BA A321 tailstrike.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would disagree re cost as Airbus generate massive revenues (and profit) from Datapacks and the additional tests (whether flight or engineering) to support an A321 variant would be really quite insignificant
Proprietary issues - I will revisit and ask for clarification.
Other than what you've kindly remarked upon, have you any idea what the motivation would be for a manufacturer to withold flight test data packages from simulator manufacturers?
Last edited by vapilot2004; 9th Aug 2015 at 02:51.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ever happened to 2.5 to 3 degrees per second basic pilot training
This particular strike was during landing (apparently the flight segment involved in all A321 tail strikes) by a relatively low-time on type commander, who very likely would have benefitted from a FFS with fidelity to the A321's flight dynamics.
N4790P
vapilot2004
Oh yes. It all boils down to money. The major OEMs are all positioning themselves for the major slice of the (future) training market and this is why datapack costs have skyrocketed to upwards of US$8M for the new generation aircraft. Makes any independent or even 3rd party airline operation totally non competitive.
(This is why LM bought out Sim Industries, Textron acquired Mechtronix and so forth so that their internal markets were also both closed to competition and protected).
Boeing and Airbus will eventually have more or less total control of the training market via data costs and be able to dictate training policy and prices and until then they need to ensure that the industry 'toes their line'.
Ask anyone about the "Boeing Model" and you may be surprised. This was the start!
Other than what you've kindly remarked upon, have you any idea what the motivation would be for a manufacturer to withold flight test data packages from simulator manufacturers?
(This is why LM bought out Sim Industries, Textron acquired Mechtronix and so forth so that their internal markets were also both closed to competition and protected).
Boeing and Airbus will eventually have more or less total control of the training market via data costs and be able to dictate training policy and prices and until then they need to ensure that the industry 'toes their line'.
Ask anyone about the "Boeing Model" and you may be surprised. This was the start!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing and Airbus will eventually have more or less total control of the training market via data costs and be able to dictate training policy and prices and until then they need to ensure that the industry 'toes their line'.
The Boeing Model - I'm not sure I know this one and there was no consensus found in open discussion. Would this relate to Alteon?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems very strange. Could you confirm ZFT?
From the report:
Quote:
The non-discovery of the damage during the engineer's external inspection for the turn round is difficult to understand.
This is the primary function of a tail skid, to visually give a clear indication of a tail strike. They are not sturdy and therefore not designed to protect the aircraft unless the force of the strike is minimal.
From the report:
Quote:
The non-discovery of the damage during the engineer's external inspection for the turn round is difficult to understand.
This is the primary function of a tail skid, to visually give a clear indication of a tail strike. They are not sturdy and therefore not designed to protect the aircraft unless the force of the strike is minimal.
A couple of clarifications.
1. BA shorthaul a/c do not get inspected by an engineer/technician/mechanic during turnrounds. The flight crew do it (Rumour is they got a pay rise to accept this responsibility some years ago). Engineering staff only attend on request, or if there is a controlled inspection that is scheduled to be carried out during the turnround.
2. Even though BA has an engineering presence at GLA, it is hangar based. There is no BA line maintenance at GLA, it is subcontracted to a 3rd party (not sure who).
3. None of this is relevant as the damage was discovered during the turnround and the a/c taken out of service for repair.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from the report, Tur:
Actually I believe some sort of damage was discovered when the aircraft failed to pressurize during the climb after the first (post-strike) turnaround. Otherwise, thank you for the BA specific information.
The non-discovery of the damage during the engineer's external inspection for the turn round is difficult to understand.
3. None of this is relevant as the damage was discovered during the turnround and the a/c taken out of service for repair.
Thanks for that.
Where is the report? All I can find for the above info is the Av Herald.
Where is the report? All I can find for the above info is the Av Herald.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turin, I am mistaken and this could have been what Doug E was on about. Apologies. Cross-linked this event and one from the past regarding a Dublin BA flight from 1998. 
Thanks again for the information regarding turn around.
Thanks again for the information regarding turn around.
No worries pal.
If you search my posts over the years I've made some cracking bloopers.
If you search my posts over the years I've made some cracking bloopers.
N4790P
vapilot2004
Whilst standardisation should be good for safety, in this case I fear it will have the opposite effect for 2 significant reasons. The Airframers are in training for the financial reward and no other reason. Yes, they harp on about safety but its lip service and nothing more. If safety really was their priority then their training courses and datapacks etc. wouldn’t be priced out of reach! Unfortunately this industry is now totally financially controlled and more expensive training equates to less training quantity and training costs once the airframes have control will skyrocket just as they have already done so with the rotary wing and business jet markets where independent competition has been virtually eradicated.
Secondly, all things are not equal, as much as they would like to maintain they are. Crews operating in this part of the world face very different challenges to the crews operating in say Europe and the training must reflect that. The OEM way isn’t necessarily right under all circumstances yet in the not too distant future, the rigid OEM way is likely to be the only way.
The Boeing model or subsidy isn’t discussed much due to the fear factor. (Although a few months ago FSI did refer to it in a Flight International article). Some 4 years ago or thereabouts, Boeing announced that to ‘protect their IPR’ they were introducing a 15% charge on anything to do with activities on Boeing simulators. 3rd party training, updates etc. In effect any revenue generated on a Boeing simulator whether from training or from say replacing a visual system attracts a 15% commission for Boeings.
Needless to say this gave them yet another significant advantage on top of the obvious free data they enjoy plus other benefits such as free Jeppeson FMS and ARINC 424 data and just adds to the overall problem and is of course yet another element in the scheme for total training control.
Other OEMs haven’t followed yet but adopt different ways. Some refuse to supply data, some charge ridiculous subscriptions for OEBs, ADs and SBs but all are designed to both frustrate and drive up costs and eventually drive away any competition. The sad thing is, they will succeed.
Whilst standardisation should be good for safety, in this case I fear it will have the opposite effect for 2 significant reasons. The Airframers are in training for the financial reward and no other reason. Yes, they harp on about safety but its lip service and nothing more. If safety really was their priority then their training courses and datapacks etc. wouldn’t be priced out of reach! Unfortunately this industry is now totally financially controlled and more expensive training equates to less training quantity and training costs once the airframes have control will skyrocket just as they have already done so with the rotary wing and business jet markets where independent competition has been virtually eradicated.
Secondly, all things are not equal, as much as they would like to maintain they are. Crews operating in this part of the world face very different challenges to the crews operating in say Europe and the training must reflect that. The OEM way isn’t necessarily right under all circumstances yet in the not too distant future, the rigid OEM way is likely to be the only way.
The Boeing model or subsidy isn’t discussed much due to the fear factor. (Although a few months ago FSI did refer to it in a Flight International article). Some 4 years ago or thereabouts, Boeing announced that to ‘protect their IPR’ they were introducing a 15% charge on anything to do with activities on Boeing simulators. 3rd party training, updates etc. In effect any revenue generated on a Boeing simulator whether from training or from say replacing a visual system attracts a 15% commission for Boeings.
Needless to say this gave them yet another significant advantage on top of the obvious free data they enjoy plus other benefits such as free Jeppeson FMS and ARINC 424 data and just adds to the overall problem and is of course yet another element in the scheme for total training control.
Other OEMs haven’t followed yet but adopt different ways. Some refuse to supply data, some charge ridiculous subscriptions for OEBs, ADs and SBs but all are designed to both frustrate and drive up costs and eventually drive away any competition. The sad thing is, they will succeed.
vapilot2004, the incident you refer to in 1998 was British Midland, not BA, as stated in your post #53.
Last edited by Doug E Style; 11th Aug 2015 at 15:46. Reason: I felt like it.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT:
I read a quote somewhere around the turn of the century stating engineers have less say in the manufacturing of commercial aircraft at the C-suite level and pilots are becoming fewer and fewer in airline upper management. Over a decade down the road, the quote was prescient.
ZFT: To your excellent second point: A good airline is like a stable ecosystem with all of the parts and people working to support the whole, by design. A shift away from company training programmes towards anything mandated by manufacterers has great disruptive potential, I agree. Standardized OPS, one of the hallmarks of safety culture, will also suffer.
"The Boeing Model" 5 years or so ago? That was about the time Boeing's training arm was renamed and restructured. Interesting. Thank you.
ARINC ramblings: A few years ago, in a valiant quest to solve a minor flight data issue, one of our engineers used his own money to purchase ARINC data or documents that were not provided by the company, the aircraft manufacturer, nor the LRU OEM. He figured it out, and altruistically forwarded his fix to all parties, resulting in a form letter from the manufacturer, nada from ARINC, with the LRU guys the only ones following up with personal thank you and discussion during a dinner on them.
ZFT: To your excellent second point: A good airline is like a stable ecosystem with all of the parts and people working to support the whole, by design. A shift away from company training programmes towards anything mandated by manufacterers has great disruptive potential, I agree. Standardized OPS, one of the hallmarks of safety culture, will also suffer.
"The Boeing Model" 5 years or so ago? That was about the time Boeing's training arm was renamed and restructured. Interesting. Thank you.
ARINC ramblings: A few years ago, in a valiant quest to solve a minor flight data issue, one of our engineers used his own money to purchase ARINC data or documents that were not provided by the company, the aircraft manufacturer, nor the LRU OEM. He figured it out, and altruistically forwarded his fix to all parties, resulting in a form letter from the manufacturer, nada from ARINC, with the LRU guys the only ones following up with personal thank you and discussion during a dinner on them.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read a quote somewhere around the turn of the century stating engineers have less say in the manufacturing of commercial aircraft at the C-suite level and pilots are becoming fewer and fewer in airline upper management. Over a decade down the road, the quote was prescient.
That's over half of the world's population.
It's never pretty to watch global corporations extending their monopolies: look what's happening with Internet corporations. Yet it must be said that unless last year was an aberration, jet-powered commercial aviation is doing something very right. Well done to you all, and thank you.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duck, it's not just LoCos that have this accountant driven culture - most of the airlines do now, and as demonstrated, so do the manufacturers. Even the authorities have little concern over safety, focusing almost exclusively on money.