And I would the 747. Guess its all a matter of personal perception...

(Written on 01/20/2018)(Permalink)

Chapter 11 is nothing but a subsidy in disguise. Many will howl at this but it is a fact, straight and simple...

(Written on 01/20/2018)(Permalink)

True, lots of ambiguity there...

(Written on 06/16/2017)(Permalink)

Jan Stromback - Like you, I too am an armchair enthusiast but the concept shared by you has been in my mind for a long time. Basically, on-board computers could set the tires spinning, before touch-down, to exactly the same speed when contact is made with the tarmac. This would 1. cause lesser wear and tear of the tires, 2. reduce element of debris being generated due to impact and 3. reduce impact force on the tarmac at point of contact. Admittedly, this might be rather simplistically put since there could be other more graver factors to be considered on the subject.

(Written on 08/26/2016)(Permalink)

The wording describing the background to the Mi-26 pic is incorrect. Definitely not 'clear blue skies', dark thunderclouds is perhaps a more accurate description...

(Written on 08/19/2016)(Permalink)

Here we go again. The typical game of one-upmanship that seems to sprout every time such incidents occur. More often than not, its the media which is the culprit, making suggestive comments and insinuations where perhaps so such notions exist. Frightening here is the fact that genuine and unbiased investigations get hampered in the flurry of media-whipped storms which rage around some inconsequential situations. The primary thrust here is to make a thorough investigation into the cause or reasons behind the damage by which advisories, where and if required, are sent out to ensure further incidents can be either managed or avoided. Irrespective of which country or authority is involved and what the background is to any current distrust, if at all, the investigations must be allowed to proceed without hindrance of any kind. So there...

(Written on 02/23/2014)(Permalink)

Really perplexed by the usage of the word 'oversight' being used so often in regulatory related matters. Oversight is a noun meaning an unintentional failure to notice or do something. The root word 'oversee' meaning to supervise cannot become 'oversight' to express jurisdictional control. It should remain intact as it is. This error is being widely perpetuated in Europe, too. Open to correction, if someone feels what I say is incorrect.

(Written on 02/23/2014)(Permalink)

Well, buddy, we could go on like this all day long but since neither of us were there on the spot, it's futile to keep badgering on. I am sure the problem would be resolved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders as it should be. Lets be thankful it was noticed in time and pre-empted any untoward incident at a later stage.

(Written on 02/22/2014)(Permalink)

Yes, correct, authorities would not routinely inspect an airliner unless there has been a cause to do so. In this case, the damage was noticed and perhaps based on the severity, it was escalated to the authorities which I feel is a perfectly normal thing to do. While I agree with your entitlement to your opinion,coloring an incident like this in cultural hues based on presumptions is uncalled for.

(Written on 02/22/2014)(Permalink)

Sure, India's aviation regulations do leave a lot to be desired but loose talk of 'retaliation' has no basis at all. Any note-worthy damage to an aircraft is cause for concern as it could seriously jeopardize safety. In that interest alone, ensuring that the aircraft is air-worthy should always be the priority. Making wild and baseless comments points to a puerile mind-set way beyond professionalism.

(Written on 02/22/2014)(Permalink)