Comments by "Halfdan Ingolfsson" (@Halli50) on "Mentour Now!" channel.

  1. A retired airline pilot, I respectfully disagree with your fervent "do-not-speculate-at-all-until-the-final-report" policy. It is perfectly sensible for aviation professionals to ponder the most likely scenarios after a crash! We're not saying "this was the cause", only reviewing the most likely causes, an exercise that alerts us and our fellow professionals to potential traps in similar circumstances until the final report is eventually released. Blancolirio manages to do this in a very sensible manner, time and time again.
    7
  2. There is one niche of civil aviation where flying wing designs have been quietly: Modern Hang Gliders! They are incredibly stable and efficient in their narrow operating band, and get away with it by discarding all the commercial requirements (a wide speed range and manageable CG range). I spent decades getting my kicks flying Hang Gliders while also flying "normal" airplanes commercially, and I have always been impressed by the impressive pitch and yaw stability of the modern, non-competitive hang glider. The Achilles heel of a commercial flying wing will probably always be it's knife-edge pitch stability and narrow CG range.
    6
  3. I imagine the trickiest part of metrification in aviation would be vertical separation. The 1000' vertical separation has been quite handy, but using a metric same-scale interval of, say 330m would be a nightmare. A mitigation of using, say 500m intervals would increase separation which is safer but will play havoc with traffic density in congested airspace. Using 200m intervals (5.0km/5.2km/5.4km etc.) would increase traffic density but would decrease vertical separation, but be less safe. I wonder what vertical spacing Russia and China use locally?
    3
  4. This really makes sense. Flight training can be roughly divided into 3 main fields: 1) Handling (stick and rudder skills and energy management in climb and descent), 2) Power plants and systems, and 3) ATC, navigation and rules/procedures. Initial flight training is mostly about 1), with a smattering of 2) & 3) included. Initial flight training is usually done in short hands-on lessons lasting 30-45 minutes, ideal for current small electric planes. As an example, initial training in a C152 is NOT about turbine or jet engines or the complex 3) field, it is mostly about learning to FLY the bloody thing, genuine crosswind landings usually being the most difficult part. Learning all about the C152 piston engine does NOT carry much over to turboprop and jet engines. Electric planes have only one control, a power lever, simplifying things a lot. Endurance monitoring and management is the same, whether you are considering kilowatt-hours remaining or AVGAS/JET-A1 in the tanks. It will be strange to dump the old RPM/MP power indications to kilowatts...
    2
  5. Well, Boeing has been going down the drain for a few decades due to greed overriding quality, and the chances of Boeing recovering from the "McDonnell Douglas disease" is minuscule. The symptoms have been glaring for a couple of decades, the most recent and dramatic being the utter failure of their space program - not to mention the 737MAX MCAS debacle that should really be classified as a case of mass manslaughter due to negligence. Most of the victims were non-'Muricans, so the fallout has been survivable, but only barely.
    2
  6. Nah, ain't gonna happen. Boeing is too profit-greedy to incur the cost of developing and certifying it, not to mention the painful and costly (in human lives) learning curve the would ensue. Airbus had it's share of problems initially, and Boeing's greed culture would take that to the next level. Are we forgetting the B737 MAX debacle already? Active side-stick force feedback makes sense to emulate the current mechanical yoke link. Even cheap joysticks for computer Flight-Sim games have offered this feature for years, so why are Airbus side-sticks still "limp"?
    2
  7. Petter, you have outlined why the revered 757 is dying and it makes some sense - but NOT all the sense. Being wagered on an even older design with an inherent design problem (short & stubby landing gear), the 737 - and Boeing is now heading for the graveyard, the dustbin of history, partly because of that decision but mainly because they put profits over good engineering and safety.
    1
  8. I believe Boeing is way behind the power curve regarding quality control. To add insult to injury, Boeing's actions to rectify the quality issues have, time and time again, proven to be more cosmetic than real. This is a problem that will NOT be solved by pouring money on it! It is quite possible, even likely, that Boeing is doomed to fail in coming years and the death throes will be drawn-out and painful for all involved, especially the workers that will lose their jobs.
    1
  9. The transition of Boeing from having engineering/safety priorities to having profit priorities is bound to have been slow and insidious. The rot or infection even spread to the FAA and beyond. Boeing is likely to fail in it's current form, but the question remains: Are they too big to fail (in 'Murican economic terms) and will the bailout lead to any real changes?
    1
  10. The flight crew seats in the cockpit are NOT the safest seats! They will be the first to be crushed in a fatal crash. The recent South-Korean crash verified that the "safest" seats are the rearmost, rear-facing bulkhead seats intended for the cabin crew, shoulder harnesses and all...
    1
  11. An inescapable fact: Safety is EXPENSIVE - but still far less expensive than having serious accidents due to skimping on safety (just ask Boeing after the 737 MAX debacle). The problem 'Murica is facing is serious, because 'Muricans are all about profits and greed (again, just ask Boeing). Sadly 'Murica, that used to be the front runner in aviation safety, has been skimping on the safety payments. The consequences are beginning to show...
    1
  12. Boeing used to be the Gold Standard in aviation innovation and safety. That has now reversed, Boeing is now proving to be a hotbed of mismanagement and greed. The lives lost in the 737 MAX debacle is just the first really serious crack in the old Boeing image. If Boeing continues to stake it's future on business shenanigans, it will end badly. Crashing a few companies and running off with the proceeds before the dust settles is typical of such practices, but crashing a few airliners full of people makes the world sit up and take notice. No stone is big enough to hide under.
    1
  13. This probably applies to just about all Russian exports. Any customer that loss his access to raw materials hitherto sourced from Russia, all due to the whims of one megalomaniac, will find another source and NOT come back to Russian sources due to the unreliability of that source. In a few decades, customers might come back if a) Russia becomes a stable, democratic country and/or b) If the materials become available at significantly lower prices vs. quality than other sources can supply. Bottom line: Russia is screwed for a generation or so, not so much the general population as the Kleptocrats that own the whole shebang,
    1