EoW November 2011

Transat lant ic Cable

❈ Another open question is whether or not ight envelope protection makes air travel safer. Advocates argue that it might have prevented the November 2001 crash of an American Airlines jet – Airbus equipment, but predating the automatic system – in the New York City borough of Queens. Opponents of the system point to the near-crash of China Airlines Flight 006 in 1985, in which the pilot managed to recover after an uncontrolled descent of nearly 30,000 feet. Mr Palmer observed: “The problem with ight envelope protection is that pilots occasionally have to take unorthodox actions in desperate situations.” He also noted the possibility that a ight protection system would have prevented the runaway descent. A recipe for US recovery: x the highways, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, seaports, and transit and freight systems The elected heads of the states and cities of the US are as various as their jurisdictions, and nothing in the oath of o ce obliges them to take counsel with their opposite numbers around the country. Token collegiality is usually enough. Recently, however, a prominent mayor and two former governors – free of o cial duties after their terms in the state house – have made common cause and begun issuing what to some ears sound remarkably like proclamations. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and former governors Arnold Schwarzenegger, of California, and Ed Rendell, of Pennsylvania, have formed the Building America’s Future Educational Fund (BAF). The bipartisan coalition of state and local elected o cials has an ambitious mission: “bringing about a new era of US investment in infrastructure that enhances our nation’s prosperity and quality of life.” With US gross domestic product (GDP) languishing and job-creation rates well below what is needed for a ourishing economy, BAF asserts that recovery depends upon repair of the working parts of the national mechanism. In an 8 th August report the group noted that, in 2005, the World Economic Forum ranked the US number one worldwide in terms of economic competitiveness. Today, it is at number 15. BAF sees a clear connection between that regression and the fading health and sophistication of the nation’s infrastructure. (“Falling Apart and Falling Behind”may be read in full at www.bafuture.org/report) BAF poured on the troubling data. The US spends only about 1.7% of GDP on transportation infrastructure, compared with 4% in Canada and 9% in China. The Port of Shanghai moves more containers in a year than the seven largest American ports combined. Transportation in the US is still based largely on a highway system developed in the mid-1900s, while nations from France to Brazil to Korea are moving ahead with ambitious high-speed rail projects. The explicit warning from BAF is that, if this imbalance is not remedied promptly, the US is in imminent danger of The economy

Boeing vs Airbus

For a pair of long-time competitors, a pertinent question: Whose planes are preferred by the pilots who y them?

The rivalry between Boeing Co, of the US, and Europe’s Airbus presents a challenge to commentators. Boeing wins some (customers, contracts, court cases, appeals to the World Trade Organization), loses some. Airbus retreats and advances accordingly. The pitched battle of any two behemoths is important to the bystanders. It can also, after many decades, become tedious. Reviewing yet another episode in the saga – an Airbus bid to sell 260 planes to American Airlines (Fort Worth, Texas), which currently has an all-Boeing eet – Brian Palmer of the current a airs website Slate had a thought. Normally he would evaluate the potential deal in terms of what American Airlines stands to gain or lose as a corporation. But what about the pilots at the controls of the planes? Is there a di erence, for them, between Airbus and Boeing aircraft? Mr Palmer sought the answer from airline industry analyst and consultant Robert W Mann of R W Mann & Co Inc (Port Washington, New York). While the inquiry yielded no clear favourite overall, it did disclose that Airbus and Boeing have very di erent control systems and that most pilots strongly prefer one over the other. Here, abridged and lightly edited, are Mr Palmer’s ndings as presented in the site’s “Explainer” blog. (“Is It Purely About Money? Or Do the Pilots Care?”, 11 th July): ❈ Modern Airbus planes employ a “ y-by-wire” system. The pilot controls the plane by manipulating a joystick next to the main console, and a set of pedals. The movement of the joystick and pedals is translated into electrical signals, which switch on and o machines that move the plane’s aps, slats, ailerons and rudder ❈ Most Boeing jets do not have a joystick but a more traditional yoke. (The 777, introduced in 1994, is Boeing’s rst y-by-wire plane.) In yanking back on the yoke the pilot is actually pulling cables that move the plane’s control surfaces with the help of some hydraulic systems (Mr Palmer wrote: “In short, there is less electronic mediation between the pilot and the machinery in a Boeing aircraft. Some pilots think this gives them a better ‘feel’ in ying the plane, while others prefer the video game-like quality of the [Airbus] electronic interface.”) Airbus places more restrictions than Boeing on the exercise of pilot judgment. All aircraft must be own within certain limits. But Airbus planes are programmed to ignore the pilot’s instructions if the onboard computers think they know better. The pilot may not change the default settings of this “ ight envelope protection” by very much. The pilot of a Boeing jet has somewhat more freedom to push the envelope. (The term apparently originated in aviation circles around the time of World War II.) For the most part, the aps and rudder will obey the pilot’s commands, even if those commands could lead to mechanical failure. (Mr Palmer wrote: “It’s not easy to get to that point, though. A pilot would have to pull back with signi cant force to bring the plane into a potentially stall-inducing climb.”)

28

EuroWire – November 2011