October 7, 2019 - No. 078 In This Issue Airbus Unleashes Robots In Hamburg Senate inquiry following Angel Flight crashes urges CASA to relax maintenance standards Boeing 737 MAX crisis: a difficult return to the skies (Part V) Breath analyser examination centre introduced in Mumbai. U.S. airlines grapple with 'unfair tax' that adds to aircraft supply disruption Vahana soars into the open $3.3 Million Grant For Fuel Cell/Electric Aviation Startup ZeroAvia Ultra-modern aircraft engine service centre opens near Wroclaw These Are Flown Safely Every Day.' A Deadly B-17 Crash Raises Questions About Vintage Aircraft Ride SpaceX picked to launch upcoming NASA moon mission Airbus Unleashes Robots In Hamburg Although automation of aircraft maintenance is expected to be a gradual, limited process--aircraft production should see much faster and further-reaching gains. Consultancy Roland Berger predicts that aerostructures production will move from 35% to around 65% automation within 10 years, a view that has been bolstered by last week's opening of Airbus' newest assembly line in Hamburg. With a special focus on manufacturing longer sections for the A321LR, the new facility features 20 robots, a new logistics concept, automated positioning by laser measurement as well as a digital data acquisition system. For initial section assembly, eight robots drill and counter-sink 1,100-2,400 holes per longitudinal joint. In the next production step, 12 seven-axes robots join the center and aft fuselage sections with the tail, drilling, counter-sinking, sealing and inserting 3,000 rivets per orbital joint. "Increasing the level of automation and robotics enables faster, more efficient manufacturing while keeping our prime focus on quality," said Michael Schoellhorn, Airbus's chief operating officer. Perhaps in a nod to the production problems at Hamburg that have caused delays to A321neo deliveries, Schoellhorn added: "We now need to deliver in line with our commitments made to customers while ensuring overall competitiveness." As Airbus notes, the digitalization that accompanies robotic automation is also an important step, and it will be interesting to see how much the former can improve supply chain and logistics processes going forward. For the robots themselves, further advances beyond welding, drilling and fastening might prove incrementally tougher to achieve, with Roland Berger estimating that one-third of production work will remain with touch labor the foreseeable future. "The remaining 35% is very difficult to automate unless you completely revolutionize the production system which is something that would take decades," Roland Berger partner Holger Lipowsky has told Aviation Week. https://www.mro-network.com/airframes/airbus-unleashes-robots-hamburg Back to Top Senate inquiry following Angel Flight crashes urges CASA to relax maintenance standards The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is being urged to relax maintenance requirements for aircraft involved in medical charity flights, after a Senate inquiry found maintenance concerns were not a factor in two fatal Angel Flight crashes. The inquiry was launched two months ago in response to a damning report into the charity flight provider conducted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The ATSB report, released in August, was prompted by the deaths of Emily and Tracy Redding, aged 16 and 43, who were killed along with 78-year-old pilot Grant Gilbert at Mount Gambier in South Australia's south-east. Mr Gilbert had volunteered his aircraft for Angel Flight, a charity that coordinates non-emergency flights by recreational pilots to help people in regional areas reach medical appointments. He crashed in heavy fog shortly after take-off in June 2017, almost six years after three people - including a mother and her teenage daughter - were killed near Horsham. In August, the ATSB publicly released its two-year investigation into the charity flight provider, finding the likelihood of a fatal crash was "was more than seven times higher than other private flights" and that Angel Flight passengers were exposed to "much higher levels of risk". Angel Flight later slammed the ATSB investigation, describing it as "demonstrably wrong" and urging a review by a Senate committee, which has now expressed "concerns" about findings in the ATSB report. "The committee was disturbed to learn that the ATSB had not consulted with any Angel Flight pilots in reaching its conclusions about the pressure [on pilots] - perceived or otherwise," it found. "The ATSB has ... provided no direct evidence to support its views that Angel Flight pilots are under more pressure to complete a flight than private pilots. "The committee is concerned by the certitude of some of the conclusions drawn by the ATSB, from a dataset involving two incidents separated by six years, and over a 10-year period." The inquiry concluded with recommendations, including that CASA remove additional maintenance requirements for community service flights from a regulatory document referred to as a "community service flight (CSF) instrument". It said such a recommendation was justified because "maintenance concerns played no role in the 2011 and 2017 Angel Flight accidents". "In both instances, the ATSB concluded that there was no indication of unserviceable equipment or defects at the time of the accidents," it found. "The committee is of the view that the existing aircraft maintenance regime is adequate to ensure the safety of passengers and Angel Flight operators. "The committee considers that the CSF instrument should be amended to remove those aeroplane maintenance requirements ... which exceed the existing maintenance requirements for airworthiness in the general aviation sector." Senator says CASA has 'over-regulation issue' In a statement, CASA said it had received the Senate review on Friday and would respond in detail at a later date. "We are, however, somewhat perplexed that a Senate inquiry into the performance of the ATSB somehow results in two recommendations for a completely separate organisation, CASA," a spokeswoman said. The ATSB also said it would review the findings more closely, noting the Senate review did "not make any recommendations for the bureau". The ATSB also insisted on the "integrity" of its two-year investigation. "It is essential that the controls for risk are strengthened to prevent further accidents and further loss of life," the ATSB said. However, Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick - who was part of the inquiry - said the ATSB's report was "a case of lies, damned lies and statistics". He said it strengthened the case for a Senate motion to relax maintenance requirements. "Angel Flight provides an invaluable service to regional communities who have families that require non-urgent, but critical medical services or families who need [disability] assistance for their loved ones," he said. "CASA has an over-regulation issue, so much so that the Government is progressing a bill through the Parliament that legally requires CASA to treat safety as primary, but to be mindful of the need to maintain a healthy industry." Angel Flight Australia CEO Marjorie Pagani welcomed the findings of the Senate review - but also suggested they could have gone further. "We look forward to prompt implementation of the recommendations," she said. "At the same time, it is disappointing that there [was] no mention of ATSB's failure to investigate the circumstances leading up to the accident prior to the arrival at Mount Gambier, and no specific recommendations requiring ATSB to take any action on the serious criticisms of its investigations." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-07/senate-inquiry-questions-atsb-findings-over-angel-flight-crashes/11578554 Back to Top Boeing 737 MAX crisis: a difficult return to the skies (Part V) Back in 2011, time and money were of the essence for Boeing. As Airbus came out with the A320neo, Boeing's management made the decision to act fast and, for competitive reasons, simplistically. Instead of developing a new narrow-body that would have competed with the re-engined Airbus A320, the American manufacturer decided to follow in Airbus' footsteps and also slap on new engines on their star, the 737. Yet times changed, as safety requirements and systems did so as well. But for the 737 MAX to stay competitive, Boeing decided to introduce minimal changes to the aircraft. The A320 made its commercial debut in 1988 and with it, brought a revolution inside the cockpit - fly-by-wire systems and a side-stick changed the way pilots were controlling aircraft. The Boeing 737, while a very robust and reliable airframe, was old. It made its commercial debut in 1968 with Lufthansa, making it a 43-year-old frame in 2011. Bobby, as Lufthansa nicknamed the 737 in 1968, was already re-engined three times before the MAX. The newest 737 brought exceptionally great operating economics for airlines, yet in terms of technology inside the cockpit - it had an empty hand. That bluff of cards seemingly paid off, at least in the short-term. Two years later after the Boeing 737 MAX first made its commercial debut with Malindo Air, the industry is debating when the aircraft will return to service after two fatal crashes claimed the lives of 346 people. The short-term gamble, which made the MAX the "fastest-selling airplane in Boeing history", backfired. Where money was saved prior to commercial entry, more money was lost after the type was forced to sit on the ground. But together with time, the company has changed, at least according to Boeing. The manufacturer has established a "permanent Aerospace safety Committee", whose main responsibility will be to overlook the "safe design, development, manufacture, production, operation, maintenance and delivery" of any future Boeing products. Yet the biggest problems are with a product that the company has already released. Asking for exceptions Documents, obtained by The Seattle Times, showcased that Boeing argued against some of the requirements about critical safety alerts on board, asking the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make an exception to some of its rules. The requirements, outlined as Flightcrew alerting, amongst many, mandated that: 1. Alerts must abide a prioritization hierarchy. At the bottom of the list are advisory alerts - they help "increase flight crew awareness" under certain conditions. 2. Warning and caution alerts must, coupled with two more requirements, "provide a timely attention getting cues", communicated via "at least two different senses", combining "aural, visual or tactile indications". 3. The alert function must "minimize the effects of false and nuisance alerts" and they must prevent signals that are "inappropriate or unnecessary". 4. The aforementioned alert function must also provide a way for the crew to suppress the alert, which can "interfere with the flightcrew's ability to safely operate the airplane". If the alert is suppressed, "there must be a clear and unmistakable" announcement that the alert "has been suppressed". These are the four rules, which the FAA granted exceptions for the 737 MAX. In any other case, these requirements apply to every single new jet that seeks certification by the U.S. based aviation authority. Boeing presumably did not want to spend the sum, which is cited to be more than $10 billion, on the design changes to oblige to the requirements. The FAA signed off the exceptions in April 2014, saving Boeing a big chunk of money. Manufacturer of the 737 thought that in a worst-case scenario the pilots would be able to react to MCAS and make appropriate changes in time. However, as the Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 and Lion Air JT610 preliminary reports showcased, pilots were startled by several alerts after the infamous MCAS had triggered. Since, the alert systems onboard the MAX have been heavily criticized, including a publicly available NTSB report. Cost-saving measures are the recurring theme of the MAX. A whistleblower reported that he attempted to persuade the company's management to include a safety feature into the newest 737, called synthetic airspeed, which made its debut with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Reportedly, the system's installation on the 737 MAX was rejected due to "cost and potential (pilot) training impact". Boeing did not want to lose their competitive edge, as any additional pilot training would have a very negative impact on the MAX's attractiveness to customers. The A320neo had almost an identical airframe with its older version, so an Airbus A320ceo pilot has to attend "a computer-based training program to be able to fly the A320neo", according to BAA Training, a company specializing in aviation training services. The difference between the two narrow-body versions does not warrant the operator to "roll out a full training program". Logistical nightmare As time goes on, Boeing's losses are continuing to increase. On July 24, 2019, the company reported its biggest quarterly loss ever, as the 737 MAX crisis alone cost the company $5.6 billion. But the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg, remained positive. During the 7th annual Morgan Stanley Laguna Conference on September 11, 2019, he said that the manufacturer "is making good, solid progress" for the 737 MAX to return to service. While a scenario where the aircraft is approved for commercial flights on a country-to-country basis is a possibility, as several authorities including the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have stated that they will certify the plane themselves, for customers that have ordered the 737 MAX this is just the icing on the very problematic cake. Boeing is still hopeful for a return to service within Q4 of 2019, which the company defines as "the day the FAA clears the plane for flight". While the manufacturer is already preparing for the un-grounding and is looking for extra personnel in Moses Lake, Washington (United States), for airlines that day remains a far and distant land. One European airline, which planned to receive three Boeing 737 MAX aircraft by the end of 2019, is hopeful to operate the type only in Q3 of 2020. There are two main arising issues for an airline that will have to take up the delivery of produced, but parked aircraft. Firstly, maintenance slots. This is especially problematic if an airline outsources its maintenance procedures due to one reason or another. Hangar slots, when the airline can deliver an aircraft to a Maintenance Repair Organization (MRO), are in limited supply. Maintenance checks are pre-planned, as every aircraft has a certain time frame when they have to be checked in order for it to be able to fly again. For the 737, there are four checks - A, B, C and D. The C and D checks are the biggest, as they take up to 20 days for the 737 MAX and come every three and nine years, respectively, according to Boeing's By Design site. As these slots are pre-booked, they come in limited supply on short notice, thus even if the MAX gets the stamp of approval in the near future, some airlines will struggle to even get a spot to re-check the aircraft. This leads to the second problem - because the aircraft sat parked, they will need to undergo expensive and time-consuming checks for any faults. Boeing states that "procedures established to preserve" an aircraft when it is parked and to restore it to an airworthy condition are "extensive and lengthy, but necessary to ensure" that the plane is in proper condition. A leaked 737-200 maintenance manual indicates at least 131 actions in order for the aircraft to be in "serviceable condition" if it was parked for longer than seven days, which can take "between two to four weeks". The process can drag on further, according to one MRO engineer, who wished to remain anonymous. Together with various examinations, "every single document and status report about the aircraft has to be re-checked", further adding complexity to the process. Thus, Boeing's alleged Scrooge McDuck money-saving tactics when developing the 737 MAX backfired massively - not only the company will endure massive financial losses due to the lack of sales throughout 2019, compensations to the victims' families and aircraft operators but the incalculable damage to its brand and the aviation industry as a whole will remain ingrained in the company's history. https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/24026-boeing-737-max-crisis-difficult-return-part-5 Back to Top Breath analyser examination centre introduced in Mumbai Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) is expanding its existing passenger safety measures in compliance with the latest directive given by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and has introduced breath analyser (BA) examination facilities. "Passengers' safety holds the highest priority and GVK Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) endeavours to provide passengers with utmost security through thorough checks by experienced in-house medical team for employees working at the airside," said a spokesperson from MIAL (which manages the airport). "This is a further assurance to the passengers that when they fly via Mumbai, they not only receive world-class amenities but also services that are as per strict guidelines laid down by regulatory bodies." The earlier requisite by the DGCA demanded the detection of the consumption of alcohol only among the on-duty pilots and cabin crew through a breath analyser test. With the newest requirement, the examination is now applicable to all employees performing safety-sensitive activities at the airside. The BA examination at CSMIA will be carried through the existing 24/7 medical centres available at the airport terminals and the three newly added facilities at the airside. In alignment with the latest edict by DGCA, any and every person performing safety-sensitive activities at the airside would be subjected to the breath analyser examination which includes personnel from aerodrome operations, aerodrome rescue and fire fighting, ground handling, aircraft maintenance, and ATC. Initiated by the aviation body, the requirement states that an organisation must use a scientifically valid method such as a random number table or a computer-based random number generator to select the personnel for testing. https://www.internationalairportreview.com/news/104519/breath-analyser-examination-centre-mumbai/ Back to Top U.S. airlines grapple with 'unfair tax' that adds to aircraft supply disruption WASHINGTON/CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. airlines are scrambling to digest a new 10% tariff on European-made Airbus (AIR.PA) planes that threaten additional havoc in a market already reeling from frozen deliveries of Boeing Co's (BA.N) 737 MAX. In a statement late on Thursday, Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) called the proposed levy on aircraft from Europe that are already under contract for purchase "an unfair tax on U.S. consumers and companies." The tariff on Airbus planes creates uncertainty for aircraft delivery terms much like the global grounding of Boeing's 737 MAX in March after two fatal crashes and comes at a time of threats to international air travel demand in the midst of slowing global economic growth and trade disputes. No. 2 U.S. carrier Delta is not a 737 MAX customer but with some 266 Airbus orders is the most exposed to aircraft levies due to take effect on Oct. 18 after the World Trade Organization gave Washington the right to impose tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of EU goods annually in a long-running case. Although the overall value of trade hit by sanctions was in line with expectations reported by Reuters, percentage tariffs were less than expected with Airbus planes initially subject to a tenth of the 100% rival Boeing had recommended. Market sources said this was enough to disrupt trade in the cut-throat plane business but low enough to tempt some airlines to negotiate for Airbus to absorb some of the cost, squeezing its margins. "10% is a deal breaker for airlines," an industry source said, noting that planes liable to the tariff may have to be delayed. Planemakers are typically reluctant to absorb such costs, the source added. Airbus declined to comment on commercial negotiations. On a positive note aircraft parts were spared from tariffs, which means independent repair shops, some feeling pain from the grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX, will continue to function. That will benefit Boeing and Airbus fleets equally, industry sources said. AIRLINES REACT Delta spokeswoman Lisa Hanna called on the Trump administration and EU to resolve the 15-year trade dispute "in a manner that respects existing contractual rights." Still, it welcomed Washington's decision to exempt aircraft production and deliveries from Airbus' plant in Mobile, Alabama. The exemption means that the impact for U.S. airlines with orders for Airbus aircraft assembled in Alabama can be mitigated, Cowen analyst Helane Becker said, pointing to no-frills carrier Spirit Airlines (SAVE.N) as one carrier whose order book would mostly come from Alabama. Shares of U.S. airlines rebounded on Friday after two days of losses. Airbus' Alabama plant produces four A320-family narrowbody jets a month, and Credit Suisse analyst Jose Caiado estimated that the plant could fulfill at least half of the U.S. backlog over the next year at a rate of five jets per month. Most of budget-friendly carrier JetBlue Airways' (JBLU.O) orders for narrowbody A321s and A220s would also be among those exempt, but the carrier still warned of a hit to travelers and commercial aviation. "We are concerned about the detrimental impact aircraft tariffs will have on the ability for low-cost carriers like JetBlue to grow and compete, which will harm customers who rely on us to offer competitive, low fares," spokesman Derek Dombrowski said. JetBlue continues to advocate for a resolution, he said. Delta and JetBlue, with the second-largest Airbus order among U.S. carriers, had both lobbied for the tariffs to be applied only to new orders. Delta and United Airlines (UAL.O) have the most orders for A350 and A330neo widebody jets, which Airbus cannot finish in Alabama. Widebody jets, with more premium seats, tend to have higher margins for airlines. Just last week Delta pledged to buy 14 more A350s as part of a strategy to grow in Latin America through the acquisition of a 20% stake in LATAM Airlines Group (LTM.SN). American Airlines Group (AAL.O) and Alaska Air Group (ALK.N) also have Airbus orders, as do lessors like Air Lease Corp (AL.N). Most aircraft leases place the burden of taxes, maintenance and insurance on the operator, Macquarie analyst Sarah Stein said, but noted "it is unclear as to how far reaching the definition of taxes are in lease agreements in a unique scenario such as this one." The head of Ireland's Ryanair (RYA.I) urged the United States and European Union to pull back from a tariff war over aircraft subsidies and said he would ask Boeing to "eat" any counter-tariffs imposed on the U.S. company by the EU. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wto-aircraft-airlines/u-s-airlines-grapple-with-unfair-tax-that-adds-to-aircraft-supply-disruption-idUSKBN1WJ1YS Back to Top Vahana soars into the open PENDLETON - It was decidedly groundbound, but Project Vahana was still the star of the drone show. On the final leg of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International Cascade Chapter's fall symposium on Thursday, attendees gathered at the hangar at the Oregon National Guard Armory in Pendleton to snap photos and selfies of the aircraft. Developed by a team from A^3, the Silicon Valley subsidiary of French aviation giant Airbus, the developers offered a glimpse of what they think is the future of transportation: a "vehicle demonstrator" that will eventually lead to an autonomous air taxi that will transport people across dense urban areas. At a keynote speech Thursday morning, Matt Deal, the head of flight test for Project Vahana, explained what Airbus was trying to accomplish. As he displayed overhead maps of New York, Los Angeles, and Paris, Deal said major cities were becoming too populated to accommodate all the cars people were using to get around. "It's not about solving congestion," he told the crowd at the Pendleton Convention Center. "It's not about removing traffic. It's about urban mobility." Deal said Airbus started A^3 and Project Vahana in 2016, with the thought the subsidiary could combine the tech industry's speed with the flight industry's fastidiousness. With the price of electric batteries, sensors and maintenance falling, Deal said it was the right time to pursue the project. Project Vahana started flight testing in Pendleton in late January 2018 and have since conducted more than 100 flight tests. By May, Deal said the Vahana drone was able to travel at more than 100 miles per hour. Besides battery life and autonomy, one of the key features A^3 wants to demonstrate is Vahana's vertical take-off and landing, or its capability to rise and descend from a stationary position. Airbus isn't the only company moving quickly to develop this technology. According to Transport Up, an "aerial mobility" news website, 18 aviation and technology companies are currently working on vertical take off and landing air taxi drones, including Boeing and Bell. "The urban air field is filled with people who say they can do this," Deal said, adding that among the competition, Airbus' vehicle is among the quietest. Once Deal's speech ended, he fielded some questions from the audience. While many were highly technical, one attendee asked how would Vahana avoid collisions with birds. Deal said Vahana has a sense and avoid system, but those questions would likely be handled by other Airbus departments. Since the establishment of A^3, Deal said Airbus has established other initiatives like CityAirbus and Airbus Urban Mobility. There are other questions surrounding the race to build the first air taxi. According to a January article in The Atlantic, successfully developing a passenger drone would require "heroic advances in battery-energy density." Additionally, the article states that autonomy is notoriously difficult to develop, even in ground vehicles like cars. Standing in front of the Vahana display at the armory, Deal said the future of Vahana will rely on continuing advances in battery technology. The question of effective autonomy is still something Vahana is trying to answer. While A^3 will continue to test in Pendleton, Deal said the long-term goal of Airbus will be to seek certification for an air taxi vehicle, a task that will fall outside Vahana's parameters. Whether its with Airbus or other companies, the city sees a busy future in urban air mobility at the Pendleton Unmanned Aerial Systems Range, where Project Vahana is being tested. According to an economic impact study commissioned by the city, A^3 could establish a long-term research and development base of operations in Pendleton. But in order to see the benefits of the urban air mobility industry, the study calls for $15 million in investments at the range. https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/vahana-soars-into-the-open/article_bce68dc4-e624-11e9-acfc-1fcb2f22fa88.html Back to Top $3.3 Million Grant For Fuel Cell/Electric Aviation Startup ZeroAvia The aviation startup ZeroAvia has received a £2.7m (US$3.3 million) grant from the UK government. The funds will be used to support continued development of fuel cell/electric propulsion technology to reduce aviation CO2 emissions. The company was founded in 2017 by Val Miftakhov, who is also the current CEO. He answered some questions for CleanTechnica about the new grant. 1. What will the new grant money be used for? This new government funding supports our HyFlyer project, which is a key step for supplying commercial operators and aircraft manufacturers by 2023. The project will drive development of the powertrain into a long-distance flight-proven system, and will culminate in a UK-based 250-300 nautical mile (NM) flight on a Piper M-class six-seater aircraft. The learnings from this program will flow directly into the development of our 900 kW powertrain and will pave the way for delivery of the 500-mile 19-seat aircraft by 2023. 2. Does the company adapt existing aircraft to use hydrogen fuel cell technology or will it manufacture its own aircraft? We utilize already certificated airframes because we want to support the aerospace industry with zero-emission options they can fold into their existing operations and offer to existing customers. This is the fastest way to bring sustainable solutions to the market and this is why we are a powertrain company first and foremost. By partnering with existing airframe companies we avoid costly and time consuming certifications that would be needed on a completely new airframe design. Additionally, using already certificated airframes means we do not need to be experts in every inch of the aircraft, only our powertrain. This also means customers and their employees will already have experience and parts for maintaining many of the systems on these aircraft, while we support them with the powertrain. We expect most of our business to be in what's called 'forward-fitting' - providing our powertrain option to be requested by the operators to be installed in the new aircraft they order from the aircraft manufacturers. Aircraft OEMs will be our partners, not our competition. This approach allows us to focus on the real bottleneck in decarbonizing aviation - the powertrain. There are plenty of great aircraft manufacturers that build excellent, efficient airframes. Over time, as ZeroAvia technology becomes widely used, we expect to work with aircraft manufacturers to help them design airframes better adapted to this new fuel type - just like the airframes evolved in the decades following jet engine introduction 50 years ago. 3. In the ZeroAvia flight endurance test on Youtube, in the description it was written: "800 WH / mile was achieved at 100 kts indicated airspeed (a little over 110 mph - actually, it's closer to 120 mph at 1,500 ft altitude - the indicated airspeed is normally a fraction of the true airspeed as air density becomes lower with altitude and indicated airspeed is calibrated to sea level pressure and density, consuming just 80-90kW of power. For comparison, this is substantially less than a similarly sized electric ground vehicle would consume at that speed (e.g., Tesla Model X)." How much less did the ZeroAvia propulsion technology consume than a Model X would on the ground? At a steady 120 mph, Tesla Model X consumes over 90 kW. Note that of course the car has to travel on the road and aircraft flies direct through the air, generally cutting the miles traveled by 20-60% depending on the terrain. How does the plane's consumption compares with other common electrical devices like a home AC system? The 80-90 kW power consumption is ~20x the typical consumption of such large household loads as AC system / electric water heater / clothes dryer / etc.. 4. Can you describe the basic components of the hydrogen fueled electric propulsion system? Our powertrain leverages the best-in class components from several partners and integrates them using our proprietary hardware and software to create a complete powertrain system. We have full redundancy across our powertrain, which results in much higher safety and reliability than a typical liquid fuel powertrain. The fuel cell system uses hydrogen to produce electricity in a low-temperature chemical reaction. The only output from this process is water. The electricity produced by the fuel cell powers the motors that drive the propellers. We install the powertrain in already certified airframes, starting with the Piper M Class for our current demonstrator and test platform. This initial system develops 260 kW peak power. We are now in the process of scaling that system up to 900 kW peak power. 5. What is the size of the battery pack and where are you sourcing the batteries? The initial test flights were done on battery power from several Chevy Volt packs. ZeroAvia uses these battery-powered flights for the initial validations of the electric propulsion part of the powertrain - inverters, motors, and all our integration hardware and software. After initial battery testing, we quickly move to the fuel cell powered tests, and our primary powertrain configuration is powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Our fuel cell systems can produce up to 150 kW each, and there are two on board the 6-seat aircraft, more on board the 19-seat aircraft. Hydrogen-generated power is the best way to achieve meaningful zero-emission travel in aviation, at costs that make sense for the commercial space. Even compressed-hydrogen fuel-cell systems are already four times more energy dense than the best available battery systems. Our longer term plan is to use liquid hydrogen, which will bring us a further two to three times increase in energy density (therefore more than an order of magnitude higher than the best batteries of today), which can get us close to the energy density of jet fuel itself. In 5-7 years, we expect liquid hydrogen storage to be safety-qualified in aircraft, allowing us to achieve 1,000+ ranges in even larger aircraft. 6. Where do you source the hydrogen? ZeroAvia will work with its fueling partners to produce zero-carbon hydrogen on-site at the airports. Since aircraft use a lot of energy, even a relatively small airport provides demand for multiple tons of hydrogen per day, making on-site production the most economical way to supply fuel. We expect one of the most dominant production technologies to be water electrolysis from on- or near-site renewable power sources. For example, most of the airports in the US Southwest have more than enough unused surface to produce enough hydrogen from on-site solar to repower ALL sub-500 mile flights from those airports. 7. What is the estimated cost for the hydrogen for a 500-mile flight? A 19-seat aircraft will need about 100kg of hydrogen for a 500-mile flight. This is compared to about 150 gallons of jet fuel for the same flight. The total cost of hydrogen is projected to be about half of the cost of jet fuel for the same flight, assuming at-scale on-site hydrogen production, and using the cost of jet fuel that small operators pay today. Another major component of the operating costs - engine maintenance - sees even stronger reduction - up to 4x lower than a comparable turbine engine maintenance. As a result, the total per-flight costs of ZeroAvia-powered aircraft can be 30-50% lower than the same jet-fuel powered aircraft. 8. Is the vision to one day replace gas-powered regional flights with hydrogen fuel cell/electric technology? Yes, and more. I've always been passionate about aviation. It's been my hobby for over a decade and I hold licenses to pilot both airplanes and helicopters. After building and selling eMotorWerks, a smart-grid EV charging company, I set out to tackle what I see is the next big problem in the electrification of transportation - aviation. We wanted to focus on the real and sizeable segment of aviation from the very beginning. That meant to focus on a relatively sizeable aircraft, flying for a relatively long duration right from the start. That said, we expect to see larger and larger aircraft to be repowered with our technology as it progresses over time. Within 15-20 years, we expect hydrogen fuel cell based powertrain to penetrate most of the commercial aviation, with the exception of perhaps long-haul international flights. 9. Why was the Piper M-class plane selected to adapt? While our initial commercial target is a 19-seat aircraft, we needed a smaller aircraft to start testing our powertrain. However, it also needed to be large enough for us to test some of the major concepts behind our powertrain design - most notably dual redundancy - utilizing the same target component base as we would use in the commercial powertrain size. That meant that we would look at 6-seat aircraft, and among those, Piper M class has the best combination of aerodynamic characteristics, cost, and cabin comforts. The latter was an important consideration for demonstration flights, and for potential use of this smaller powertrain for air taxi operations. Featuring a full 'club seating' 4-person cabin rivaling the comfort of the business class in a typical airliner, Piper M-class can be quite attractive. In fact, some of our potential operator partners indicator substantial interest in this option. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/04/3-3-million-grant-for-fuel-cell-electric-aviation-startup-zeroavia/ Back to Top Ultra-modern aircraft engine service centre opens near Wroclaw A state-of-the-art XEOS Aircraft Service and Repair Centre was opened near Wroclaw, Poland. The impressive investment worth PLN 1 billion is by two aviation industry giants - Lufthansa Technik and GE Aviation. It will work with modern technologies, respecting the highest standards of quality and safety. 600 mechanics will be repairing the largest and most advanced aircraft engines in the world. The centre was built from scratch in just 16 months, in a field by the Wroclaw-Sroda Slaska road. On Monday, September heads of Lufthansa Technik and GE Aviation have inaugurated the plant in the presence of the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland and the Polish government, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany, US Consulate General in Krakow, and representatives of local government. The construction, consisting of a service hall, social building and the surrounding infrastructure began in August 2017, and employees moved into the new facility at the beginning of December 2018. After several months of tests, the first commercial engine was accepted for repair in April 2019. In 2019, a total of about 20 engines will be repaired here and after the plant reaches maturity in 2023, it will be able to take care of about 200 per year, calculates Thomas Böttger. The plant will start with the GEnx-2B engine used by the Boeing 747-8. The second engine to be repaired will be GE9X used by the Boeing 777-X. These engines are manufactured by a joint venture partner - GE Aviation in Cincinnati, Ohio in the United States. Both engines can be used for up to 30 years, and their mandatory inspections take place on average every 35,000. flight hours. And it is in the plant in Sroda Slaska that such reviews will take place. Joint venture by two aviation giants Ultimately, the plant will employ 600 persons. Currently, the XEOS team consists of 300 people: aircraft engineers, engineers, logistics and administration staff. The employees are from all over Poland and the world - in total 12 nationalities. A large proportion are people who will be learning the industry from the beginning at the centre of XEOS. This enables them to do one and a half years of theoretical and practical training, conducted at the Training Centre in Wroclaw Bielany and similar Lufthansa Technik and GE Aviation plants abroad - in Germany and Great Britain. XEOS is a joint venture of two world leaders in the aviation market: Lufthansa Technik (51%) and GE Aviation (49%). In 2018, XEOS joined the ranks of the Lower Silesian Aviation Cluster (DKL) - the largest local organization associated with the aviation industry. The Lufthansa Technik Group, which has more than 30 branches and employs over 25,000 people worldwide, is a leading provider of technical support solutions for the aviation industry. The Lufthansa Technik Group's portfolio includes a full spectrum of services for commercial aircrafts, including maintenance, repairs, inspections, modifications and adaptations of engines and components. GE Aviation, an operating unit within the GE group, is a leading global supplier of jet and turbo-propeller engines, components, digitally integrated solutions, avionics, electricity and mechanical systems for commercial, military, business and general aviation. https://www.themayor.eu/en/ultra-modern-aircraft-engine-service-centre-opens-near-wroclaw Back to Top 'These Are Flown Safely Every Day.' A Deadly B-17 Crash Raises Questions About Vintage Aircraft Rides Federal investigators are looking into what caused a vintage Boeing B-17 bomber to crash in Connecticut on Wednesday, killing seven people and injuring at least seven others. The nearly 75-year-old World War II-era plane, nicknamed the "Flying Fortress" for its formidable size and armament, was operated by the Collings Foundation, a historic aircraft non-profit. It crashed just before 10 a.m. local time as it attempted to land at Bradley International Airport. Thirteen people were aboard the B-17, which struck a de-icing facility and maintenance facility upon landing. At least one person was inside the building struck by the airplane at the time of the crash, officials said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with those who were on that flight and we will be forever grateful to the heroic efforts of the first responders at Bradley," reads a statement posted to the Collings Foundation's website. "The Collings Foundation flight team is fully cooperating with officials to determine the cause of the crash of the B-17 Flying Fortress and will comment further when details become known." The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)'s Jennifer Homendy told reporters that investigators will collect evidence from the crash scene over the next seven to 10 days and then release a preliminary report. The Collings Foundation is one of several similar groups that operate vintage aircraft, often taking passengers for rides in exchange for donations. Thousands of B-17s were built during World War II to be used as bombers, primarily in Europe, says Dick Knapinski, a spokesperson for the Experimental Aircraft Association, which owns and operates its own Flying Fortress. While many B-17s were scrapped after the war, a number survived and were used for map-making, firefighting and more, Knapinski says. A handful of B-17s are now being used in air shows and national tours, many of which have been restored to look like they did in the 1940s. But the Connecticut incident raises the question of whether it's safe to fly aboard World War II airplanes, considering their age and other factors. Ed Coleman, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, says the deadly incident is unlikely to deter aviation geeks, or "avgeeks," from climbing aboard vintage planes - flights like those offered by the Collings Foundation give airplane enthusiasts a chance to see and ride aboard historical artifacts. And he argues that it's still safe to fly in a plane like a B-17 despite their age. Hundreds of vintage airplanes, whether owned privately or by groups that take people on rides, are flown throughout the U.S, he says. "To say we shouldn't fly them would way overstep the bounds," says Coleman. "These are flown safely every day." Still, an aircraft as old as the B-17 requires special attention compared to a modern plane, says Coleman. The B-17 uses four large radial engines, unlike the jet or turboprop engines typically found on modern aircraft of its size. Those engines, Coleman says, are more susceptible to certain issues than their modern counterparts. "They can have an oil leak, a cylinder problem - there's so many moving parts and pieces that any number of things could potentially cause a problem with it," he says. But Coleman adds that, under Federal Aviation Administration rules, vintage aircraft undergo more frequent maintenance and inspection. Meanwhile, groups that operate vintage airplanes like the B-17 typically rely on specialists who are intimately familiar with the special challenges involved with flying and fixing them. And the Connecticut incident is something of a rarity. The last recorded B-17 crash came back in 2011, when an engine fire broke out on a Flying Fortress en route to Indianapolis. One of the seven people on board was injured, according to the NTSB's accident database. The same B-17 that crashed on Wednesday was itself involved in a crash in 1987, when it was caught in crosswind while landing in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, the NTSB says. https://time.com/5692347/b-17-crash/ Back to Top SpaceX picked to launch upcoming NASA moon mission Elon Musk's SpaceX seems to be a popular choice for private missions to the moon that need a lift. Houston-based Intuitive Machines will use SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket to launch a Nova-C lander that's heading to the moon in 2021, the companies said Wednesday. A Falcon 9 was also used to launch the Israeli Beresheet spacecraft for its moon mission earlier this year, but the lander suffered a crash landing on the lunar surface. Intuitive Machines, which specializes in autonomous systems, and its Nova-C will make the trip to the moon to do work for NASA. The company is one of several selected by the space agency for its Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. The idea is to send a number of robotic missions to the moon to perform science experiments and test new technologies in advance of NASA's planned return to the lunar surface with astronauts as soon as 2024. Intuitive Machines says Nova-C can carry at least 220 pounds (100 kg) of cargo to the lunar surface. It is set to carry five NASA payloads to the moon and transmit scientific data from those experiments back to Earth for about two weeks. The company said it also has room for payloads from other customers for its 2021 mission, so if there's something you'd like to send to the moon, act fast. Nova C Rendering Moon Mission Rendering https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-picked-for-upcoming-nasa-moon-mission/ Curt Lewis