low-pressure compressor (LPC) stage 1 rotor, which resulted in the rotor disk releasing from the LPC case and damaging the engine. Investigations are ongoing to determine the root cause., but preliminary investigation results indicate high altitude climbs at higher thrust settings for engines with certain thrust ratings may be a contributor. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the aeroplane. Transport Canada issued the AD on October 26, introducing a new Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) limitation and normal procedure to limit the engine N1 setting to 94% while above 29000 feet. This AD is considered an interim action and further AD action may follow.
  5. When every Province and Territory has their own party looking out for only their own objectives, which seems likely given what has transpired in Quebec, is it anything more than anarchy? How could any party win a majority government and how have we allowed the BQ to even exist?
  6. https://globalnews.ca/news/6075195/b-c-supreme-court-kelowna-flightcraft-flair-airlines/ B.C. Supreme Court orders Kelowna Flightcraft to continue contract with Flair Airlines By Doyle Potenteau Global News Posted October 23, 2019 10:00 pm Kelowna Flightcraft will continue to provide dispatch services for Flair Airlines for the time being, even though it tried ending that business relationship, according to online court documents. In a ruling released on Wednesday, the B.C. Supreme Court ordered Kelowna Flightcraft to maintain business as usual with Flair Airlines. Citing it was owed money — $204,750 — Kelowna Flightcraft was seeking to end its contract for dispatch services, effective Oct. 9. However, Flair Airlines sought a court order prohibiting the contract from being terminated. Kelowna Flightcraft said it sent a notice to Flair Airlines on June 24 that it would be terminating the dispatch services contract on Oct. 9. The two companies have been doing business since at least 2005, with the dispatch services contract having been signed on Aug. 17, 2015. The contract did not have a termination date, though it did contain a clause of three months’ written notice. Flair Airlines said its didn’t receive Kelowna Flightcraft’s notice until July 9, with its senior executives finding out on Aug. 13. With less than two months from Aug. 13 to Oct. 9, Flair Airlines said not having dispatch services would likely put it out of business within a short period of time. Thus, said Flair Airlines, an immediate court order was sought. According to the court document, Flair Airlines has approximately 120,000 customers who have purchased tickets for flights, including some 15,000 customers who have pre-purchased tickets for travel within the next week. It also said approximately 200 to 300 individuals employed by Flair Airlines will be laid off, as it will not be able to meet its payroll. Justice Paul Walker ultimately sided with Flair Airlines, stating, “Flair Airlines has clearly established it will suffer irreparable harm if the contract is terminated today.” For more on the ruling, click here.
  7. What about lying to the customs officer when they ask how much you have and you say $100? Can't help but wonder what the others said they had.
  8. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-boeing-airplane-faa/faa-failed-to-properly-review-737-max-jet-anti-stall-system-jatr-findings-idUSKBN1WQ0H8 Business News October 10, 2019 / 10:56 PM / Updated 6 hours ago FAA failed to properly review 737 MAX jet's anti-stall system: JATR findings David Shepardson, Jamie Freed WASHINGTON/SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A panel of international air safety regulators on Friday harshly criticized the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) review of a safety system on Boeing’s (BA.N) 737 MAX airliner later tied to two crashes that killed all 346 people aboard. The Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) was commissioned by the FAA in April to look into the agency’s oversight and approval of the so-called MCAS anti-stall system. The report also faulted Boeing for assumptions it made in designing the airplane and found areas where Boeing could improve processes. “The JATR team found that the MCAS was not evaluated as a complete and integrated function in the certification documents that were submitted to the FAA,” the 69-page series of findings and recommendations said. “The lack of a unified top-down development and evaluation of the system function and its safety analyses, combined with the extensive and fragmented documentation, made it difficult to assess whether compliance was fully demonstrated.” Boeing did not directly address the report’s findings but said it “is committed to working with the FAA in reviewing the recommendations and helping to continuously improve the process and approach used to validate and certify airplanes.” Regulators around the world continue to scrutinize proposed software changes and training revisions from Boeing aimed at returning the Boeing 737 MAX to service. Boeing’s top-selling airplane has been grounded worldwide since a March 10 crash in Ethiopia killed 157 people, five months after a Lion Air 737 MAX crashed in Indonesia, killing 189 people on board. Major U.S. airlines including Southwest Airlines Inc (LUV.N) and American Airlines Inc (AAL.O) currently do not expect 737 MAX flights to resume before January. The JATR draft recommendations, obtained by Reuters ahead of their release on Friday, also said the FAA’s longstanding practice of delegating “a high level” of certification tasks to manufacturers such as Boeing needs significant reform to ensure adequate safety oversight. “With adequate FAA engagement and oversight, the extent of delegation does not in itself compromise safety,” the report said. “However, in the B737 MAX program, the FAA had inadequate awareness of the MCAS function which, coupled with limited involvement, resulted in an inability of the FAA to provide an independent assessment of the adequacy of the Boeing-proposed certification activities associated with MCAS.” The report also questioned FAA’s limited staffing to oversee certification tasks it designated to Boeing and said there were an “inadequate number of FAA specialists” involved in the certification of the 737 MAX. There were signs that Boeing employees conducting FAA work faced “undue pressure. ..which may be attributed to conflicting priorities and an environment that does not support FAA requirements,” it said. FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said in a statement he would look at the panel’s recommendations and take appropriate action following the “unvarnished and independent review of the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX.” MCAS UNDER SCRUTINY The U.S. planemaker has stopped short of admitting any fault in how it developed the 737 MAX, or MCAS, which repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down in the Indonesian and Ethiopian crashes while the pilots struggled to intervene. However, it has said erroneous Angle of Attack (AOA) data fed to MCAS - the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System - was a common link in two wider chains of events leading to the crashes. The JATR report recommended the FAA review the stalling characteristics of the 737 MAX without MCAS and associated systems to determine if unsafe characteristics exist and if so, if a broader review of the system design was needed. JATR said MCAS and those systems could be considered a stall identification or stall protection system, depending on how the aircraft handled without them. Boeing has said MCAS was not meant to prevent stalls and was instead designed so that the 737 MAX would have similar handling characteristics to its predecessor, the 737 NG. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) last month said it planned to undertake flight tests of the 737 MAX including a test without MCAS to check its performance during high-speed turns and stall. Boeing is revising the 737 MAX software to require the MCAS system to receive input from both AOA sensors, and has added additional safeguards. If the AOA sensors differ by 5.5 degrees or more then MCAS cannot operate, FAA Deputy Administrator Dan Elwell said last month. If MCAS does operate it can only operate once unless the problem had been “completely resolved,” he added. The JATR is headed by Christopher Hart, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and includes air safety regulators from the United States, Canada, China, Indonesia, European Union, Brazil, Australia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates and Japan. Last month, Hart said it was important to note “the U.S. aviation system each day transports millions of people safely, so it’s not like we have to completely overhaul the entire system, it’s not broken. But these incidents have shown us that there are ways to improve the existing system.”