Flight Safety Information - March 29, 2023 No. 060 In This Issue : Incident: Cathay Pacific A35K near Hong Kong on Mar 28th 2023, hydraulic failure : Incident: Edelweiss A320 near Zurich on Mar 26th 2023, lightning strike : Incident: United B738 at Santa Barbara on Mar 27th 2023, blew tyre on landing : Incident: Flydubai B39M at Male on Mar 28th 2023, burst tyres on landing : NTSB issues preliminary report on Winter Haven midair plane collision : JFK ATC Gets Irritated With LATAM 777 Pilots : Air India, Nepal Airlines aircraft almost collide: How flight safety is ensured in airspaces : United Airlines flight makes emergency landing in Houston : The FAA Says "Zero" Close Calls Should Happen Again : FedEx to deliver hundreds of jobs with airplane maintenance work move to Indianapolis : China’s navy looks to junior high schools to find pilots for its aircraft carriers : Here's How Often Airlines Replace the Jet Engines on Passenger Planes Incident: Cathay Pacific A35K near Hong Kong on Mar 28th 2023, hydraulic failure A Cathay Pacific Airbus A350-1000, registration B-LXJ performing flight CX-178 from Melbourne,VI (Australia) to Hong Kong (China), was descending towards Hong Kong when the crew reported a hydraulic failure. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Hong Kong's runway 07R about 20 minutes later. The aircraft is still on the ground in Hong Kong about 17.5 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=50710aed&opt=0 Incident: Edelweiss A320 near Zurich on Mar 26th 2023, lightning strike An Edelweiss Airbus A320-200, registration HB-IHY performing flight WK-220 from Zurich (Switzerland) to Sevilla,SP (Spain), was climbing out of Zurich when the crew stopped the climb at FL280 following a lightning strike and decided to return to Zurich. The aircraft landed safely back on Zurich's runway 16 about 70 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground in Zurich about 48 hours after landing back. https://avherald.com/h?article=50710572&opt=0 Incident: United B738 at Santa Barbara on Mar 27th 2023, blew tyre on landing A United Boeing 737-800, registration N37287 performing flight UA-611 from San Francisco,CA to Santa Barbara,CA (USA), landed on Santa Barbara's runway 25 at 11:46L (18:46Z) but blew a tyre. Tower reported seeing smoke from the aircraft and seeing debris on the runway. The crew acknowledged advising they might have blown a tyre. The aircraft vacated the runway onto taxiway F and came to a stop also closing taxiway A. Emergency services reported the outer left main tyre was blown. Due to the blocked taxiways runway 25 became unusable for about 100 minutes, too. The aircraft was towed to the apron about 100 minutes after landing. The passengers disembarked at the apron. The aircraft returned to service about 21 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=507100a5&opt=0 Incident: Flydubai B39M at Male on Mar 28th 2023, burst tyres on landing A Flydubai Boeing 737-9 MAX, registration A6-FNC performing flight FZ-1569 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Male (Maldives), landed on Male's runway 36 when both right hand main tyres burst. The aircraft rolled out without further incident, came to a stop on the runway and was disabled. The runway needed to be closed for about 3.5 hours as result. https://avherald.com/h?article=5070eefc&opt=0 NTSB issues preliminary report on Winter Haven midair plane collision The National Transportation Safety Board released a preliminary report Tuesday on its investigation into a midair collision between two instructional flights earlier this month. Both flight instructors and student pilots were killed in the March 7 crash over Lake Hartridge in Winter Haven. According to the NTSB’s report, a float-equipped Piper J-3 Cub was preparing for a water landing at 2 p.m. on its way back to Jack Brown’s Seaplane Base on the lake after a local flight. At the same time, a Piper PA-28 Cherokee light aircraft was performing power-off, 180-degree landing maneuvers towards a runway at Winter Haven Regional Airport. The NTSB report doesn’t identify a specific cause for the crash, but notes that the J-3 Cub wasn’t equipped with a radio and couldn’t communicate with other aircraft on the frequency for common aircraft traffic advisories. According to witnesses and radio transmissions, both planes made turns towards each other and collided nearly head-on about 575-feet above the ground. The NTSB’s report says flight data and surveillance video footage showed neither plane made any altitude or heading adjustments before the collision. Both planes fell into Lake Hartridge just east of the runway at Winter Haven Regional Airport. After an extensive search, the bodies of all four people in the planes were recovered from the Lake. The passengers on board the PA-28 were identified as 24-year-old Faith Baker, a pilot and flight instructor with Sunrise Aviation out of Ormond Beach, and 19-year-old Zachary Mace, a student at Polk State College. On board the J-3 Cub were 67-year-old Randall Crawford, a flight enthusiast from Carlisle, PA, and 78-year-old Louis Defazio, from Winter Haven. According to the NTSB’s report, examination of the wreckage from both planes showed no evidence of possible mechanical malfunctions before the collision. The crash remains under investigation by the NTSB as well as the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention. https://www.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-issues-preliminary-report-winter-212027413.html JFK ATC Gets Irritated With LATAM 777 Pilots As an aviation geek, I spend way too much of my free time tracking flights on Flightradar24, and listening to air traffic control audio. Along those lines, here’s an interesting exchange between an air traffic controller at JFK and LATAM pilots. LATAM pilot struggles to understand JFK ATC Some air traffic controllers at JFK are known for speaking incredibly fast, and also having a short fuse. At times that leads to some unprofessional and frustrating exchanges, especially given how many foreign pilots JFK has. Perhaps the most famous ATC exchange ever at JFK was over a decade ago, between a ground controller and the pilots of an Air China Boeing 747 that were operating flight CA981. If you haven’t heard that before, you can find it below. Earlier this month (on March 8, 2023), a pretty interesting exchange happened between a JFK ground controller and the pilots of a LATAM Boeing 777-300ER that had just landed from Sao Paulo. The gate wasn’t quite ready for the plane, meaning that the LATAM jet had to stay on the taxiway for some extra time, before entering the ramp (which often involves taxiing around, so that no taxiways are blocked). There ended up being a major communication gap between the air traffic controller and the pilots. Below you can see the VASAviation video of the exchange, which includes both the audio and a visualization of what happened. I figure that’s better than me trying to summarize the incident. Who was in the wrong — the controller or the pilots? The LATAM pilots definitely could have had a better grasp of English, and were clearly struggling to understand the directions they were given. Ideally that wouldn’t be the case, but it’s pretty common, especially at airports like JFK. It’s quite dismaying to see how the ground controller is communicating with the pilots, though. If someone doesn’t have a great grasp of the English language and doesn’t understand you, you think the solution is to just say it again, only faster and more angrily? Wouldn’t it make more sense to speak a bit more slowly, so you hopefully don’t have to repeat yourself multiple times? It reminds me a bit of many of the TSA agents you’ll find at JFK, especially at Terminal 1. The terminal sees a lot of foreigners, so rather than kindly explaining the rules to them, they yell really angrily and talk fast, thinking that will make the situation better. I imagine the LATAM pilots were also caught off guard by the instruction that they should taxi onto a runway. We’ve seen quite a few ground incidents lately at US airports, so the pilots probably assumed that they must have misunderstood that, but struggled to communicate. I think this comment on the YouTube video sums up the situation pretty well: This should be presented on ATCO training on how not to deal with a communications problem. Yes, there’s definitely a language barrier (amongst other factors), but what a terrible management by JFK ground. Once a communication issue is detected, the controller insists on speaking fast. Instead of deescalating the situation, the ATCO just made things way worse putting more pressure onto an already confused crew! That’s definitely not the proper way to deal with this kind of situation, making it way worse as if JFK GND wasn’t stressful enough. That’s not a proper attitude from an Air Navigation Services Provider at the level and importance of JFK. The TAM crew sounds lost and confused, and beyond the language barrier, there are hints that they were not aware of the differences between ICAO and FAA phraseology and procedures. There aren’t many airports in Brazil with 2 or more runways, so the pilots are strongly educated to only enter runways if explicitly cleared to do so by the TWR. Getting a taxi authorization from the GND to enter a runway is not something usual here, so it’s something that could have played a factor on why they didn’t comply with the instructions. Kudos to the Republic crew, acting to solve the situation, doing the job of both the TAM8180 and JFK GND. Bottom line A JFK ground controller and LATAM Boeing 777 pilots had a pretty heated exchange on the morning of March 8, 2023. While the pilots definitely struggled with their grasp of the English language, the controller wasn’t making things better by simply repeating the same thing faster and more angrily. Unfortunately this seems to be the standard operating procedure for many JFK controllers… https://onemileatatime.com/news/jfk-atc-irritated-latam-pilots/ Air India, Nepal Airlines aircraft almost collide: How flight safety is ensured in airspaces Aircraft have to maintain a minimum distance from each other both vertically and horizontally for safety. Here are the rules that govern this, and how accidents are caused. Written by Pranesh Dey Air India plane almost collided with Nepal Airlines craftAn Nepal Airlines plane coming to Kathmandu from Kuala Lumpur, and an Air India plane coming to Kathmandu from New Delhi, almost collided on March 24. On March 24, an Air India Airbus A319, flying to Kathmandu from New Delhi, and a Nepal Airlines Airbus A320 came close to a mid-air collision. The Air India aircraft, which was flying at 19,000 ft, descended to 15,000 ft following Kathmandu ATC “clearance”. The Nepal Airlines aircraft, flying from Kuala Lumpur, was also at 15,000 ft, according to the reports. While the Air India plane climbed sharply, the Nepal Airlines aircraft descended to 7,000 ft to avoid a collision, the reports added. The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) has suspended three air traffic controllers for “carelessness”, according to CAAN spokesperson Jagannath Niroula, PTI reported. What probably went wrong? Whether an aircraft is flying in terminal airspace (airspace near an airport which is mostly used by arriving and departing traffic) or is in enroute airspace (away from an airport; for example, in cruise), planes are separated both vertically and horizontally for safety. In the incident involving the Air India and Nepal Airlines aircraft, either the vertical or horizontal separation minima or both were breached. What are the rules of separation between aircraft? * Vertical separation Aircraft flying below 29,000 ft are separated vertically by 1,000 ft. Aircraft flying above 29,000 ft are separated by 2,000 ft while supersonic aircraft flying above 45,000 ft are separated by 4,000 ft (Currently, there are no supersonic commercial jet in service). Also in Explained |The final Boeing 747 rolls out: A look at how the ‘Queen of Skies’ changed aviation forever However, between 29,000 ft and 41,000 ft, modern jets are allowed to fly with vertical separation of 1,000 ft under Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) rules. RVSM allows more aircraft to fly at fuel-efficient high altitudes, thus increasing airspace capacity and reducing fuel burn. An airline is allowed to fly under RVSM rules only after meeting regulatory requirements as it requires further training of the crew and onboard equipment. * Horizontal separation Horizontal separation between aircraft is of two types: Longitudinal and lateral. Air traffic controllers calculate longitudinal separation between aircraft using both distance (in radar-covered airspace) or time (in non-radar airspace). In airspace with radar coverage, longitudinal (one aircraft flying in front and the other behind it) separation of 5 nautical miles to 3 nautical miles is maintained between aircraft flying at the same altitude and in the same direction. If based on time, a separation of 15 minutes to 10 minutes is maintained between two aircraft depending on how frequently a pilot can relay his ‘position’ (where the aircraft is) and speed to the controller. Lateral separation between aircraft refers to the distance between two aircraft flying side by side. The degrees by which the tracks of two aircraft diverge from a navigational facility and the distance of the aircraft from the navigational facility help air traffic controllers know if the lateral separation is safe. Can two aircraft cross each other’s paths? Yes, as long as the separation minima is not breached. A 15-minute — or 10-minute if navigational aids allow frequent determination of aircraft ‘position’ and speed — longitudinal separation is maintained for two aircraft whose paths cross. Similarly, if an aircraft climbs or descends through the path of another aircraft, a 15-minute, 10-minute or 5-minute longitudinal separation is maintained. Radar-controlled airspace & role of Air Traffic Control (ATC) Air traffic controllers are primarily responsible for ensuring safe separation between aircraft. In radar-covered airspaces, the position of all aircraft can be seen on the controller’s screen. An aircraft’s transponder also relays its altitude, speed and heading to the ATC, all of which help the controller ensure vertical and horizontal separation between aircraft. If a potential conflict arises, the controller ‘vectors’ (issue a different heading) an aircraft away from the other. Moreover, as there are also smaller, slower aircraft out there, which can find themselves in potential conflict with heavier, faster jets, all aircraft adhere to a speed restriction of 250 knots below 10,000 ft. In any incident involving violation of separation standards, investigators not only look at the role of ATC but also examine crew action, equipment, existing procedures (if they can be improved further), human factors, among others. Non-radar controlled airspace While radar-covered airspaces allow ATC to “see” the position of aircraft, the distance between them, heading, altitude etc, making the task of ensuring separation easier, large parts of the world do not have radar coverage. The oceans are not covered by radar. Large parts of South and Central America, Africa and Asia too do not have radar coverage. Where there is no radar coverage, procedural separation is followed. To ensure longitudinal and lateral separation between aircraft, en route controllers depend on ‘position’ reports from pilots, where the pilot relays the aircraft’s position, altitude, ETA at next reporting point, among others. From the ‘position’ reports, controllers are able to calculate the time separating two aircraft (longitudinal separation) and its geographical position (lateral separation). As controllers cannot “see” the aircraft on radars, in such phases of flight, the longitudinal and lateral separation are far greater. Longitudinal separation between two aircraft flying the same track at the same altitude over oceans can be up to 30 minutes and lateral separation 60 miles. But vertical separation remains same at 1,000 ft. Remember Air France 447, which plunged into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009, killing 228 people? It was flying over the oceans, out of radar coverage, when it ran into trouble. Oceanic control on the ground was relying on ‘position’ reports from the crew to track the flight. Uncontrolled airspaces In uncontrolled airspaces, ATC is not responsible for separation between aircraft. It’s up to pilots to maintain separation by following the ‘see-and-be-seen’ rule. TCAS It is unclear from media reports if the crew of Air India and Nepal Airlines took action after being alerted by ATC or onboard TCAS (Traffic Alert & Collision Avoidance System) resolved the potential conflict. TCAS, working independently of ATC, is an onboard system that alerts pilots if it senses a potential mid-air collision. While one aircraft’s TCAS will ask the crew to “climb, climb”, the other aircraft’s TCAS will order its crew to “descend, descend”. In such a situation, the TCAS’ commands are followed and ATC’s instructions ignored to avoid confusion. What will happen if two aircraft violate separation standards? One, which is obvious, there is risk of a mid-air collision. Second, is the risk posed by ‘wake turbulence’. An aircraft’s wingtip produces vortices called ‘wake’. Bigger the aircraft, more powerful the ‘wake’. Called ‘wake turbulence’, it has led to loss of control of aircraft flying into it and, in worst cases, even resulted in crashes. Even during takeoff, for this reason, the ATC gives a gap of a few minutes — usually 2 minutes — between two departing aircraft, so that one aircraft doesn’t encounter the ‘wake’ of the one that just took off. The crash of an IAF C-130J Super Hercules on March 28, 2014 is believed to have been caused by the huge transport inadvertently flying into the ‘wake’ of the lead plane during a tactical training mission, leading to a loss of control at low altitude and the accident that killed all five crew members, The Indian Express reported on April 23, 2014. Preliminary findings of the detailed inquiry under way point to a “wake turbulence” incident in which the C-130J, which was part of a two-aircraft formation practising insertion of paratroopers, stalled at a low level after hitting the ‘wake’ of the lead aircraft, the report said. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/air-india-nepal-airlines-almost-collide-flight-safety-airspaces-rules-8524379/ United Airlines flight makes emergency landing in Houston Flight 129 returned to the airport Tuesday night because of “a mechanical issue,”... HOUSTON (AP) — A United Airlines flight bound from Houston to Rio De Janeiro has returned to Bush Intercontinental Airport for an emergency landing shortly after takeoff, the airline said. Flight 129 returned to the airport Tuesday night because of “a mechanical issue,” according to a statement from United Airlines. The airline did not describe the nature of the problem and an airport spokesperson did not immediately return messages for comment Wednesday morning. The airline said the plane landed safely, passengers got off and United Airlines made arrangements to get them to their destination. The flight tracking website FlightAware reported the aircraft was a Boeing 767 flying to Rio De Janeiro that departed Houston at 8:52 p.m. and returned to the airport, landing at 10:50 p.m. https://www.kbtx.com/2023/03/29/united-airlines-flight-makes-emergency-landing-houston/ The FAA Says "Zero" Close Calls Should Happen Again Following a spate of incidents across the US, and faced with a summer of crowded skies, the FAA is taking action to improve safety. The acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Billy Nolen, has said that the aviation industry must work to address safety concerns following a series of near-miss incidents. There have been six serious runway incursions since January, and just last month, a FedEx cargo aircraft and a Southwest Airlines passenger Boeing 737 came within 100 feet of each other in what the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said could have been a "terrible tragedy." At an industry meeting in Baltimore on Tuesday, Nolen alluded to the pressures on the system following the pandemic that could have been behind the spate of incidents, saying, "Going forward, zero has to be the only acceptable number for serious incidents and close calls. Air travel is coming back in a big way since the pandemic. But the long layoff, coupled with the increased technical nature of our systems, might have caused some professionals to lose some of that muscle memory." The aviation industry has been plagued by staff shortages over recent months, and air traffic control centers are no different. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association confirmed that intense recruitment drives have failed to keep up with demand, and there are currently 1,200 fewer certified air traffic controllers than there were ten years ago. The FAA's immediate actions The Air Traffic Organization's chief operating officer, Tim Arel, said, "there is no question that we are seeing too many close calls," and the FAA has gone on to advise that it is taking steps to improve its air traffic control operations. As an immediate action, the agency issued a safety alert to airlines last week, citing the "need for continued vigilance and attention to mitigation of safety risks." In a bid to ease congestion throughout the summer, the FAA also said that it would temporarily cut the minimum flight requirements for airlines to keep hold of take-off and landing slots at busy airports. This includes airports such as Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), where a deal has been struck with both United Airlines and Delta Air Lines for the carriers to temporarily return up to 10% of slots. A further meeting is due to be held this week to focus on the air traffic control issues faced specifically in the New York City-area. Ongoing troubles for the FAA The FAA is still without a permanent head after President Biden's pick to lead the agency, Phil Washington, withdrew his nomination following criticism from Republicans over his apparent lack of experience in the aviation industry. As a result, it is possible that the permanent position will go to Nolen, although this has yet to be confirmed. All this comes on the back of a challenging few years for the FAA. The agency's reputation took a battering following the two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019, which occurred after it had certified the aircraft as airworthy. There is no doubt that this recent series of near misses will do little to restore travelers' confidence. Although the FAA has recognized the issue and has outlined its desire for "zero close calls," when it comes to complex matters such as aviation safety, a joined-up approach is required from all parties across the industry, including the FAA, airlines, airports, and manufacturers. https://simpleflying.com/faa-zero-future-close-calls-acceptable/ FedEx to deliver hundreds of jobs with airplane maintenance work move to Indianapolis INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — FedEx is delivering hundreds of new jobs to Indianapolis, announcing that FedEx will move some of its airplane maintenance work from Los Angeles to Indianapolis next year. FedEx moving maintenance operations to Indianapolis, ending work in Los Angeles “It solidifies the FedEx presence here in Indianapolis, which is one of the largest in the world,” Kevin Brinegar, the president and chief executive officer of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said. It’s the world’s largest all-cargo airline and schools like Ivy Tech Community College are excited about the jump. “To see those companies investing is just reinforcement that we know we live in a great place,” Heidi Fowler, the vice chancellor of academic affairs at the Fort Wayne Ivy Tech Community College campus, said. Fowler says there’s a huge need for aircraft maintenance workers, and says a bachelor’s degree isn’t necessary to work in that area. “The trendline has shown repeatedly over the years that there’s a gap. There are more job openings available than I have students to fill them in aircraft maintenance,” Fowler said. FedEx says what they’re looking for is a high school diploma or GED. If you have experience, you could earn $41 an hour, but they also have positions that require no experience at all. “These are very high-paying jobs and we’re very fortunate that FedEx chose to relocate and consolidate this aircraft maintenance activity here in Indianapolis,” Brinegar said. Fowler says students should consider earning an associate’s degree at Ivy Tech Community College. They can also earn a four-year degree by transferring to schools like IUPUI. “You can come to us and get that degree with about $11,000 over the course of the two years and I always like to reinforce that 81% of our graduates statewide graduate from Ivy Tech with zero debt,” Fowler said. “We’re a place where businesses want to locate, relocate and grow because they know that they have a business-friendly environment. They know they have a state government that’s responsive, that will help them with regulations, with permits, things of that nature,” Brinegar said. FedEx announced the move in a statement made Monday night. “FedEx regularly evaluates its networks and makes adjustments to enhance service, improve operational efficiencies, and lower the cost to serve. FedEx Express, the company’s air operation and world’s largest all-cargo airline, operates numerous aircraft maintenance facilities throughout its global network to ensure the safe operations of all aircraft fleet. A leased facility at Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) that FedEx Express currently utilizes as an aircraft maintenance facility is expected to expire in June 2024. Upon expiration of this lease agreement, FedEx Express plans to discontinue use of the facility at 7401 World Way West and will move the heavy maintenance capability to our Indianapolis hub. This adjustment only affects the maintenance hangar facility, FedEx will continue to operate throughout the Greater Los Angeles area. As such, the transition will be seamless to customers, who can expect the same reliable service they receive today.” FedEx Express Communications https://www.wishtv.com/news/business/fedex-delivers-hundreds-of-jobs-with-airplane-maintenance-work-move-to-indianapolis/ China’s navy looks to junior high schools to find pilots for its aircraft carriers About 4,500 boys aged 15 to 16 have been recruited for the PLA Navy’s youth aviation schools this month Those who qualify will join the fighter jet cadet programme, with the top students enrolling in a double degree at one of three Beijing universities China’s navy is recruiting junior high school graduates as candidates for its fighter jet cadet programme as it tries to find more aircraft carrier pilots for its expanding fleet, according to state media. The People’s Liberation Army Navy has recruited about 4,500 junior high school graduates from Shandong and Henan provinces and the city of Chongqing this month, official news agency Xinhua reported on Saturday. The students – boys aged 15 to 16 – will attend the PLA Navy’s youth aviation schools which were set up in 2015 in cooperation with some of the best high schools in the country. The navy draws on talent from the 14 schools for its aircraft carrier cadet pilot programme. They will undergo three years of training in the aviation schools and those who qualify will go on to the PLA Naval Aviation University for pilot training. The top students will undertake double degrees within the aviation programmes at one of three prestigious Beijing universities – Peking, Tsinghua and Beihang, according to Xinhua. It is unclear if this is the first year that students so young will attend the aviation schools. An earlier report from state broadcaster CCTV said the navy had been selecting high school graduates aged between 16 and 19 for the schools since 2020. The average age of the newest crop of cadet pilots is 20, much younger than in previous years. Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie said the approach aimed to find promising students with strong academic and physical abilities as the navy tries to meet the demands of its aircraft carrier projects. “[This will] not only help the navy select potential cadet pilots for specific training as early as possible, but also reinforce young students’ aviation knowledge and related academic studies,” he said, referring to the double degrees. “It also suggests that the PLA now demands better academic qualifications of its shipborne fighter jet pilots – like their Western peers, the US pilots who at the least have aviation-related degrees.” China’s fleet of aircraft carriers is growing, and it needs pilots. The third of the warships, the Fujian, was launched last June, with state media reporting that it will start sea trials this year. The PLA Navy has started training its own pilots, rather than recruiting them from the air force, at the Naval Aviation University in Yantai, Shandong, which opened in 2017. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3215110/chinas-navy-looks-junior-high-schools-find-pilots-its-aircraft-carriers Here's How Often Airlines Replace the Jet Engines on Passenger Planes A bunch of factors decide when it's time to replace an airliner's jet engines, but the biggest one is the number of times the plane has taken off and landed. Unless you’re an airline mechanic, the maintenance of commercial airliners isn’t a worry in your everyday life. The aircraft that carry hundreds of millions of passengers from airport to airport worldwide must be adequately maintained for the safety of everyone aboard and for optimum fuel economy. Simply Flying has published an explainer on the various factors that determine how many engines a plane will use during its lifetime. First, to determine how many engines an aircraft will use over its lifespan, it is important to know how long that lifespan is. Instead of mileage like a road vehicle or a frequent flyer program, an airliner’s longevity is measured in flight cycles. A flight cycle consists of a completed takeoff and landing regardless of flight distance, with touch-and-go landings also counting as a completed flight. The most strenuous portions of a flight for an aircraft are the takeoffs and landings. How Many Engines Do Airliners Go Through In A Typical Lifespan? The rated lifespan of a plane can vary widely by fuselage size and composition. Short-range narrowbody aircraft, like the Airbus A320, can last almost 50,000 flight cycles. According to Simple Flying, long-range widebody planes have a life that can range between 25,000 and 45,000 cycles. For example, the iconic Boeing 747 has a manufacturer-estimated lifespan of 35,000 flight cycles. The composite-structured Boeing 787 Dreamliner can endure 44,000 flight cycles, 9,000 more than the jumbo jet. The plane’s jet engines will not last the aircraft’s entire lifespan and will have to be replaced at some point. Engines are overhauled two or three times before being taken out of service. For narrowbody engines, this usually happens after 12,000 flight cycles. The number of cycles is cut down to 8,000 until the second overhaul and then halved to 4,000 for the third. However, airlines may simply replace the engines instead of spending millions on further rebuilds. Using the rough arithmetic we have established, an Airbus A320 would have to use three or four sets of engines across its entire lifespan. If our theoretically A320 is exclusively assigned to a four-flight-per-day short-haul schedule, the aircraft could spend at least three decades in service. Hopefully, 30 years would be enough time to recoup the cost of the $100 million airliner. https://jalopnik.com/how-airlines-decide-to-replace-jet-engine-boeing-airbus-1850275010 Curt Lewis