DOCSLIB.ORG

Crash During Attempted Go-Around After Landing East Coast Jets Flight 81 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 125-800A, N818MV Owatonna, Minnesota July 31, 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crash During Attempted Go-Around After Landing East Coast Jets Flight 81 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 125-800A, N818MV Owatonna, Minnesota July 31, 2008 Crash During Attempted Go‐Around After Landing East Coast Jets Flight 81 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 125‐800A, N818MV Owatonna, Minnesota July 31, 2008 Accident Report NTSB/AAR-11/01 National PB2011-910401 Transportation Safety Board NTSB/AAR-11/01 PB2011-910401 Notation 8046A Adopted March 15, 2011 Aircraft Accident Report Crash During Attempted Go-Around After Landing East Coast Jets Flight 81 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 125-800A, N818MV Owatonna, Minnesota July 31, 2008 National Transportation Safety Board 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 National Transportation Safety Board. 2011. Crash During Attempted Go-Around After Landing, East Coast Jets Flight 81, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 125-800A, N818MV, Owatonna, Minnesota, July 31, 2008. Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-11/01. Washington, DC. Abstract: This accident report discusses the July 31, 2008, accident involving East Coast Jets flight 81, a Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 125-800A, N818MV, which crashed while attempting to go around after landing on runway 30 at Owatonna Degner Regional Airport, Owatonna, Minnesota. The two pilots and six passengers were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces. The nonscheduled, domestic passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135. An instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed and activated; however, it was canceled before the landing. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The safety issues discussed in this report relate to flight crew actions; lack of standard operating procedures requirements for 14 CFR Part 135 operators, including crew resource management training and checklist usage; go-around guidance for turbine-powered aircraft; Part 135 preflight weather briefings; pilot fatigue and sleep disorders; inadequate arrival landing distance assessment guidance and requirements; Part 135 on-demand, pilot-in-command line checks; and cockpit image recording systems. Fourteen new safety recommendations concerning these issues are addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The NTSB makes public its actions and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and statistical reviews. Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Internet at <http://www.ntsb.gov>. Other information about available publications also may be obtained from the website or by contacting: National Transportation Safety Board Records Management Division, CIO-40 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594 (800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551 NTSB publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical Information Service. To purchase this publication, order report number PB2011-910401 from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000 The Independent Safety Board Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), precludes the admission into evidence or use of NTSB reports related to an incident or accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. NTSB Aircraft Accident Report Contents Figures ........................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ..............................................................................................................................................v Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................x 1. Factual Information ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 History of Flight .........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Injuries to Persons ......................................................................................................................6 1.3 Damage to Airplane ...................................................................................................................6 1.4 Other Damage ............................................................................................................................6 1.5 Personnel Information ................................................................................................................6 1.5.1 The Captain ......................................................................................................................6 1.5.2 The First Officer ..............................................................................................................7 1.6 Airplane Information .................................................................................................................8 1.6.1 Flaps, Airbrakes, and Anti-Skid Systems ........................................................................9 1.6.2 Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System ..............................................................12 1.7 Meteorological Information .....................................................................................................13 1.7.1 Area Weather Conditions ..............................................................................................13 1.7.2 Airport Weather Information .........................................................................................13 1.7.3 Additional National Weather Service Weather Information .........................................15 1.7.4 En Route Weather Services ...........................................................................................17 1.7.5 Federal Aviation Administration Weather-Related Guidance .......................................17 1.7.5.1 Weather Briefings ............................................................................................17 1.7.5.2 Severe Weather Information ............................................................................18 1.7.6 East Coast Jets Weather-Related Guidance ...................................................................18 1.8 Aids to Navigation ...................................................................................................................19 1.9 Communications ......................................................................................................................19 1.10 Airport Information ................................................................................................................19 1.11 Flight Recorders .....................................................................................................................19 1.11.1 Cockpit Voice Recorder ..............................................................................................19 1.11.2 Flight Data Recorder ....................................................................................................20 1.12 Wreckage and Impact Information ........................................................................................20 1.13 Medical and Pathological Information ...................................................................................22 1.14 Fire .........................................................................................................................................22 1.15 Survival Aspects ....................................................................................................................22 1.16 Tests and Research .................................................................................................................23 1.16.1 Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System Data Study .........................................23 1.16.2 Runway 30 Measurements ...........................................................................................23 1.16.3 Airplane Performance Study ........................................................................................26 1.16.3.1 Calculated Airplane Performance and Computer Simulation Results ...........26 i NTSB Aircraft Accident Report 1.16.3.2 Evaluation of Potential Hydroplaning on Runway 30 ...................................27 1.16.3.3 Airplane Stopping Distances on Wet Runways .............................................27 1.16.3.4 Braking Coefficients ......................................................................................29 1.16.3.4.1 U.S. and European Braking Coefficient Standards ...............................29 1.16.3.4.2 Required Landing Distances Using Different Braking Coefficient Models.................................................................................................30 1.17 Organizational and Management Information .......................................................................32
Load more

Recommended publications
  • N87- 19393 CE Bith Ab AUTCEETIC TESMINAL EM (BASA) 21 P CSCL 17Ti Unclas H1/06 43501 NASA Tech Ni Ca I Paper 2669
    ) A SIPSCLATICL EVALUATION GP A N87- 19393 CE bITH Ab AUTCEETIC TESMINAL EM (BASA) 21 p CSCL 17ti Unclas H1/06 43501 NASA Tech ni ca I Paper 2669 1987 A Simulation Evaluation of a Pilot Interface With an Automatic Terminal Approach System David A. Hinton Langley Research Center Hampt o n, Virginia National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Branch Summary with a high potential for mistakes and has limited time to detect and correct any errors. A successful A piloted-simulation study was performed to arrival depends on the correct interpretation of ap- evaluate the pilot interface with an automatic termi- proach chart details, the correct setting of numerous nal approach system (ATAS). The ATAS was con- cockpit controls, and precise aircraft guidance near ceived as a concept for improving the pilot inter- the ground. face with high levels of automation. It consists of Automation in the form of an autopilot has been instrument approach data storage, automatic radio used to reduce pilot work load and improve pilot tuning, autopilot, autothrottle, and annunciation of performance in the terminal area. Research studies These components allow the ATAS flight status. (ref. 2) and airplane accident and incident reports to automatically execute instrument approaches, in- suggest, however, that the probability of pilot error cluding procedure turns, altitude changes, missed actually increases with an increase in automation, approaches, and holding patterns, without requir- partially because of design limitations of the pilot- ing the pilot to set up navigation radios or change machine interface. Conventional autopilot interfaces autopilot modes. provide the pilot with many opportunities to make The results show that fewer pilot blunders were errors because of the requirements to change radio made during approaches when using the ATAS than frequencies and autopilot modes as the approach when using a baseline, heading-select autopilot.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiating a Missed Approach Below Mda
    Issue No. 9 INITIATING A MISSED APPROACH BELOW MDA So there you are, on approach, inside the FAF and below MDA. You saw the runway and began descent, but it is raining, visibility is marginal and things are murky and scuddy (technical terms). Wind is directly across the runway at 11G18 and you are crabbing down, passengers are nervous. But you are holding the CDI in the center and maintaining control. Over the runway you go into your wing-low sideslip for the crosswind landing, things are going pretty well and then whoops a big gust destabilizes you so you abort the landing. Now what do you do, go missed or go around for another landing attempt? To provide some context, let’s attach the scenario to an interesting little airport, Andrews- Murphy Airport, NC (KRHP). The instrument approach procedure (IAP) and the takeoff minima and obstacle departure procedure are shown here. This airport is nestled in a scenic valley surrounded by mountains, which are quite close on the north. A topo map can be viewed here or just go to the TopoZone website and search for Andrews, NC, or go to the airport lat/long of 3512N/08352W. You will notice that the MDA is 2329 feet above the runway. Now remember that obstacle protection on a missed approach procedure is based on going missed at the MAP at MDA with a minimum climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile. No obstacle protection is assured when you go missed below MDA or past the MAP. In fact, you are not assured of obstacle protection even above MDA if the missed is initiated below MDA or after the MAP.
    [Show full text]
  • Bombardier Learjet 35A
    Contact Pilot Maintenance Us Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Share Next Bombardier Learjet 35A Professional Pilot and Technician Training Programs Updated 10/16 Contact Pilot Maintenance Us Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Share Prev Next FlightSafety offers comprehensive, professional training on Bombardier’s full line of business aircraft, including the Learjet 35A. Our highly qualified and experienced instructors, advanced-technology flight simulators and integrated training systems help ensure proficiency and safety. Pilot training for the Learjet 35A is available at FlightSafety’s Learning Centers in Atlanta, Georgia and Tucson, Arizona. Maintenance technicians train for the Learjet 35A at our Tucson Learning Center. Innovation With One Purpose: Training Corporate Aviation Professionals for Safety and Proficiency FlightSafety International is the world’s leading aviation training organization. The leader in experience. The leader in technological innovation. The leader in global reach. FlightSafety serves the world’s aviation community providing total aviation training for pilots, maintenance technicians and other aviation professionals. We serve business, commercial, general and military aviation with training for virtually Experienced all fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. We live, breathe and ThinkSafety. Instructors, FlightSafety provides training for the Bombardier Global series, Bombardier Challenger and Bombardier Learjet. Superior We offer business aviation pilots and maintenance technicians of Bombardier aircraft the resources to achieve proficiency
    [Show full text]
  • Takeoff and Landing Weather Minimums
    Federal Aviation Administration, DOT § 121.651 field elevation for 15 minutes upon VFR weather minimums of § 91.155 of reaching an ETOPS Alternate Airport this chapter apply at those locations. and then conduct an instrument ap- [Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19222, Dec. 31, 1964 as proach and land. amended by Amdt. 121–39, 33 FR 4097, Mar. 2, (3) Fuel to account for APU use. If an 1968; Amdt. 121–206, 54 FR 34331, Aug. 18, 1989; APU is a required power source, the Amdt. 121–226, 56 FR 65663, Dec. 17, 1991] certificate holder must account for its fuel consumption during the appro- § 121.651 Takeoff and landing weather priate phases of flight. minimums: IFR: All certificate hold- ers. [Doc. No. FAA–2002–6717, 72 FR 1882, Jan. 16, 2007, as amended by Amdt. 121–348, 75 FR (a) Notwithstanding any clearance 12121, Mar. 15, 2010] from ATC, no pilot may begin a takeoff in an airplane under IFR when the § 121.647 Factors for computing fuel weather conditions reported by the required. U.S. National Weather Service, a Each person computing fuel required source approved by that Service, or a for the purposes of this subpart shall source approved by the Administrator, consider the following: are less than those specified in— (a) Wind and other weather condi- (1) The certificate holder’s operations tions forecast. specifications; or (b) Anticipated traffic delays. (2) Parts 91 and 97 of this chapter, if (c) One instrument approach and pos- the certificate holder’s operations sible missed approach at destination. specifications do not specify takeoff (d) Any other conditions that may minimums for the airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Optimal Replacement of Aging Air Force Systems
    R Investigating Optimal Replacement of Aging Air Force Systems Edward G. Keating, Matthew Dixon Prepared for the United States Air Force Project AIR FORCE Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research reported here was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Keating, Edward G. (Edward Geoffrey), 1965- Investigating optimal replacement of aging Air Force systems / Edward G. Keating, Matthew C. Dixon. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. “MR-1763.” ISBN 0-8330-3483-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. United States. Air Force—Procurement—Mathematical models. 2. KC–135 (Tanker aircraft) 3. Lear jet aircraft. 4. Jet transports—United States—Maintenance and repair— Mathematical models. I. Dixon, Matthew C. II. Title. UG1123.K43223 2003 358.4'1621—dc22 2003020469 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 2003 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2003 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] iii Preface Whether to maintain or replace an aging system is a common decision.
    [Show full text]
  • National Transportation Safety Board
    National Transportation Safety Board Airport Runway Accidents, Serious Incidents, Recommendations, and Statistics Deadliest Runway Accidents ● Tenerife, Canary Islands, March 27, 1977 (583 fatalities). The world’s deadliest runway accident occurred on March 27, 1977, when Pan Am (PAA) flight 1736, a Boeing 747, and KLM4805, a Boeing 747, collided on runway 12 at Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 passengers and crew. KLM4805 departed runway 12 without a takeoff clearance colliding with PAA1736 that was taxiing on the same runway during instrument meteorological conditions. The Spanish government determined the cause was: “The KLM aircraft had taken off without take-off clearance, in the absolute conviction that this clearance had been obtained, which was the result of a misunderstanding between the tower and the KLM aircraft. This misunderstanding had arisen from the mutual use of usual terminology which, however, gave rise to misinterpretation. In combination with a number of other coinciding circumstances, the premature take-off of the KLM aircraft resulted in a collision with the Pan Am aircraft, because the latter was still on the runway since it had missed the correct intersection.” ● Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006 (49 fatalities). The deadliest runway accident in the United States occurred on August 27, 2006, at about 0606 eastern daylight time when Comair flight 5191, a Bombardier CL-600-2B19, N431CA, crashed during takeoff from Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, Kentucky. The flight crew was instructed to take off from runway 22 but instead lined up the airplane on runway 26 and began the takeoff roll. The airplane ran off the end of the runway and impacted the airport perimeter fence, trees, and terrain.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter: 4. Approaches
    Chapter 4 Approaches Introduction This chapter discusses general planning and conduct of instrument approaches by pilots operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Parts 91,121, 125, and 135. The operations specifications (OpSpecs), standard operating procedures (SOPs), and any other FAA- approved documents for each commercial operator are the final authorities for individual authorizations and limitations as they relate to instrument approaches. While coverage of the various authorizations and approach limitations for all operators is beyond the scope of this chapter, an attempt is made to give examples from generic manuals where it is appropriate. 4-1 Approach Planning within the framework of each specific air carrier’s OpSpecs, or Part 91. Depending on speed of the aircraft, availability of weather information, and the complexity of the approach procedure Weather Considerations or special terrain avoidance procedures for the airport of intended landing, the in-flight planning phase of an Weather conditions at the field of intended landing dictate instrument approach can begin as far as 100-200 NM from whether flight crews need to plan for an instrument the destination. Some of the approach planning should approach and, in many cases, determine which approaches be accomplished during preflight. In general, there are can be used, or if an approach can even be attempted. The five steps that most operators incorporate into their flight gathering of weather information should be one of the first standards manuals for the in-flight planning phase of an steps taken during the approach-planning phase. Although instrument approach: there are many possible types of weather information, the primary concerns for approach decision-making are • Gathering weather information, field conditions, windspeed, wind direction, ceiling, visibility, altimeter and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) for the airport of setting, temperature, and field conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Tire Data
    Aircraft tire Engineering Data Introduction Michelin manufactures a wide variety of sizes and types of tires to the exacting standards of the aircraft industry. The information included in this Data Book has been put together as an engineering and technical reference to support the users of Michelin tires. The data is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate and complete at the time of publication. To be as useful a reference tool as possible, we have chosen to include data on as many industry tire sizes as possible. Particular sizes may not be currently available from Michelin. It is advised that all critical data be verified with your Michelin representative prior to making final tire selections. The data contained herein should be used in conjunction with the various standards ; T&RA1, ETRTO2, MIL-PRF- 50413, AIR 8505 - A4 or with the airframer specifications or military design drawings. For those instances where a contradiction exists between T&RA and ETRTO, the T&RA standard has been referenced. In some cases, a tire is used for both civil and military applications. In most cases they follow the same standard. Where they do not, data for both tires are listed and identified. The aircraft application information provided in the tables is based on the most current information supplied by airframe manufacturers and/or contained in published documents. It is intended for use as general reference only. Your requirements may vary depending on the actual configuration of your aircraft. Accordingly, inquiries regarding specific models of aircraft should be directed to the applicable airframe manufacturer.
    [Show full text]
  • Wing February 2000
    THE RAISBECK WING Winter 2000 Volume 7, Number 10 Editor Susan Stahl CEOs Message A very interesting comment from a Chal- “We’ve needed more luggage space on ev- lenger 601 operator recently got me to ery airplane we’ve ever operated. There just thinking. It was during our ongoing 601/ never seems to be enough!” he exclaimed. 604 operator survey concerning their need for increased luggage space. Why is this comment important? Well, in my view there’s only one thing better than opti- mum, and that’s 25% over optimum. James D. Raisbeck That’s why we’re having so much success Yes, it never seems there’s enough. Do you with the wing lockers on the King Air fleet, agree? E-mail me at [email protected] the aft fuselage locker for the Learjet 31/35/ 36 family, and why we are about to launch the aft fuselage locker program for the Chal- lengers. It’s also why Purdue University is under a research grant from us, exploring the feasibility of the aft fuselage locker on the Gulfstream family. Learjet 31 Aft Fuselage Locker Whats New at Raisbeck Business Jet Solutions Standardizes performance and technical support.” on Lear Locker Raisbeck Commercial Air Group now has 100 Boeing 727 Stage 3 kits in the air, with Business Jet Solutions, headquartered in orders, contracts and options for an addi- Dallas-Ft. Worth, has ordered its 25th Lear tional 38 Stage 3 kits in 2000. Aft Fuselage Locker. BJS has made a commitment to the locker as part of its Pro Pilot Names James Raisbeck Entre- overall goal to meet charter customers’ preneur of the Year needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Go-Around Decision-Making and Execution Project
    Final Report to Flight Safety Foundation Go-Around Decision-Making and Execution Project Tzvetomir Blajev, Eurocontrol (Co-Chair and FSF European Advisory Committee Chair) Capt. William Curtis, The Presage Group (Co-Chair and FSF International Advisory Committee Chair) MARCH 2017 1 Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the following people and organizations without which this report would not have been possible: • Airbus • Johan Condette — Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses • Air Canada Pilots Association • Capt. Bertrand De Courville — Air France (retired) • Air Line Pilots Association, International • Capt. Dirk De Winter — EasyJet • Airlines for America • Capt. Stephen Eggenschwiler — Swiss • The Boeing Company • Capt. Alex Fisher — British Airways (retired) • Eurocontrol • Alvaro Gammicchia — European Cockpit Association • FSF European Advisory Committee • Harald Hendel — Airbus • FSF International Advisory Committee • Yasuo Ishihara — Honeywell Aerospace Advanced • Honeywell International Technology • International Air Transport Association • David Jamieson, Ph.D. — The Presage Group • International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations • Christian Kern — Vienna Airport • The Presage Group • Capt. Pascal Kremer — FSF European Advisory Committee • Guillaume Adam — Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses • Richard Lawrence — Eurocontrol • John Barras – FSF European Advisory Committee • Capt. Harry Nelson — Airbus • Tzvetomir Blajev — Eurocontrol • Bruno Nero — The Presage Group • Karen Bolten — NATS • Zeljko Oreski — International
    [Show full text]
  • PRESSURIZED PISTON CRUISER We Fly the Piper M350! FAST™ SOLUTION PREVENTIVE, ACTIONABLE & WIRELESS FULL-FLIGHT INTELLIGENCE KNOW YOUR ENGINE from the INSIDE OUT
    AN MHM PUBLISHING MAGAZINE MArcH/APrIL 2017 [ INSIDE ] SKIES magaz • AIR CANADA REBRANDS • SPECIAL MISSION AIRCRAFT • NORTHERN OPS UPDATE mag.com • PILOT CAREER PATHWAYS I n E • CUSTOM GLOBAL REFURB • TURBOPROP COMEBACK SKIES • CELEBRATING CANADA 150 AvIAtIoN IS oUr PassioN PRESSURIZED PISTON CRUISER WE FLY THE PIPER M350! FAST™ SOLUTION PREVENTIVE, ACTIONABLE & WIRELESS FULL-FLIGHT INTELLIGENCE KNOW YOUR ENGINE FROM THE INSIDE OUT P&WC’s FASTTM solution captures, analyzes and sends full-flight data intelligence electronically to customers within moments of engine shutdown. By providing actionable preventative alerts and prognostics directly to the people who need it, we empower operators to make informed decisions, reduce costs and troubleshoot issues before they happen. With the FAST TM solution we take the words rapid response to a new level. It’s that easy. It’s that powerful. FAST™ Solution: Unparalleled dispatch availability and reduced operating costs. POWERFUL. EFFICIENT. VERSATILE. SOUND LIKE ANYBODY YOU KNOW? You demand continuous improvement in your business, so why not expect it from your business aircraft? Through intelligent design the new PC-12 NG climbs faster, cruises faster, and is even more quiet, comfortable and efficient than its predecessor. If your current aircraft isn’t giving you this kind of value, maybe it’s time for a Pilatus. Stan Kuliavas, Vice President of Sales | [email protected] | 1 844.538.2376 | www.levaero.com SKIES Magazine | March/April 2017 1 Levaero-Full-CSV6I6.indd 1 2016-09-29 1:12 PM March/April 2017 | Volume 7, Issue 2 IN THIS ISSUE 22 58 68 82 14 AIR CANADA 30 ASSESSING THE 58 TURBOPROP 82 IT’S THE SKIES REBRANDS APPROACH COMEBACK THAT BIND As it turns 80, the airline Nav Canada’s flight Simple economics have As Canada celebrates unveils a distinctive new inspection crews regularly revived the business case its 150 th anniversary this livery, stylish uniforms and test navigational aids at more for turboprop aircraft, with year, the nation’s aviation premium on-board products.
    [Show full text]
  • Convention News
    DAY 2 May 22, 2019 EBACE PUBLICATIONS Convention News The static display at EBACE 2019 features the Junkers F 13, which first flew almost 100 years ago. Contrasting with the vintage single are the most modern of business aircraft, with engines, aerodynamics, and avionics beyond the wildest dreams of early pilots. Aircraft Bombardier updates Challenger 350 › page 8 INTOSH c DAVID M DAVID Final Flights Aviation champion Niki Lauda dies › page 10 Electric, vertical technologies Turboprops Daher TBM 940 gets poised to shape bizav’s future EASA nod › page 17 by Amy Laboda Powerplants The focus of this year’s EBACE is aimed Khan took a solid look toward the future. In making commitments to focus on a way GE embarks on bizav squarely at the future, but not one that is far the 11 months since heading the association, to build business aviation, all the while on the horizon. Speakers at yesterday’s open- he’s seen just how quickly new technologies showing sustainability on a global level and engine journey › page 18 ing session talked about products already in such as electric propulsion, blockchain, sus- raising awareness of how business aviation the production and certification processes, tainable aviation biofuels, and alternative helps global commerce on a societal level. Finance available technologies that are being ported forms of aerial mobility are quickening the He highlighted the importance of getting into aviation, and problems that have nearly pace of innovation in business aviation. policy makers onboard, which was why Global Jet Capital sees arrived on the doorstep. “These are providing us with new avenues EBAA invited Grant Shapps MP, chair of the page 22 Fortunately, the tone was optimistic, and for driving business growth, but we still face UK All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) uptick › the mood of the speakers—from the wel- many hurdles,” Khan said.
    [Show full text]