(Skip to main content.)

Blogs Quoderat Land and Hold Short

Land and Hold Short

Archive for January, 2009

No more Microsoft Flight Simulator?

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

Rumour says that Microsoft layed off most or all of the Flight Simulator development team this morning (Gamasutra, Gizmodo). Microsoft (originally, Sublogic) flight simulator has been around for 29 years — I first tried it in ‘82 or ‘83.

If the stories are true, why not sell it, instead of shutting it down? Lots of other software companies would be thrilled to have such a popular and prestigious title, and it wouldn’t compete against anything else at Microsoft.

In any case, whether you’re an aluminum-and-15w50 pilot practicing approaches, or a gamer who does all your flying on a computer screen, there are still choices. Here are the two best candidates:

  • FlightGear — an Open Source flight simulator that runs on most computer platforms. The scenery is a bit rough around the edges, but it’s solid and usable.
  • X-Plane — a commercial product that already gets some retail distribution. It has a very devoted following, though I’ve never liked the demos I’ve tried as much as I’ve liked FlightGear and MSFS.

I’m looking forward to hearing more news. The huge MSFS developer community must be in shock (as well as the many small companies devoted entirely to producing MSFS add-ons).

Ditching a jetliner

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Reuters photo

While we don’t have all the details yet, it sounds like amazing work from a US Airways crew, ditching a jetliner (a 737?) into the Hudson River today (story) right after takeoff from La Guardia Airport. According to witnesses, the landing was smooth, the plane stayed upright and afloat, and all 148 passengers and crew were able to be evacuated off the wings to nearby boats.

That’s a non-trivial accomplishment at any time, but especially with an apparent engine failure right after takeoff — a very busy time on the flight deck — when the crew had no time to prepare mentally for the ditching. Expect “double engine failure immediately after takeoff over water” to be a popular simulator exercise for airline pilots for the next while.

Expanding Heathrow

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

The British Government has approved adding a third runway to Heathrow Airport (CBC News story). There has been huge opposition to this, mainly from environmentalists. I believe (a) that the environmentalists’ reasoning is completely misguided, and (b) that they’re right, anyway.

Saving the environment

Jet aviation accounts for a small but still significant portion of global CO2 emissions. Fewer jet hours in the air would mean fewer emissions, so it’s easy to see why the environmentalists think preventing a new runway will help the environment.

The problem is that they’ll probably have exactly the opposite effect. The number of flights into Heathrow is limited by gate space, not runway availability — when the runways become congested, jets spend more time in holding patterns waiting for their turn to land, or more time idling on taxiways waiting for their turn to take off, and that means more, not less pollution. Ideally, a third runway will allow the same number of passengers to fly to the same number of destinations with less wasted time and less pollution. Of course, the airport will probably end up being just as congested anyway, leading to the next point.

But saving Heathrow?

The real argument is simply this: don’t reinforce failure. A third runway just doesn’t make sense, economically or otherwise. Heathrow is close to the city of London, with some of the world’s most expensive real estate. Why buy up more of it for another runway? It’s also a horribly-run airport (remember when the new terminal opened?), and a nightmare to go through as a traveler (90 minute lines for customs after an overnight flight!!!), compared to properly-run European hubs like Amsterdam’s Schipol or Paris’s Charles de Gaulle.

The benefits for the U.K. from Heathrow aren’t as big as they seem. Sure, Heathrow has an enormous amount of passenger traffic, but much of that never even leaves airport security — people just use Heathrow to change planes between North America and Asia, etc. At best, they buy a meal at one of the food fairs and leave a … uh … deposit in the loo before replaning. If you’re actually flying to London, Heathrow’s great; if you’re just changing planes, why do you need to do it there? Or more accurately, why do all of the airlines need to do it there?

A better solution

Heathrow makes a lot of sense for people traveling to London. For changing planes, though, why not Gatwick, Luton, or Standsted? Or for that matter, why not Schipol, Frankfurt, or Charles de Gaulle?

The high-value traffic at Heathrow (for the UK public) is people actually traveling to London. So — and I’m surprised that I’m writing this — the most obvious solution is just to raise the fees for using the airport until the traffic starts to decline. People actually traveling to London might not mind an extra $50 on their ticket for getting so close, especially if the crowds are smaller and they can get through the airport more easily (and if they do mind, they can fly into Gatwick or Luton instead); people just changing planes will pick a cheaper connection point.

Unfortunately, not building a runway at Heathrow is not going to prevent people from flying — it’s just going to make their flying dirtier. However, if that’s combined with some smart usage pricing that moves passengers to other airports, the flying people do will be more efficient (fewer delays), and thus, a bit cleaner.

So there’s something here for everyone — bigger fees for the airport authority, better service for passengers, fewer delays (and thus, less air pollution) for the environmentalists, and more business for currently-underused airports elsewhere. What’s not to love? No need for that new runway, not this time.

A legal precedent for airspace

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

A few days ago, a woman went into labour and gave birth on a scheduled airline flight from Amsterdam to Boston [story]. At the time of the birth, the airliner was in Canadian airspace. The flight crew had considered diverting, but the doctors who were assisting (passengers called in to help) said there was no point, because the labour was happening so quickly. When the flight landed in Boston, U.S. immigration admitted the mother as a Ugandan citizen, but the baby as a Canadian citizen. Now the Government of Canada has agreed, and granted Baby Sasha Canadian citizenship [story].

Canadian soil

Anyone born on Canadian soil (other than a child of diplomats) is automatically a Canadian citizen, but what about someone born in Canadian airspace?

Here’s the problem: there are no customs requirements for entering Canadian or American airspace, when the final destination is not in that country — the pilot only has to be in contact with an air traffic control unit. Sometimes the controllers aren’t even from the same country: Canadian controllers in Toronto, for example, handle some U.S. airspace in Upper Michigan, while American controllers handle some Canadian airspace around Windsor, ON.

A new business opportunity?

That means that I could take off from the U.S. in a medevac-equipped Cessna Caravan with a woman about to give birth, get permission from American controllers to enter Canadian airspace, then circle over Windsor until the baby is born. Voilà! A new Canadian citizen!

To be honest, that sounds a little far-fetched as an immigration scam or as a grey-marked business model: it would be easier for the pregnant woman just to come into Canada as a tourist and give birth more comfortably on the ground. Besides, I’m hugely pro-immigration — I think Canada’s new immigrant communities are among its greatest strengths, and I welcome Baby Sasha as a fellow citizen.

Whose laws?

Still, it’s an interesting precedent that someone who was never vetted by immigration officials can still be considered to be “in Canada”. My concern is that it might lead to both Canada and the U.S. imposing new restrictions on foreign planes using their airspace.

In 10 years, will Canadian G.A. pilots still be able to take the shortcut across Maine to Nova Scotia, for example, just by making a quick radio call to Boston Center and getting a squawk code, or will we have to file paperwork five days in advance and wait for approval from Washington? Does that mean that Canadian law now applies to passengers while they’re in Canadian airspace (not just aviation regulations, but other laws)? Will Saudi laws about alcohol and women’s clothing apply to passengers in an airliner while it’s passing over Saudi Arabia?

Stay tuned.