Saturday, June 2, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
Norwegian Air Force F16
The video was taken on May 9, 2012 when Royal Norwegian Air Force F-16AM serialled 80-3686 "686" in the special color scheme to celebrate the 100 years of the Norwegian military air power from Kjeller rejoined with a C-130 from Gardemoen to take some pictures from the Hercules's cargo door.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) "Screaming Eagles"
Love the song and the lyrics. But be patient it starts at 2:50. Nice country style.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Drain holes in control surfaces
The
FAA has issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking for an Airworthiness Directive for certain Embraer
Phenom 300s. It is based on an unsafe condition as a result of an
inadequate number of drain holes in the primary control surfaces (rudder,
elevators and ailerons), which may allow water to accumulate in the control
surfaces. According to the FAA, the condition could cause unbalanced flight
control surfaces and reduced flutter margins, which could result in loss of
control of the airplane. The FAA is taking comments until June 8.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-24/html/2012-9794.htm
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-24/html/2012-9794.htm
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
'ORIGAMI' AIRCRAFT FLIES INSIDE OUT
From http://news.discovery.com
Inspired by geometry, researchers built an aircraft that propels itself through the air by turning itself inside out. The SmartInversion, designed by the German company Festo, is an airborne geometrical band with an inversion drive. The lightweight triangular-shaped craft is filled with helium and has electrically-activated joints controlled by a remote control. So-called "inversion kinetics" propel the contraption forwards. The video is mesmerizing.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Courts define airworthiness
Courts define airworthinessLast week arrived the much-anticipated ruling of an English court on a dispute between lessor Aviation Capital Group and Greece’s Olympic Airlines over unpaid aircraft rent.
Olympic had refused to pay rent and maintenance reserves for a 737-400 leased in 2008 that shortly afterwards had its operating certificate withdrawn by Greek authorities when numerous defects, principally corrosion, were discovered.
Although the court found that the aircraft was not airworthy on delivery, Olympic lost the case because it had signed off a certificate of acceptance confirming that the 737 "complied in all respects with the condition required at delivery".
However, the meat of the case concerned the definition of airworthiness and a ruling for the first time that aircraft owners cannot claim ignorance about hidden defects.
Instead, the court said, the test is: “Would a prudent operator of an aircraft have required, had he known of it, that the defect should be made good before permitting the aircraft to fly. If he would, the aircraft is not airworthy.”
The ruling brings airworthiness definitions in line with those used for seaworthiness and should be studied closely by aircraft owners and lessors.
In particular, they should be sufficiently clear in lease or sale contracts about what aspects of an aircraft’s condition they are responsible for on delivery to a customer.
As the court has decided, simply stating an obligation to provide an “airworthy” aircraft does not mean “airworthy to the best of our knowledge”, but rather “actually airworthy”.
Alex Derberaderber@ubmaviation.com
Olympic had refused to pay rent and maintenance reserves for a 737-400 leased in 2008 that shortly afterwards had its operating certificate withdrawn by Greek authorities when numerous defects, principally corrosion, were discovered.
Although the court found that the aircraft was not airworthy on delivery, Olympic lost the case because it had signed off a certificate of acceptance confirming that the 737 "complied in all respects with the condition required at delivery".
However, the meat of the case concerned the definition of airworthiness and a ruling for the first time that aircraft owners cannot claim ignorance about hidden defects.
Instead, the court said, the test is: “Would a prudent operator of an aircraft have required, had he known of it, that the defect should be made good before permitting the aircraft to fly. If he would, the aircraft is not airworthy.”
The ruling brings airworthiness definitions in line with those used for seaworthiness and should be studied closely by aircraft owners and lessors.
In particular, they should be sufficiently clear in lease or sale contracts about what aspects of an aircraft’s condition they are responsible for on delivery to a customer.
As the court has decided, simply stating an obligation to provide an “airworthy” aircraft does not mean “airworthy to the best of our knowledge”, but rather “actually airworthy”.
Alex Derberaderber@ubmaviation.com
Monday, May 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)