Showing posts with label Boeing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boeing. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Some Gave All: The Crew of the B-17F, "The Casper Kid".

Some Gave All: The Crew of the B-17F, "The Casper Kid".:   

The Crew of the B-17F, "The Casper Kid".

 

This is a new memorial in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, dedicated to the crew of the "Casper Kid", a B-17F that went down in what would have been an incredibly remote lonely spot on February 25, 1943.



In recent years, there's been a dedicated effort in Central Wyoming to memorialize the crews who did in aviation accidents during the Second World War. This is the second such memorial I'm aware of (there may be more) which is dedicated to the crew of an airplane that was flying out of the Casper Air Base, which is now the Natrona County International Airport. Both accidents memorialized so far were winter accidents which resulted in the loss of an aircraft in remote country.

We don't tend to think of those lost in training accidents as war dead, but they were.  And there are a lot of them.

Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, September 21, 1942. First flight of the B-29

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, September 21, 1942. First flight of the B-29:  

Monday, September 21, 1942. First flight of the B-29

 YB-29s.

Today in World War II History—September 21, 1942: British and Indian troops launch assault into the Arakan Peninsula in Burma. First test flight of Boeing XB-29 Superfortress heavy bomber, Seattle, WA.

From Sarah Sundin's blog.

The B-29 was one of the great aircraft of the Second World War and was also, during the war, one that was downright dangerous to fly due to its frequent engine failures and fires.  It's loss rate early on in China, from which many were flown, was appalling.  Nonetheless, they were an advance that could be regarded as generational.

Forever associated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the plane became the world's first nuclear bomber, a status it retained for a while post-war.  By the Korean War, however, they were beginning to show their vulnerabilities in the new jet and rocket age. The B-36 resulted in them being reclassified as a medium bomber, an odd thought, and the B-29 was retired in 1960, and overall long run for a bomber of that period.  A late variant, the B-29D, which was reclassified as the B-50, continued on in limited use until 1963.  Ironically, a version copied by the Soviet Union from an example that landed on their territory during the war, the TU-4, remained in active service slightly longer and also saw service with the Red Chinese, meaning that for a time the airplane equipped both sides in the Cold War.

B-50.

The aircraft was not introduced into service until 1944 and its use was limited to the CBI and Pacific Theaters. Post-war, the British were briefly equipped with a limited number, a small number of which went on to serve with Australia.  An airliner version went on to become an early post-war transoceanic airliner, one of the ones that effectively put an end to flying boats.

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Lex Anteinternet: Wednesday November 24, 1971. The Flight of D. B. Cooper

Lex Anteinternet: Wednesday November 24, 1971. The Flight of D. B. ...

Wednesday November 24, 1971. The Flight of D. B. Cooper

On this day in 1971 a man wearing as suit and tie, typical travel attire for the era, checked into a short flight from Seattle to Tacoma, Washington, something only requiring thirty minutes of flying time.  Once the plane was airborne, he slipped a note to a stewardess seated nearby, who at first ignored it, thinking he was trying to pick her up. He then told her to read the note, which claimed he had a bomb in a briefcase.

At the time no search of carry ons was conducted, and the stewardess asked to see the bomb, which the man proceeded to show her. And then a several hours long ordeal unfolded in which the man, who had checked into the airplane as Dan Cooper, ordered that he receive $200,000, two reserve parachutes and two main parachutes, and that the plane take a route in which Mexico was the declared ultimate destination.  The money and the parachutes were provided in Tacoma, where Cooper also released most of the passengers and all of the stewardesses save for one.  Showing very advance knowledge of the aircraft, a Boeing 727, he instructed the pilots to fly it at 10,000 feet, keep the wheels down, and to set the flaps at a certain angle, all of which made sure that it was flying very slowly.

Once airborne, he parachuted into the night near Mount St. Helens during a severe thunderstorm, leaving via the 727's unique integral downloading back staircase.  The man, misnamed by the press as "D. B. Cooper", was not apprehended and most of the money has never been found.

This has, of course, been one of the most enduring air mysteries and crime mysteries of all time.  The serial numbers of the bills involved were microfilmed, but only a small number of them have ever been located, and those by campers on the Columbia River in 1980.  The bundles they found were, moreover, badly deteriorated but their bundling was not, with a small number of bills missing in a manner which raised questions as to how that could have occurred.  Given that the money did not resurface, the official speculation is that Cooper died parachuting into the forest, in a thunderstorm, at night.

There's plenty of reason to suspect that is the case.  He obviously was extremely familiar with the aircraft, its systems, and knew something about parachuting.  Nonetheless, he wasn't dressed for a hike through the wilderness and, dropping at night, he could not possibly have had anything but a remote idea as to where he'd be coming down. While some discount the chances of his death, night drops are always risky, let alone one in which a military parachute was used (which it was) and in which he was badly dressed for the endeavor.  The fact that the money never resurfaced strongly suggests he was killed in the attempt.

In spite of the massive effort to capture him, he was not located alive and no body was ever found. . .to date and, more oddly, nobody was ever reported as missing.  The knowledge that he displayed was quite distinct and therefore the number of suspects would seem rather limited, but nonetheless there's never been any solid leads.

The mystery remains an enduring one not only because Cooper wasn't captured, but also because there are so many clues regarding him, and yet he remains elusive.  Suffice it to day, if the event occurred today, which it would not as airline security has changed so much, Cooper would have been captured or found dead.

Cooper in fact left many clues as to his background, and therefore his identity. There was, of course, first of all his appearance.  He had "olive" skin and therefore a "Latin" appearance, something that gave him somewhat of a minority appearance for a Caucasian.  He was smoking heavily, although that could have been to steady his nerves, and therefore was a smoker at any rate, although at that point a little over 40% of all Americans smoked weekly, with that likely meaning that well over 50% of men did.

More tellingly, however, Cooper demonstrated a knowledge of parachutes, and expressed a request for military parachutes rather than sporting ones.  A comment from the air noted that he recognized the Air Force base at Tacoma.  And he had an extremely advanced knowledge of the features of the 727, knowing how slow it could go, knowing how to precisely set the flaps to slow it further, and knowing that it uniquely had a real loading under fuselage staircase that could be opened in flight.

Indeed, the 727 had seen military use in Vietnam due to its rear loading staircase for that very reason, with the Central Intelligence Agency using them for air drops of material.

These combined facts strongly suggest that Cooper had a military background of some sort, but they also, when combined with other factors, discount his having been a paratrooper, as is sometimes suggested.  

Cooper did not ask for the static line T-10 model of parachute in use then and now, but rather one that could be deployed manually, as would have been necessary for the drop.  That was a necessarily choice, but otherwise Cooper seemed to display an ignorance as to actual dropping.  He wanted the plane low, 10,000 feet, which makes sense, but military parachutes have a very violent deployment which meant that getting his stolen loot to the ground would have been difficult.  Beyond that, keeping his shoes on would have been difficult as well.

Landing safely would have been extremely difficult.  Deploying into the night, and in a severe thunderstorm, the odds would have been against him making it to the ground and landing uninjured.  Even if he did come down in the storm without injury, military parachutes of the era required, for good reason, the wearing of protective footgear, which his dress shoes were not in any fashion.  Moreover, his leaving in the night meant that he was risking coming down in trees experienced parachutists desperately seek to avoid as they are so strongly associated with death and injury to them.  

Finally, his clothing wasn't close to being suitable for a hike out of the forest.

Indeed, the entire concept of parachuting out of the plane, at night, seems to have been intentional, but it also seems to have been reckless in the extreme for a plot which was otherwise very well planned out.  Cooper's plan either seemed to discount the dangers and difficulties with making his departure from the plane to the ground safe, and his escape complete, or he just didn't care, trusting to luck at that point. And that also gives us an interesting hint as to his potential identity.

Combining all fo these up to this point, what this suggests is that Cooper had military experience involving parachutes and airplanes, but not that of being a paratrooper.  Being a pilot or a cargomaster seems the most likely candidates.

Analysis of  his tie, however, conducted years later suggests that he worked in heavy industry, and in some managerial capacity.  The aircraft manufacturing industry itself would seem to be a good candidate, as his clip on tie contained metals and substances that were used in that industry at the time, and which were unlikely to be picked up accidentally.

Combining all of these, it seems likely that Cooper was or had recently been an employee of an aircraft manufacturing company, perhaps Boeing the maker of the plane, and in that capacity he had become very familiar with the 727.  He likely had some prior military experience, or at least was aware of the military use of the plane.  He knew too much about the 727 for that knowledge to be casual, and if he had picked up any studied knowledge for the attempt, it would have been as to the use of the parachutes, and not the aircraft.  That knowledge would have been easier to obtain, and perhaps could have been obtained on the job.

Indeed, the oddity of it can't help but cause a person to have at least some question as to a possible connection with service in the CIA, and that has been suggested.

Of course, suggesting a CIA connection to things is commonly done with certain big events, with some reaching the absurd level. The claims, for instance, that the CIA was involved in the 9/11 attacks provides such an absurd example.  But here, there's at least some credibility to those claims.

The OSS of the 1940s and the CIA of the 50s and 60s was truly populated, in part, with characters who were "spooks".  And examples of servicemen and espionage characters going rouge are not too difficult to find.  Not really analogous, the example of Jonathan Pollard certainly comes to mind.  But beyond that, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine Corps veteran, turned defector, turned lone assassin.  Timothy McVey was a serviceman who turned against his own society. The recent January 6 Insurrection featured a serving Army intelligence officer.

While, once again, none of those ins analogous, it's not beyond the pale to think that a former member of the CIA went to work for Boeing and then used his knowledge to develop this scheme. Such a former member would have most likely been a pilot or crewmember of the 727 effort over Vietnam, with both positions being ones that would have been much less spy like than simply a rarefied form of government service.

Such a connection has been suggested as the reason the crime has never been solved, and while that sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory, it's at least partially credible as well. The CIA of the 60s and 70s did all sorts of things that it kept secret that are of an iffy nature, and the Government intelligence branches weren't above doing that, even coming up with bogus UFO reports to gaslight an individual.  If there was a CIA connection in 1970s, it's not at all impossible to imagine the CIA realizing a former member was involved and acting to cover the entire matter up.

That doesn't prove that by any means, however.

Other possibilities simply include a Boeing employee, or that of a contractor, who knew enough about the 727 and went to learn enough about parachuting to pull that part of it off.  It's also possible that it was done by a pilot form another airline who possibly had prior military experience or who simply studied up on parachutes before attempting the plot.  Indeed, this is quite plausible.  It's even possible that Cooper was a member of the one Air National Guard unit using a militarized version of the airplane at the time.

While we don't know, my guess is that he was a former or current Boeing employee who had some prior service connection, but not as a paratrooper.

If that's the case, then the question would be why he wasn't discovered.

It's simply possible that, in spite of the extremely long odds, he pulled it off.  It's hard to imagine a person walking to a forest road dressed in a suit and hitching a ride to town, but then it's also possible that the suit covered up a second set of clothes.  Maybe under that we was wearing a pair of Levis and a flannel shirt, although dress shirts are thin.  Still, it seems unlikely, but it's not impossible.  Perhaps he landed safely, hiked to a road, with or without most of the money, and made good his escape, returning to work after the holiday.  As careful as he was, chances are that he wouldn't have spent any of the money right away, or knew how to fence it without getting caught, which would not have been difficult at the time.

More likely, in my mind, he has already quit his job with Boeing, perhaps a year or more ago, and didn't have work to return to, which would explain a lot.

The careful part of the plan was getting the money and getting out of the airplane. Beyond that, very clearly, much was left to chance.  Perhaps to Cooper his chances in life had run out and therefore what happened beyond that point didn't really matter.  If he made good his escape, he had the money, if he didn't, he wasn't going to have to worry about it.

Any number of things come to mind.  Reported to be ni his mid 40s, he was smoking like a train which always raises the possibility that he had lung cancer or some other serious health issue.  If so, Cooper may have needed the money for something, and if the end came in the jump, that something wouldn't have mattered.

And then there's the myriad of things that seem looming at the time and prove not to be. Debts, legal and illegal, failed relationships, or whatever.

So why didn't they figure it out?

Assuming, of course, no CIA cover up, which we will assume, although as we noted, as wild as that sounds, it's not completely beyond the pale.

Assuming that, the ability to simply disappear in 1971 was much better than it is now.  Now, it's nearly impossible, but at the time, that wasn't the case.  DNA testing didn't exist at the time. Finger printing did of course, but not everyone had finger print data and even where it did exist, it often didn't lead to leads for a variety of reasons, including bad prints and bad police data.  Photo databases were in hard copy and microfilm form.  Most people operated mostly on a cash and check basis at the time with credit cards being rare and even somewhat disdained.  Millions of men  had been in the Army, fo course, but that meant millions of paper records that had to be accessed by hand.  Employment records operated the same way.  Social Security cards were easy to get, and like now, they didn't feature photographs. Driver licenses did, but pulling those records would also have required near knowledge that the one being sought was of the guilty person.

So searching for people was much more difficult.

And indeed, this explains the reason that a person's becoming a lifelong fugitive from that era is not all that uncommon. Just recently, for example,  to identify of a 1969 bank robber was revealed.  Theodore Conrad was a 20-year-old bank teller that year, just two years prior to the year we're considering, when he robbed his own employer of $215,000 in cash.  It turns out that he was Thomas Randele, having relocated from Ohio to Massachusetts, where he had subsequently lived a quiet life.  Interestingly, his posthumous identify was revealed due to ongoing FBI work on the robbery, which has supposedly ceased on the 1971 skyjacking. . .

Another example would be Abbie Hoffman, who is remembered for being a radical anti-war protestor but who was arrested for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, a charge he was was a set-up, in 1973.  He fled in 1974 and turned himself in, in 1980, at which time it was fairly clear nobody was really looking for him anymore.

Randele was young and employed when he scooped up a bunch of cash on his way off the door and became a lifelong fugitive.  Cooper appears to have been a middle-aged, highly intelligent, and experienced man when he went out the back of the 727.  If he was at that time an unemployed, for whatever reason, loner, living in an apartment or even a rented house, he could well have just disappeared forever, even if killed.  He may well have had no work to report back to, or maybe it was minor work, in which case he would have just been replaced as an employee for failing to show back up.  Or if he was medically retired, and living modestly but alone, even if he never showed back up it might well not have meant much.  

Of course, if he did show back up, people likely would never have taken notice.

So could he be found now?


That's an interesting question.

Randele was.  The FBI claims it closed Cooper's file, but Randele's was even older and unlike other recent cold cases, it didn't involve DNA.  Cooper left a ton of really interesting leads that still exist.  There's all that there originally was and now, more.  Moreover, the computerization of records has reached a state where it's reaching back into the past.

Given all of this, in my view, there's enough to take a second look, and some people have. For example, there's the work of Citizen Sleuths, which goes much further than what I've noted here:

With all of this in mind, there's one other thing to keep in mind.

The most likely outcome of this mystery isn't a happy one, even assuming that a happy conclusion can be made from what was, after all, a terrible terroristic crime.  Cooper, whatever his real name was, likely went crashing into a forest canopy unprepared and at fairly high speed, given the military parachutes in use, and was likely hung up in the trees or killed right on the spot.  If not, his chances ankle injury were outstanding.  

No body has ever been found, but this very year a body of a hunter was discovered in Wyoming that had been out an equivalent period of time.  People go missing into the forest even now and are never found.  Cooper's body likely was hanging in the trees for years and has since decayed and fallen to the ground, to be distributed by wild animals.  His loot was probably distributed by the impact, assuming that it didn't get blown off his body when the parachute opened.  Only bits and pieces of the chute likely exist today, and nobody looks up in trees for those, and they likely couldn't be seen anyhow.

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Green Aviation

Boeing announced that it's aircraft will be 100% capable of flying on biofuel by the end of the decade. For reasons that I don't grasp, biofuel would reduce aviation's carbon emissions.

This follows Airbus announcing some months ago that it intends to be 100% emission free by 2035, with hydrogen as the eyed fuel.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic. May 14, 2020

Lex Anteinternet: PandemicThe Wyoming Air National Guard will be doing a fly over of regional hospitals throughout the state on Friday to honor health care workers.  At the same time, some of the emergency centers set up for the Pandemic are standing down. They'll remain ready as a reserve, should the virus revive, but they are not going to be maintained on a standing basis.

Friday, October 4, 2019

Is it time to stop flying the old ones? The B-17 Nine-0-Nine Crashes


I've been in quite a few B-17s and ridden on one.  If you go back and look through the posts here you'll find photographs of them.

Two of those B-17s were the Nine 0 Nine and the Liberty Belle.

The Nine 0 Nine.

Both are now gone.*  The Nine O Nine crashed this week at a demonstration, killing ten people including some who had paid to ride in the old classic bomber.

I'm generally not inclined to tell people what to do with their own property. That's not something that squares with my own world view,  nor with what we might generally call "American Values", although increasingly there are plenty of Americans who are ready to tell other Americans exactly what they can and cannot do with all sorts of things.  And I'm not of the view that merely because something is old, it shouldn't be used.  I use plenty of old things myself, including driving on occasion an old truck that probably some feel shouldn't be driven due to its age.

Nine O Nine.

But few of us have something that's an historical treasure.  Once all of the flyable models of any one aircraft are done for, and the law of averages alone will bring that day upon us, more likely than not, there are none left and the history associated with them is gone as well.

B-17s weren't made to fly for 70 years.

Indeed, nothing made in the 30s or 40s that flew or rolled was.  Simply nothing was expected to last that long.

While most B-17s were made in the 1940s, during World War Two, the plane's first flight was in 1935.  In 1935 when the plane first flew flight itself was only 32 years in existence.  That's over 80 years ago now, and if we look back the other way, eighty years prior, people were not only not flying, they weren't driving either.

Trains didn't last for eighty years.  Wagons certainly didn't.  Automobiles, when they first came out, tended to be used up very quickly, in spite of their vast expense.  And airplanes cycled through generations incredibly quickly.

View from the now gone Liberty Belle.

The first "heavy" bombers came into existence during World War One, but just as with fighter aircraft, the bombers of mid war were already obsolete by the end of the war.  The first U.S. bombers to have the "B" designation (fighters had a "P" designation, for "pursuit") came into service in the 1920s and exited service nearly as quickly as they entered.  The fact that the U.S. Army Air Corps was up to the number "17" with the B-17 shows us how very quickly they cycled through the service.

The heavy aircraft that came into military service with the US largely made it through World War Two.  None the less, there's no doubt that aircraft like the B-17 and the B-18 were obsolescent by the time World War Two started, already primitive in comparison to aircraft like the B-24. They were kept in production not because they were first rate modern aircraft at that time, but because it was necessary.  Save for odd uses, as soon as the war was over, they were phased out of service. For that matter, the aircraft that made them obsolescent were already obsolescent themselves. In terms of heavy bombers, which were really something that only the United States and the United Kingdom fielded, the world had gone from the aircraft of the mid 1930s, to the those of the late 30s and early 40s, to the B-29, which made them all obsolete.  And the B-29 would only remain a first rate bomber until the late 1940s when jet powered bombers made their appearance. The B-36 had its first flight in 1946. The B-47 in 1947.  The B-52 in 1952.


The B-52 is still in Air Force use, and will be for the foreseeable future.  It will be, most likely, the first military aircraft to see 100 years of continual use.  But it was built in a completely different era.  Vastly more expensive than the B-17, which entered service less than 20 years prior to the B-52, it was designed to be flown by men who would have college educations and who were already use to a technical world. The B-17 was designed to be flown by farm boys who were used to tractors and made the Model A.

There's no earthly way that the designers and builders of the B-17 imagined them flying for 70 to 80 years.  Chances are, they didn't see them flying for more than ten.  During World War Two, those savvy to aircraft development didn't see a future for aircraft like the B-17 beyond the end of the war and, had they been quietly asked, would have already regarded it as obsolete.  It only had to offer its crew a chance of living through their tour.

And the fact that it did offer such a chance is why there remain any around today. They were rugged.

But they weren't built to fly forever.  And the flying ones will not.  The time has come to let them rest, while there are still any left that are capable of flight.

That is sad.  The fact that they still fly from town to town allows people to see them who would otherwise never get the chance.  But the end conclusion to continuing to allow them to fly seems evident.

_______________________________________________________________________________

To add to this sad tale, I've also been in an HE-111 that crashed later.  And I've viewed a P-51 which did.

Thursday, March 14, 2019

737 Max Grounded and Technology as "Too Complicated".

Yesterday I wrote about the 737 Max and the efforts to ground them globally in this post here:

Pushing Pause on the Boeing 737 Panic.


Two Boeing 737 Max's have crashed in the last month or so, the most recent in Ethiopia where it resulted in tragic loss of life.
After I wrote that, they were in fact grounded.

We still, of course, don't know what occurred.  There's anecdotal evidence, but only that, that there may be a problem with some of the automated features.  Or not.

It's important to acknowledge that we still don't know and there's a lot of things that could be occurring here, and one of them could be a couple of things that are being missed in the press or that people simply don't want to address.

I touched on one of those yesterday, politics.  Politics inform our views in all sorts of ways of course, and they can creep in here whether we mean for them to or not.  And by politics the politics of there being really only two companies on earth left that make large commercial aircraft, Boeing and Airbus.  The Europeans were quick to shut down the flights of the 737 Max to the extent that flights in the air had to turn around, which is flat out absurd.  A knowledgeable person later told me that a European aviation commenter claimed that part of the problem with the 737 Max is that Boeing is too close to the FAA, which is ironic in my view as I wonder if the hearts of the Europeans aren't a bit too close to Airbus.

Another issue was raised by President Donald Trump.

Now, I'm frankly doubt that our President has the knowledge necessary to comment on aviation.  I'm not a pilot (I don't even like to be a passenger on an airplane, something ironic for a person who obviously likes airplanes themselves), but I'm pretty sure I know more about airplanes than Donald Trump and I'm not qualified to really go too far in my statements.  But this is becoming a common view and I've heard versions of this comment before, from other people.

Are they too complicated to fly?  Well, a person can debate that.  The real debate, however, is not if they are too complicated, really, but too automated. And that's a different thing entirely.

Modern aircarft are by and large the safest they've ever been, and part of that is due to technology. Technological advances have made modern commercial aircraft far more safe than any aircraft in prior eras, it's a simple fact.  Risks that passengers accepted in prior eras routinely would never be accepted now. 

For example, the Fokker Tri Motor, which was a legendary early passenger airplane that's still widely regarded, was at first built with all wooden frame.  It was the snapping of the wooden wings of such a Fokker that resulted in the death of Knut Rockney and his fellow travelers in 1931.

Fokker F-10.  It had an all wooden frame.

Now, if you've flown, you've seen those wings flex. Would you feel safe in a wooden framed passenger plane?

I could go on and on about various older aircraft that were widely used that we'd be horrified to be in today, but the point is clear.  Airplanes are safer than ever, and technology is part of the reason for that.

But with that technology has come the inevitable computer override, to some degree of, pilot decisions.  A lot is now going on in all kids of aircraft due to computerization.  And computers fail or make errors.

The irony here is that the Airbus is more computer controlled than the 737 Max, I'm told.  Indeed, it flat out overrides pilot commands in some instances. The Boeing 737 Max was designed so that the pilot can control over the computer.  The Airbus is more like a modern AirTrain.  It feels free to basically tell the pilot, "no sir, I don't think so".

There could indeed be a problem with that, in all sorts of ways, at some point.  If there is, we should really pause as we're about to take that same path with automobiles.  Indeed, we already are.

And the drivers of cars are a lot less technologically adept as a rule than pilots are.  Indeed, as noted earlier American pilots are much more adept in every fashion than those of other nations, and perhaps that plays into this as well.

At any rate, no answers right now.  Hopefully no financial disaster for Boeing as well, which wouldn't serve the interest of the travelling public.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Pushing Pause on the Boeing 737 Panic.



Two Boeing 737 Max's have crashed in the last month or so, the most recent in Ethiopia where it resulted in tragic loss of life.

There's no denying that.

And that definitely needs to be looked into.

I'm not an air crash examiner by any means, and I don't really know enough to comment on this story. But then, neither do you, or any of those, outside learned air agencies perhaps.

So some things to keep in mind.

The 737 basic design goes back to 1967.  The 737 Max is simply the most updated, although certainly very updated, version of that old air frame.  People panicking over 737s should realize that just because its a 737, doesn't mean its a 737 Max.

And just because there's been two crash in close proximity in time doesn't mean there's anything actually wrong with the plane, actually.  Both airplanes that crashed were in foreign use and while the airlines that had them will no doubt maintain that their pilots are amongst the very best in the world, frankly if the pilot isn't an American pilot, they aren't.

Most nations, including nations that put in a lot of flight time, don't train anywhere near to the American standard.  American private pilots have knowledge that vastly exceeds the knowledge of many pilots that step into lesser commercial roles elsewhere, and American commercial pilots are not only second to none, there's no comparison everywhere.

Beyond that, the nature of reporting tends to dog pile on, but not evenly.  If the Russian airline Aeroflot was subject to the same standards nobody would ever get on a Russian airplane, but it isn't.  Aeroflot has had five times the number of deaths than any other airline in the world, with over 8,000 people losing their lives on their planes since they first started flying. And this in an airline that no doubt uses a lot of former military pilots who ought to know what they are doing.

Five times.

Finally, the number of manufacturers of aircraft have dwindled to an unstable few.  When commercial aviation got rolling the number of competing companies was vast.  Even at the start of the jet age that was still true.  Now, in the Western world we're down to Boeing and Airbus.

Airbus is a pan European aircraft manufacturer that competes neck and neck against Boeing, the sole American commercial aviation manufacturer.  Hurting Boeing, even accidentally, helps Airbus.  It's notable that European aviation agencies were very quick to ground Boeing.

Indeed, European bans were such that Boeing 737 Max's in the air had to re route and not land at European airports.  And that's just flat out dumb.   Safety would have required them to allow them to land at their destination, not re route.

Now, I'm not saying that European actions were calculated to hurt Boeing.  But I am cognizant that its always hard not to keep your home close to you in some fashion when problems break out.

Lawsuits and overreaction have driven the costs of private aircraft so high that only the wealthy can afford them and very few are made.  Overreaction could kill off American commercial manufacturing and certainly will hurt it.  A little prudential judgment may be in order.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Boeing 737 Max, Natrona County International Airport.

 This is the new Boeing 737 Max, Boeing's new narrow-body airliner which is the fourth generation of the venerable Boeing 737.  This example was at the Natrona County International Airport undergoing some testing at this famously windy airport featuring very long runways.