Examination of videos has revealed that the Japanese Coast Guard Plane, a DHC8 turboprop, was lined up on runway 34L for take-off when it was struck by the landing Japan Airlines A350 on Tuesday evening.
Why the Coast Guard plane was lined up is a mystery but advice from ATC (NOTAM) that critical Stop Bar Lighting were unserviceable for a series of taxiway to runway junctions (C1 to C14) could be a critical factor.
Did the Coast Guard pilot assume he could enter the runway as there were no Stop Bar warning lights on (Below Images)? Did the Coast Guard crew read the NOTAM? What instructions did it receive from ATC? These questions will be the key to the investigation.
The Japan Airlines crew wouldn’t have seen anything on their Traffic Collison Avoidance System (TCAS) as this is disabled passing through 900ft on the approach to land. The blame appears to be with either the Coast Guard Pilot or ATC for not knowing where the a/c under their control was.
Five Coast Guard crew died in the tragedy although the pilot survived, while all 379 passengers and crew of the Japan Airlines A350 survived.
The accident mirrors an almost identical collision in Los Angeles at night in 1991 when a USAir Boeing 737, Flight 1493 was cleared to land on runway 24L and at the same time a SkyWest Metro II aircraft, Flight 5569 to Palmdale, was permitted to line up on runway 24L but hold.
The air traffic controller became distracted and confused by another aircraft problem and tragically a collision occurred killing 12 passengers and crew on the MetroLiner and 22 on the 737.
Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didnât know who to ask. Well, now you do!
Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.
Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety â with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviationâs governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airlineâs own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the worldâs passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline
In this weekâs long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at Vietjet and Vietnam Airlines on a return flight from Melbourne to Ho Chi Minh (SGN).
In perhaps the toughest review yet, the winner of this comparison between the two Vietnamese airlines will come down to seat selection and baggage.
Our flight to Ho Chi Minh will be taking place on August 11th and returning on August 26th, 2023. Both Vietjet and Vietnam Airlines operate direct flights on this route with an A330 and A350 respectively.
Our return flight with Vietjet came to $597 AUD which included seat selection, 40kg of checked baggage, a 10kg carry-on bag, meal, and drink. There is no in-flight entertainment, Wi-Fi or in-seat power and extra snacks and drinks need to be purchased.
Our flight with Vietnam Airlines came in at $666 AUD which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment through seat back screens, in-seat power, blankets and pillows plus 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
However, and this is where it gets interesting, when we add extra baggage and seat selection to the Vietnam Airlines booking to match Vietjet and compare âlike with likeâ the price jumps up an extra $600 AUD to make the total cost $1523 AUD.
If we take the baggage and seat selection out of the equation, then Vietnam Airlines with its onboard comfort and in-flight entertainment would be a winner. When we add extra baggage and seat selection to match the Vietjet offering then Vietjet becomes the winner with a far cheaper cost.
So, who is the winner? For the first time, we do not have a clear winner. Put simply, if youâre travelling with just 23kg of baggage and donât mind where you sit then Vietnam Airlines is our choice, however, if you want more luggage and to choose your seat then we would choose Vietjet.
If you missed last weekâs long-haul comparison between British Airways and Play check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In this weekâs long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at the ever-popular London to New York route. There are loads of full-service flight options for this route but we have opted to compare the UKâs legacy carrier, British Airways and the new Icelandic low-cost carrier, PLAY Airlines. For the first time yet in this series we had a very clear winner.
Our return flight with PLAY came to $ 664 USD (£532) which includes an $80 USD allowance for meals, drinks and snacks on board, 20kg of checked luggage, carry-on baggage, seat selection and priority boarding. Amenity kits, blankets and pillows, in-flight entertainment, in-seat power and WiFi are not available.
Flights with Play departed and arrived at London Stansted and New York Stewart respectively. Each flight also stops over in Iceland for roughly 2 hours. The total flight time (including the stopover) from London to New York is 11h 15 and from New York to London 10h 20. New York Stewart is a small airport on the outskirts of New York and passengers need to allow approximately 90 minutes to get into New York Central (bus or train) and allow an additional $ 20-25 USD each way.
Our flight with British Airways came in cheaper at $605 USD (ÂŁ485) which included meals, snacks, drinks, in-flight entertainment, amenities upon request, 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
The flights with British Airways outbound departed from London Gatwick and arrived at JFK. Coming back they departed JFK and arrived at London Heathrow. Both flights are direct and fly into more ‘central’ airports.
On the topic of central airports, the centrality of these airports really depends on where you are going/living within each city. Where a city has multiple airports always factor the cost and time of getting to/from the airport into your final decision.
In terms of comfort, both airlines offer 30-31 inches of legroom and some seat recline. The aircraft operated on these flights are however very different with PLAY operating the single-aisle A321 and British Airways the far more comfortable twin-aisle Boeing 777.
In this week’s head-to-head we have a very clear winner in British Airways. British Airways offers not only a cheaper fare but far more comfort on board with included drinks, meals and in-flight entertainment. For the author flying into JFK rather than SWF is also a big factor in the decision and unless you are after a holiday in Iceland, a direct flight is usually preferable.
If you missed last weekâs long-haul comparison between Scoot and Singapore Airlines check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In this weekâs long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at Scoot and Singapore Airlines on two different flights from Singapore to Europe. Why two different destinations?
Scoot is Singapore Airlines’ low-cost subsidiary and provides passengers with direct flights into Europe via Athens or Berlin. Â Singapore Airlines operates direct flights to numerous ports in Europe however excludes those operated by Scoot. For this comparison, we used the direct flight with Scoot into Athens and the Singapore Airlines direct flight into Rome.
Our return flight with Scoot came to $1830 SGD with the inclusion of a meal, snack and drink on each segment, a standard window seat, 30kg of checked baggage and a 10kg carry-on bag.  Amenity kits such as blankets and pillows are also available for purchase ($24 SGD) on board but given most passengers wouldnât buy these, we left that off the price for this exercise. I also added an additional $40 SGD to each flight ($80 in total) for the purchase of in-seat power, additional drinks, meals and snacks over the 11-hour flight.
Our flight with Singapore Airlines came in at $2787 SGD which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment, amenity kits, blankets and pillow plus 30kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
In terms of comfort, Scoot offers 30-31 inches of legroom and Singapore Airlines 32 inches. Both offer an 18-inch seat width and a 6-inch seat recline. Â
Having flown both airlines multiple times the author can vouch for the value Scoot provides and the excellence in dining, inflight entertainment and comfort you receive on Singapore Airlines. Anyone whoâs flown Singapore Airlines long haul will know what I mean.
Even though Scoot has no in-flight entertainment, less legroom, a buy-on-board menu and comfort packs that need to be purchased, with a saving of $957 SGD this author would have to choose Scoot over Singapore Airlines. The Rome flight is longer than the Athens flight (60-90 minutes) so you would expect a higher fare however not that high!
If the budget allowed and you arenât travelling with anyone under 12, I would recommend upgrading your flight to the Scoot In Silence cabin for an additional $200 SGD
If money was no object, it would be Singapore Airlines all the way but looking at the value proposition of getting from Singapore to Europe, Scoot would be the easy choice on this occasion.
If you missed last weekâs long-haul comparison between WestJet and Air Canada check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
This week we compare WestJet and Air Canada on a long-haul return flight from Calgary to London Heathrow. Considering the overall cost, comfort, aircraft and flight time we will see who offers the best value. This review will demonstrate why it is so important to check all prices on a route rather than simply assuming low cost is cheaper.
Our economy flight to London will be taking place on September 11th and returning on September 23rd 2023. Both WestJet and Air Canada operate direct flights on this route with a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
Our return flight with Westjet came to $1557 CAD with the inclusion of meals, snacks and drinks, in-flight entertainment through seat back screens, in-seat power, a standard window seat, blankets and pillows, 23kg of checked baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.  Wifi Is also available for a fee.
Our flight with Air Canada came in cheaper at $1507 CAD which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment through seat back screens, in-seat power, a standard window seat, blankets and pillows plus 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag. Wifi Is also available for a fee.
What was particularly interesting about this flight comparison was not only that Air Canada was cheaper than its low-cost competitor Westjet but that Westjet actually offered more legroom and seat width in economy. It is unusual to find the low-cost carrier offering more personal space than a full-service carrier.Â
So which one would we pick to fly? With both airlines offering almost identical onboard service, having similar departure and arrival times plus the same aircraft, the choice has to come down to price. For this reason, the author would choose Air Canada but I would encourage anyone doing this route to compare the prices for both airlines for your specific dates and take your pick from there as both offer comfort and value so you canât lose.
If you missed last weekâs long-haul comparison between Cebu Pacific and Philippine Airlines check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In this weekâs long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at Jetstar vs Qantas on a flight from Sydney to Honolulu. Looking at cost, comfort, aircraft and flight time we will see who offers the best value.
Our Jetstar vs Qantas fly-off to Honolulu will be taking place on August 28 to September 11th, 2023. Both Jetstar and Qantas operate direct flights on this route with a 787 and A330 respectively.
Our return flight with Jetstar came to $1192 AUD with the inclusion of a meal, snack and four bottles of water on each segment, a standard window seat, access to the in-flight entertainment, 20kg of checked baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag. Amenity kits such as blankets and pillows are also available for $25 but given most passengers wouldnât buy these, we left that off the price for this exercise.
Our flight with Qantas came in at $1494 which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment, amenities, 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
In terms of comfort, the leg room is only one inch (or 2.5 cm) more on Qantas than Jetstar however the seat recline is roughly double. The actual seat width is virtually the same.
The Qantas A330 offers a comfortable 2-4-2 seating configuration across the plane where as the 787 is fitted out as 3-3-3.
Despite the layout of the A330 being one of my favourites, with a $302 AUD difference in the fare and a comparable level of comfort and flight time, in this example the author would opt to save that $302 for the destination and take Jetstar.
If you missed last week’s long-haul comparison between AirAsiaX and Malaysia Airlines check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In the year post COVID we have seen the demand for travel rise like never before. Thereâs friends and family to catch up with, bucket lists to tick off and savings to be spent. However, the rise in demand has also resulted in an expected but significant rise in the price of airfares, accommodation, and experiences.
Travellers are looking for ways to cut costs where they can and one of these is to consider a low-cost airline for their long-haul travel. On the surface, the low-cost airline fare is attractive and affordable but what is the real cost of travelling long haul by the time you add food, water, bags and seats? Letâs not forget the comfort factor too â on a long-haul flight every extra inch of space makes a difference.
To answer this question, we are compiling a series of low cost vs full service airline comparisons on certain routes around the world. We will look at cost and comfort to determine if long haul low cost is really worth it.
Our first comparison looks at the total cost and on board experience flying low cost AirAsiaX or full service legacy carrier Malaysia Airlines. Our trip from Kuala Lumpur to Auckland will depart on August 28 and return on September 15th 2023.
Our flight with AirAsiaX came to 3854 MYR ($1305 AUD) with the inclusion of a meal and one small bottle of water on each flight leg, a standard window seat, 20kg of checked baggage and a 7kg carry on bag. Admittedly you would likely need to spend at least another 120 MYR ($40 AUD) to purchase extra drinks and snacks, but for this exercise we left that out. This airline offers no in flight entertainment or seat back power to recharge your device.
Our flight with Malaysia Airlines came in at 5174 MYR ($1753) which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in flight entertainment, amenities, 20kg baggage and a 7kg carry on bag.
With a 1320 MYR ($448 AUD) difference in the fares the question of âwhich is betterâ really comes down to where the traveller places value.
For the author (who is admittedly a tired mother to two babies), the thought of a direct flight with a little extra seat width, more seat recline, unlimited beverages, meals and snacks, a seat back screen for in-flight entertainment and a cosy blanket and pillow makes the extra cost worthwhile.
However, when discussing this with my 18 year old niece, the value for her is placed on the saving she can make flying long haul, low cost. For her, she can easily go without the comforts and endure the longer flight time to have that extra money in her pocket to spend at the destination.
AirlineRatings.com Editor-in-Chief Geoffrey Thomas has cleared the air on claims by a Boeing engineer that its 787s might “fall out of the sky.”
Mr Thomas said that the claims by Sam Salehpour were “extraordinary” and in total contrast to the facts that show both the Boeing 787 and 777 are incredibly safe.
Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didnât know who to ask. Well, now you do!
Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.
Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety â with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviationâs governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airlineâs own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the worldâs passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.
Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.
Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:
âWhat are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?â
âWhy do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?â
âWhat is a winglet and what is it for?
âWhy is it so costly to fly short distances?â
âHow often is an aircraft maintained?
âHow strong is a wing?â
âHow do they test aircraftâ
âHow often do plane tyres need to be replaced?â
Was MH150 the intended target of Captain Zahaire Shah, not MH370? That is the question being asked by MH370 expert Richard Godfreyin a new paper.
Mr Godfrey says that the alignment of Captain Zaharie Shahâs home simulator flight path with the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) flight path analysis is no coincidence.
Mr Godfrey told AirlineRatings.com that “the flight path from Captain Zaharie Shahâs home flight simulator passes right through the WSPR-defined crash location. The coordinates from Captain Zaharie Shahâs home simulator flight path were recovered by the Royal Malaysian Police during their investigation into the disappearance of MH370.
“There are two key coordinates on the home simulator flight path, one at the turn south in the vicinity of the Andaman Islands at around 10.2°N 90.2°E and the other at fuel exhaustion at around 45.1°S 104.1°E.
“The major difference between Captain Zaharie Shahâs home simulator flight path and the WSPR flight path analysis (below) is that the flight path is much longer in the home simulator. The reason for the longer path is the amount of fuel assumed during the simulation.
“The flight path from Captain Zaharie Shahâs home flight simulation was run on 2nd February 2014, with a starting fuel amount of 68,523.8 kg fuel on board. Capt. Zaharie Shah flew the Malaysian Airlines System (MAS) flight MH150 from Kuala Lumpur to Jeddah on 4th February 2014 and had an estimated 68,450 kg of fuel onboard following the MAS standard fuel planning practice. It is no coincidence that the two fuel amounts in the simulator and in the real world are almost identical.
“This raises the question: Was the original target actually MH150 and not MH370? If the initial plan was to hijack flight MH150, then it obviously did not happen. A possible reason is that there were two sets of crew on flight MH150 making it more risky to divert and hijack. Was MH370 then chosen instead, although there was less fuel, but because there was no extra flight crew on board?
“Flight MH370 had 49,100 kg of fuel at take off on 7th March 2014 according to the official flight plan and load sheet. Fuel exhaustion resulting in a dual flame out of both engines occurred on 8th March 2014 at around 00:17:30 UTC. The fuel range following diversion into the Southern Indian Ocean will be much shorter than would have been the case for MH150 with the estimated additional 19,350 kg of fuel.”
Mr Godfrey added that “MH370 with 239 people on board remains the worst loss of life in aviation history as a result of a diversion and hijacking since the 911 multiple hijackings on 11th September 2001.
“MH370 is the worst aviation incident in the history of commercial aviation of all 447 aircraft listed as missing or as cause undetermined in the Aviation Safety Network accident database, which goes back to 1919.
“A diversion and hijacking of MH150 to Jeddah would have been even worse news for a mainly Muslim country like Malaysia.”
Boeing has hit back at a whistleblower’s claims that its 787 and 777 have design weaknesses and are a safety risk’
On April 15 in its North Charleston facility two senior Boeing engineers shared detailed information o the testing and fatigue lives of both the 787 and 777 to the media in a briefing.
Here is a summary of the media call;
Related to the 787 Dreamliner
From Steve Chisholm, Chief Engineer for Boeing Mechanical and Structural Engineering:
Inspections of the current in-service fleet:
671 aeroplanes have completed 6-year maintenance inspections
8 aeroplanes have completed 12-year maintenance inspections
10 aeroplanes have had intensive structural maintenance evaluations carried out by teams of engineers and specialists.
âThrough all of this, there have been zero airframe fatigue findings on the 787 fleet, and all these results have been shared with the FAA,â Mr Chisholm said.
On minuscule gaps identified in areas where the 787 composite fuselage sections are joined:
 âWe havenât identified any safety issuesâ related to tiny gaps identified in areas where 787 composite fuselage sections are joined together. âWe have not seen anything in service related to [the gaps] that would indicate that there is an issue with the in-service fleet.â
Mr Chisholm also added that Boeing is thousands of engineers and mechanics working together on these issues. âThis isn’t an individual, this isn’t a leader, this isn’t a specific person deciding this is what we’re going to do. Everything’s done with the collective, with stress analysts, our tooling engineers, our liaison engineers, our production engineers, our quality personnel, our build personnel and the FAA all involved in these discussions.â
Following Boeing’s analysis and FAA review and approval, Boeing has updated certain production methods in the 787 final assembly, including using âfit up forceâ ranging from 5 to 150 pounds to bring two fuselage sections together before they are joined. Mr Chisholm said this fit-up force is applied to approved areas and is minimal to an airframe designed to withstand thousands of pounds of force.
The companyâs full-scale fatigue testing from 2010-2015 of a 787 composite airframe stressed it to the equivalent of 165,000 flights, which was the companyâs most extensive testing for any aircraft.
Mr Chisholm said: âThere were no findings, zero findings of fatigue in our composite structure, over 165,000 cyclesâ in those tests.
Boeing 777 production line
Because the test airframe was designed and built in the same way as the first 980 aeroplanes in service, Boeing examined the test airframe and data after the more recent issues came to light.
Mr Chisholm: âWe were taking out fasteners, we were looking for damage. We’re also doing the through-hole inspections to understand the build condition. And we didn’t find any fatigue, any fatigue issues in the composite structure.â
Lisa Fahl, Vice President of Engineering, Airplane Programs, Boeing Commercial Airplanes told media âEverything in our design and build system requires substantiation, testing, analysis, and validation prior to implementation on our aircraft and in our production systems. Itâs required by our type certificate and our production certificate. Those systems work congruently together to ensure that what we build is approved.â
Ms Fahl added âWeâre on a continuous improvement journey to ensure that our teammate’s opinions and questions get answered. We hear from them, we create processes, we continue to evolve on this process as we go forward and just welcome the feedback and encourage it and want it from our team, thatâs how we make ourselves better, thatâs the foundation of the Safety Management System and aerospace safety in general, is people speaking up.â
In 2020 Boeing self-reported issues with the 787 production and halted deliveries to resolve the problems. There were a series of issues and deliveries were halted for almost two years as they were resolved.
On the 787 production, Ms Fahl said that Boeing has collected âwell over 1 million data pointsâ by inspecting about 10,000 fasteners on each 787 that join the aeroplaneâs composite fuselage sections.
âEvery single analysis package data collection process was audited by the FAA and submitted to them for their review and approval. And we went through the comprehensive assessment of root cause corrective action, for every single one of these issues. And then only then when we had gone through all of that did we resume deliveriesâŚAnd it was, I think, a really proud moment for us because we went tip to tail systemically and looked at our airplane.â
During the 787âs development in the 2000s, Boeing established a conservative standard for a gap between fuselage sections that could only be five-thousands (0.005) of an inch, or about the width of a human hair because the 787 was the industryâs first composite aeroplane.
Ms Fahl said: âWhat we’ve learned is that aircraft is highly capable of larger gap allowances, and that’s what we went through with the data collectionâ from 2020 to 2022.
Boeing also launched Boeing 777 production improvements several years ago, including assembling fuselage sections upright and increasing the use of determinant assembly (also known as part indexing) to align parts to tightly controlled tolerances.
Ms Fahl said: âUltimately, it’s really just us looking at our continuous improvement in all of our production systems. We are looking across the board on every program how we make the build more producible, easier for our mechanics to build.â
Mr Chisholm added that airlines have completed 8-year maintenance inspections of more than 1,000 777 jets. Aircraft inspected included 27 777s built starting in late 2015 with the production improvements, and 114 777 Freighters that were built with determinant assembly for the aft fuselage.
Mr Chisholm said: âThere have been no fleet findings on any of those inspectionsâ related to newer production methods.
Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didnât know who to ask. Well, now you do!
Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.
Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety â with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviationâs governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airlineâs own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the worldâs passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.
Ever heard of an open-jaw flight? It’s a smart move if you’re embarking on a European adventure where you fly into one city and out of another. Cathay Pacific currently serves 12 UK/European cities including London (Heathrow / Gatwick), Manchester, Paris, Rome, Milan, Amsterdam, Zurich, Madrid, Barcelona, Frankfurt, Brussels and Dublin.
Once aboard, Cathay’s top-notch service and friendly staff make passengers feel like the holiday’s already begun. In addition to this, all flights between Hong Kong and Europe are operated by the Airbus A350 which means more comfort and less fatigue, with its improved cabin pressure and humidity levels
Stopover time! đď¸
Hong Kong’s a perfect pit stop between Oz and Europe. Spend a day or two exploring its vibrant streets, hitting up hidden beaches, munching on Cantonese delicacies, checking out cool museums, and maybe even hopping on a ferry to one of the gorgeous outlying islands.
And guess what? Flight deals are in store! âď¸
Eligible spots include Manchester, Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Amsterdam, Madrid, or Zurich. Cathay Pacific’s also offering some tempting deals on economy fares from Aus to Europe. Check these out:
Russian carrier Ural Airlines appears to have abandoned ambitions to retrieve its Airbus A320 which landed in a field after running low on fuel during a diversion back in September 2023.
The carrier informed the Izvestia newspaper that it explored various approaches to retrieve the Ural Airlines Airbus A320-200. These approaches and obstacles are outlined below:
Attempting to create a frozen surface for the jet’s takeoff, but the soil’s density proved insufficient, necessitating the construction of an artificial platform.
Contemplating the construction of a runway suitable for the aircraft, but this option was deemed impractical and costly due to the distance from Novosibirsk, which would require extensive material transportation.
Highlighting the expenses associated with renting the field where the A320 is located, in addition to maintenance costs and security measures required to safeguard the aircraft.
Ural Airlines conveyed to the newspaper that the aircraft would not return to commercial service. They have explored alternative solutions, including the possibility of dismantling it in sections and airlifting it via helicopter.
Ural flight U6-1383 with 159 passengers and 6 crew, was on final approach to Omsk’s runway from Sochi when the crew initiated a go around from about 600 meters due to a hydraulics failure. The aircraft climbed to 18000 feet and diverted to Novosibirsk about 320nm east of Omsk.
The A320 however never made it to Novosibirsk. Just 11km from the airport and with less than 5 minutes of fuel left, the decision was made to perform a forced emergency landing on an open field. Due to the hydraulic failure the landing gear doors remained open for the entire diversion which together with strong head winds increased fuel consumption.
The governor of Omsk stated that the crew reported a hydraulic problem affecting the brakes and were concerned the aircraft would not be able to stop on the runway in Omsk. The crew therefore diverted to Novosibirsk where longer runways (length 3,600 meters/11,800 feet) are available and sufficient to stop the aircraft despite the hydraulics failure. According to computations there should have been sufficient fuel on board to reach the aerodrome and land safely.
The aircraft had been inspected without any anomalies for departure from Moscow Domodedovo towards Sochi. The flight from Sochi had been normal until final approach into Omsk. The winds were gusting in Omsk, the aircraft was heavy, so that the commander decided to not take the risk of trying to land in Omsk and decided to take the aircraft to Novosibirsk. During the go around a hydraulic failure occurred after gear retraction, green hydraulic pressure was lost after gear retracted, the nose gear doors remained open as result of insufficient hydraulic pressure. They computed the fuel and found they should have about 1200kg of fuel left in Novosibirsk. While in flight to Novosibirsk the fuel quantity suddenly began to critically decrease, the crew declared emergency, instructed cabin crew to prepare for an emergency landing and began to look out for a suitable landing field. When only about 5 minutes of fuel was left they spotted the landing site and landed the aircraft there successfully, only the nose gear was fractured.
AirlineRatings.com has announced its Best Long Haul Airlines for 2024 with Air France, Korean Air, Cathay Pacific Airways, Air New Zealand, Qatar Airways and Air Canada as this year’s winners.
Best Long-Haul Airlines
Europe; Air France
North Asia; Korean Air
Photo: Cathay Pacific
Asia: Cathay Pacific Airways
Photo: Airbus
Pacific: Air New Zealand
Middle-East: Qatar Airways
Americas: Air Canada
For rankings, the editors of AirlineRatings.com, some of the most experienced and awarded, combine international industry and government audits, with another 11 key criteria that include: fleet age, passenger review ratings from several sources, investment rating, and key product offerings to arrive at a ranking. Added to that the editors monitor passenger feedback as well as personal experience.
Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didnât know who to ask. Well, now you do!
Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.
Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety â with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviationâs governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airlineâs own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the worldâs passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.
MH370 (MR0) in Perth, Western Australia. Credit Alan Pepper
Here is a list of the 10 most asked questions about MH370 authored by MH370 expert Mr Richard Godfrey.
1. Why was the northern arc never searched properly?
Inmarsat scientists, Chris Aston et al., published a paper in the Journal of Navigation titled âThe Search for MH370â on 4th September 2014. They explain that the Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) satellite data shows that MH370 followed a southern route and not a northern route. The measured BFO frequencies match the predicted South track, but not the predicted North track. The Inmarsat paper can be found at the following link:
2. Why was it abandoned so quickly?
The evidence supplied was independently verified by a number of MH370 analysts. The authorities accepted the evidence and decided not to search the Northern route.
3. Why didnât you or the BBC refer to it, even though the screen showed the complete arc when talking about the handshakes?
The BBC did refer to it. The documentary relates that evidence found by Inmarsat scientists using satellite data shows that the âaircraft continued flying for seven more hoursâ after the diversion, that there were âseven boundaries known as arcs, which MH370 must have crossedâ and that âa more detailed analysis revealed that it turned south after living the Strait of Malacca.â I agree that the evidence was left out in the documentary.
4. The FR24 glossary defines ELT as Emergency Locator Transmitter. âActivated automatically upon impact, the ELT emits distress signals ⌠to locate the aircraftâs position swiftlyâ. Can the ELT be turned off with the other aircraft information systems as Capt. Zaharie is supposed to have done?
The Boeing 777 has four ELTs. There is a fixed Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) located above the ceiling of the aft passenger cabin, which is automatically activated on impact. There are 3 other ELTs on MH370, one portable ELT in the cockpit and two portable in life rafts, but these are only activated on demand. The fixed ELT can only be switched between âARMEDâ and âONâ in the cockpit. The device is accessible via a ceiling panel at station 1880 above the aft passenger cabin close to the aft galley. You would require a step ladder or equivalent in order to gain access. Once access to the device is gained, the ELT can theoretically be disabled by switching the front panel switch to off or disconnecting the antenna.
5. I have not come across a reference to ELT in all the reading and research I have done. If there was no ELT transmission from MH370, why was that?
There was no ELT transmission received from MH370. A review of ICAO accident records over the last 30 years prior to 2014 indicated that of 173 accidents involving aircraft fitted with ELTs, only 39 cases recorded effective ELT activation.
6. I know there were supposed to be some bleeps from the âblack boxâ, but as I understand it, they were never verified. There would be no emission of ELT if the plane were safely landed somewhere, would there?
The aircraft did not land safely somewhere, as we have recovered 43 items of floating debris in various locations around the Indian Ocean. Most of this debris is either proven to be from MH370 or highly likely to be from MH370 as the only Boeing 777 ever to have crashed in the Indian Ocean.
7. As far as I know there have never been any details of what the mega spyware kept by the USA at Pine Gap in Australia, and on Diego Garcia, knew about MH370. They can monitor almost anything almost anywhere on the planet. If MH370 turned south when it passed the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, it was about 1800 miles from Diego Garcia. If it flew south, and if it passed east of Diego Garcia, it was only about 1000 miles away, and if it reached the search area west of Perth, it was within range of Pine Gap too. Am I wrong about all of that?
MH370 passed within range of Over-The-Horizon-Radar systems at the US base on Diego Garcia as well as âfive eyesâ bases in Australia at Pine Gap, Leonora, Laverton, Longreach, Stonehenge, Mount Everard, Harts Range and the Harald Holt station. I have a friend who worked on JORN and another who worked the Harald Holt station on radar systems, but not on submarine underwater communications.
8. Has anyone asked the USA what it knows about the plane? If so, what did the Americans say?
Despite Freedom of Information requests regarding the FBI investigation, all information has been declined on the grounds of national security.
9. In your analysis of the radio interruptions, what caused you to decide that a route heading south was the one to look for?
The last known position of MH370, based on the Butterworth primary civilian radar, was 5.589118°N 99.165228°E at 18:01 UTC. The regional radar data contains 1,394 regular estimates of latitude and longitude at approximately 3 second intervals from 16:41:43 UTC to 18:00:51 UTC from four radar stations with three small gaps. A single additional latitude and longitude position was reported at 18:22:12 UTC but discounted due to the large gap to the penultimate radar position and possible inaccuracy due to the long range. From the last known position, 313 WSPR anomalies between 7th March 2014 between 18:00 UTC and 8th March 2014 00:28 UTC at a total of 195 points in time that were analysed. This represents a very accurate flight path.
10. How can you be sure that it was MH370 which caused the âripplesâ?
WSPR uses two principles, firstly that radio waves can be reflected by an aircraft, as has been used in radar systems since 1935 and secondly that radio waves can propagate using ionospheric refraction and Earth surface reflection, as has been used since 1901. We have conducted tests with over 1,000 aircraft in different locations around the globe.
Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didnât know who to ask. Well, now you do!
Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.
Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety â with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviationâs governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airlineâs own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the worldâs passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.
Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.
Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:
âWhat are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?â
âWhy do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?â
âWhat is a winglet and what is it for?
âWhy is it so costly to fly short distances?â
âHow often is an aircraft maintained?
âHow strong is a wing?â
âHow do they test aircraftâ
âHow often do plane tires need to be replaced?â
British Aerospace engineer and MH370 expert Richard Godfrey has published fascinating details of the last minutes of the flight of MH370 which reinforces his WSPRnet technology which has pinpointed a final resting place for the Boeing 777.
The analysis on his website is compelling reading and reveals once again Mr Godfrey’s deep understanding of everything Boeing 777 and how the various factors give us a clear picture of the final resting place of Mh370.
Mr Godfrey using WSPR tracking to follow MH 370 has identified an area between 39.9 nmi and 40.9 nmi from the 7th Arc at 00:19:29 UTC on March 8, 2024. That area is 1560km west of Perth, Western Australia as under;
Mr Godfrey’s post starts thus:
“There has been discussion again recently about the missing Inmarsat satellite data from the In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) setup message, which was not received as expected at around 00:21:06 UTC, around 90 seconds following the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) reboot, which started at 00:19:29.416 UTC and was acknowledged at 00:19:37.443 UTC. The SDU reboot is thought to have occurred due to the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) coming online following dual engine flameout and fuel exhaustion to the engines and just prior to fuel exhaustion to the APU.
“The APU fuel feed is lower in the fuel tank and allows 30 lbs of fuel to the APU after fuel exhaustion to the main engines, assuming the aircraft is in a normal flight attitude. The APU when electrically loaded runs for a maximum of 13 minutes 45 seconds on 30 lbs of fuel.
“When both engines flame out, the APU autostart sequence begins and takes around 60 seconds for power to come online. We know that the SDU reboot started at 00:19:29.416 UTC and from the manufacturerâs tests the SDU required approximately 60 seconds to transmit a log-on request after the power application. This means the APU came online at around 00:18:30 UTC and the autostart sequence commenced around 00:17:30 UTC and the APU fuel would last at a maximum until 00:32:15 UTC.
“The failure to receive the IFE signal is falsely used by some MH370 analysts as proof that the crash occurred before 00:21:06 UTC and therefore the crash was close to the 7th Arc.
“As Capt. Patrick Blelly points out, it is perfectly possible that one or both engines were shut down at the end of flight to preserve fuel for the APU in order to provide essential hydraulic and electrical power to the aircraft. Capt. Patrick Blelly further points out that this would enable the flaps to be extended for a controlled ditching. Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand show that an active pilot can perform a glide with 30° flaps extended and this could result in a controlled ditching between 00:28:20 UTC and 00:35:30 UTC. The crash point in this case is between 45.4 nmi and 66.8 nmi from the 7th Arc at 00:19:29 UTC.
“However, the hypothesis that the flaps were extended is in contradiction to the ATSB findings, where they point out that the damage to the Outboard Flap recovered from Pemba Island, Tanzania that they subsequently analysed shows that it was not extended at impact.
“The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) can also be deployed manually from the cockpit overhead panel or automatically when hydraulic or electrical power is lost from the main engines and the APU. The RAT does not provide hydraulics to be able to extend the flaps however, the pilot would require APU power for flap extension……”
Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didnât know who to ask. Well, now you do!
Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.
Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety â with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviationâs governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airlineâs own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the worldâs passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.
Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.
Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:
âWhat are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?â
âWhy do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?â
âWhat is a winglet and what is it for?
âWhy is it so costly to fly short distances?â
âHow often is an aircraft maintained?
âHow strong is a wing?â
âHow do they test aircraftâ
âHow often do plane tires need to be replaced?â
Significant areas of Middle-East airspace have closed as Iran launched a massive attack on Israel with over 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
Virtually all the drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles were shot down.
The areas of Middle-East Airspace include Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon; large parts of Iranian airspace are closed to civilian airlines with airlines using Saudi airspace to connect Asia with Europe.
The US Air Force deployed its military radar aircraft – the KC-135 – (below) over Iraq to assist the Israeli defence along with fighter jets.
The airspace remains closed with commercial aircraft flying over Saudia Arabia and Egypt to get to Europe OR over Eastern Iran.
Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didnât know who to ask. Well, now you do!
Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.
Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety â with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviationâs governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airlineâs own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the worldâs passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.
Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.
Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:
âWhat are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?â
âWhy do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?â
âWhat is a winglet and what is it for?
âWhy is it so costly to fly short distances?â
âHow often is an aircraft maintained?
âHow strong is a wing?â
âHow do they test aircraftâ
âHow often do plane tires need to be replaced?â
Every once in a while, a book comes along that lifts the bar and redefines the standard of aviation research and storytelling.
Fighting To Be Heard is just such a book in the same way the late John Wegg’s 576-page Caravelle book redefined the art back in 2005.
The British Aerospace 146 was truly the beginning of the âRJâ (aka Regional Jet), which has become commonplace in air travel today. Although the BAe 146 was ahead of its time, the program, the company, and the aircraft were plagued with many challenges.
As a result, the BAe 146 became the last commercial aircraft to be built in the United Kingdom. The title signifies the uphill battle British Aerospace faced in trying to convince airlines to buy and operate the world’s quietest jet.
Ansett BAe146 aircraft.
The author, Brian Wiklem spent over four years researching and interviewing a wide range of people involved with the BAe 146, including airlines and operators that flew this unique aircraft.
The G-Luxe Special Edition comes in a sturdy box with a CD and USB with a wealth of videos, photos, and marketing brochures that round off what is the most magnificent book ever written about an aircraft.
But it is more than that it is about the hopes and dreams of British aviation – the last gasp of a once incredibly proud aircraft industry that pioneered so many innovations in commercial aviation.
And so it is with the BAe146 – being super quiet it blazed a trail for the environment and it was decades ahead of its time.
Fighting to be Heard is the definitive history of the British Aerospace BAe 146 a subject very close to the author’s heart. Mr Wiklem tells the intimate behind-the-scenes story of the unlikely 4-engine jet and the airlines it served. His passion for the subject is unmatched, this book is truly must have for any commercial aviation enthusiast.
It is just a brilliant piece of work and one is amazed at the effort that has gone into producing it.
AIRLINE SAFETY RATINGS The only place in the world to get ALL Airline Safety Ratings in one place! The ONLY airline rating that includes Safety, Product and COVID-19 safety ratings!Visit our Ratings Now!
2024 Airline Excellence Awards
View our special section announcing the 2024 Airline Excellence Awards!
AIRLINERATINGS NEWSLETTER
Subscribe to have AirlineRatings.com Newsletter delivered to your inbox!
Privacy PolicyWe have placed cookies on your device to enhance your browsing experience. We are collecting cookies for marketing purposes. To allow all cookies click OK. Otherwise you can use this tool to manage.
Cookies are very small text files that are stored on your computer when you visit some websites.
We use cookies to make our website easier for you to use. You can remove any cookies already stored on your computer, but these may prevent you from using parts of our website.
Use the slider below to see the different types of cookies you can choose to allow.
Drag the slider across to change your cookie settings
