A380 lands in Jakarta: Instant Experts please SHUT UP!

Singapore Airlines A380-800 9V-SKC in Jakarta on a medical diversion
earlier today. (Photo from Detik.com)

Following on from First A380 landing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 4-May-2012, the airport operator appeared to quickly have jumped on the opportunity to allay public fears and criticism that the airport cannot handle the flying behemoth.

Within hours, poorly informed critics in Indonesia are beginning to mention that the airport's pavement surfaces should be checked to ensure the A380 have left no damage that can pose safety risks.

Airbus have long maintained that runways and taxiways that can handle the Boeing 747-400, should be able to handle the A380, and the only modifications required are at the apron (due to the size) and gate airbridges (to allow use of upper deck doors for boarding/deboarding).

So, what are the facts? Well, first, it would be good to grab some facts.

According to Indonesia's official Aeronautical Information Publication, all taxiways, runways, and aprons at Jakarta Soekarno-Hatta International Airport (CGK/WIII), are rated with the Pavement Classification Number (PCN) 120 R/D/W/T... Let's take the number and the first two letters, R and D (R = Rigid Pavement, D = Subclassification D = CBR 3).

A quick look at Airbus's Airplane Characteristics For Airport Planning document that is available (at http://www.airbus.com/support/maintenance-engineering/technical-data/aircraft-characteristics/). 120 R/D means that the A380 can use the airport (up to 10,000 movements a year), with weights of up to around 590 tons. The maximum design taxi weight for the aircraft is lower, at 571 tons.

Now, if someone wants to throw a fuss about the airport's pavement strength and aircraft operations, perhaps someone should raise concern about Boeing 777-300ER operations (Emirates operate the type DXB-CGK, and Garuda plans to have their 777-300ER delivered in 2nd Quarter 2013). Although it is a smaller aircraft than the A380, pavement load depends on the wheel arrangements of the aircraft. Now, 120 R/D means the 777-300ER is limited to 330 tons, which is lower than the maximum design taxi weight of 352.4 tons! (Data publicly available from Boeing).

Stop fussing! And attention-whoring-poorly-informed-instant-experts, please... SHUT UP!

First A380 landing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 4-May-2012

I was shocked to suddenly see this on my Twitter, Facebook, local forums, etc.

The A380 has landed in Jakarta 

Soekarno-Hatta International Airport (WIII/CGK)

9V-SKC in CGK

Quick calls and searches, found the story to be true.

9V-SKC was performing Singapore Airlines flight SQ232 from Sydney to Singapore when a passenger became ill, requiring a medical diversion. The aircraft landed at CGK at 0846UTC at runway 25R, and parked at taxiway WC1 between NP2 and NPW, where the passenger was evacuated. Aircraft then made a U-turn at NPW onto WC2 for NP2 and N6, where it departed runway 07L safely at 0930UTC to continue to Singapore (revised estimated arrival currently at 1130UTC).

This friend of mine was very happy to see the A380 in Jakarta
(photo by: Ignatius Suryadi)

Aircraft parked at WC1 instead of a parking stand so that it does not require pushing back to continue. However, A380 capable pushback trucks and towbar are available at the airport, to provide ground handling capability for diversions requiring a parking stand. In this occasion, a scissor lift truck (like the ones for catering) performed the passenger evacuation.

Use this chart to find where the aircraft landed, parked, and took off.
(Chart by: Gerry Soejatman)

Whilst the aircraft can be serviced at Jakarta and suitable parking spots exist for the A380, no regular A380 schedules has been made due to lack of boarding gate space capability at Terminal 2D and 2E (international terminals), and apart from the remote parking areas, only parking stand D11 (gate D1) is A380 capable  in terms of size.

Dreamers within the Indonesian aviation community have long awaited the arrival of the A380 in Indonesia. Many cite reasons as ridiculous as "airport runways cannot handle the A380" to "everyone should fly the A380 to Jakarta"... but I'm sure a lot are shocked to see the A380 finally land in Jakarta.

Unfortunately, the ill passenger had passed away. Ironically, he was an Indonesian who was likely to be flying SYD-SIN-CGK anyways. It's bittersweet congratulations to 9V-SKC as the first A380 to ever land in Indonesia. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts, it's not always a happy ending. To the wife of the ill passenger (who was travelling with him) and his family, my condolences.


Edit 1200UTC:
Pax heart attack reported over Bali, Jakarta was nearest suitable airport from Bali for the A380.

737MAX announcement: Has Boeing and Airbus run out of ideas?

Boeing has just announced the new design features of the upcoming 737MAX. While I wasn't expecting much, other than the focus being on the new engines and the challenges surrounding putting a larger fan on an aircraft with its short and stumpy landing gear, but I ended up shaking my head in disbelief of the disappointing kind.

New rendering of the 737Max (image from Boeing)

I was unimpressed when Airbus released the NEO, with it's so-called Sharklets. To me, it's nothing but a redesigned blended winglet like Aviation Partner's blended winglet for the 737NG. Yes, the new engine sounds good, but the sharklets? Seriously, I thought Airbus had run out of new ideas decided to copy Boeing... that is, until today's 737MAX announcement.

A320NEO... and we thought Airbus gave up and decided to copy Boeing!
(image from Airbus)

Look, the 737MAX is already overstretching the 60s 737 technology to new ridiculous bounds... but I mean really, it really does look like Boeing has run out of ideas. I mean, look at it: 

737MAX winglets: MD-11 winglets made curvier or
Airbus Wingtip fence bent into a curve?
(image by Boeing & Southwest)

The winglets, it's like an Airbus wingtip fence being hammered till its bent! And then:

Nose blister anyone? (image from Boeing)

Nose blister. Yes, I know it's for the extended nose gear to cater for the MAX's bigger engines, but can't Boeing really engineer a flushed nosegear housing? It looks like a mini A330-200F nosewheel blister on a mini-scale (which befits the smaller size of the 737).

Have both Boeing and Airbus really run out of ideas that they have to start copying each other?

No, I'm just kidding. The MAX's new wingtip is like the MD-11, only made curvier.

Going back to humour, while the A320 NEO is simply an A320 with 737NG winglets, the 737MAX can be basically summed up as a 737 body and wing with:

• MD-11 winglets
• Embraer 170/190 tailcone
• A310 fly-by-wire spoiler system
• A320NEO engine (in form of the CFM Leap-X)
• A330-200F nosewheel housing

Hardcore Airbus and Boeing fans are going to have a hard time throwing bricks at each other with the NEO and the MAX, as one can cynically accuse the other of copying due to lack of imagination. The reality is, both Airbus and Boeing do try to push for the best technologies that can be safely put on an aircraft.  But, the development of the MAX and NEO does prove one thing:

There is more than one way to skin a cat...

albeit there isn't much to pick from!

The marketing department of Boeing and Airbus can claim whatever they like when it comes to which one has the best performance. In reality, users know that both make damn competitive narrowbody aircraft, which shouldn't change with the NEO and MAX. Claim all they like, eventually, the certified performance numbers will be revealed in the FCOM2 for the NEO and FPPM for the MAX. If the 320 (with the newer CFM56-3B or IAE V2500-A5 engines) and 737NG certified flight performance numbers are to go by, the edge of one over the other can be as simple as who sneezed at the wrong time during the negotiation process.

As an MD-11 hater, I however, would instead say, "the MD-11 has come back to haunt the skies of the future, in the shape of the MAX's winglets!" Let's hope that the MAX with the MD-11esque winglets don't have the same performance shortfalls as the initial MD-11s...

The MD-11 winglets didn't prevent the performance shortfalls,
will the MAX winglet do better?

How cabin connectivity can reduce interference

I know the topic sounds rather outrageous, but just think of it for a minute.

Imagine yourself being inside an aircraft taxiing towards the runway when the captain comes on the P/A and says that someone has left his/her mobile phone on and that he is not able to use the weather radar because of the interference and asks everyone to make sure their phones are switched off. Not long after, the flight attendants patrol the cabin and found the guilty passenger, a stern argument occur between the flight attendant and the passenger until the passenger yielded.

Such a scene isn't exactly unusual since the early days when mobile phones became everyone's essential communications device, and with the second mobile revolution, the smart devices, passengers feel even more attached to their devices and their need to connect with the world.

Now while the Captain of the flight is probably making it up about not being able to use the weather radar, let's imagine another scene:

The crew of a company with a fleet of corporate jets noted unusual problems with its ADF receiver on approach several times. On one trip, one of the pilots determined that the ADF receiver was affected whenever the CEO powered up his Blackberry just prior to landing, to see if he had any emails about his meeting appointment and the arrangements made between his landing and the appointments.

Now, this second story isn't fiction. The crew couldn't do much to the CEO who signs their pay checks, but it got to a point when they were on an NDB approach to an airport in low overcast condition when the CEO switched on his Blackberry again, and the ADF receiver deflected immediately. The Captain, the company chief pilot, immediately executed a missed approach, climbed to 10,000ft, went to the cabin, and demanded that the Blackberry be surrendered, citing that had the First Officer not been watching the ADF when the Blackberry was switched on, the aircraft would have lined up with anything other than the runway. He didn't let the CEO have the Blackberry again until the engines were shutdown after landing, and refused to start the engines without the CEO's Blackberry in his hand for every single remaining flight of the trip.

We all know that the problem is not the mobile phone specifications, but phones that are out of specs. Consumer electronics are unlike aviation electronics as they are not tested individually to ensure they are not making haywire electromagnetic emissions which can interfere with other aircraft equipment.

In that business jet case, the CEO got a new Blackberry, and the old one was tested and found to have problems. When it couldn't latch on to a cell tower, it started its powerful search, which unfortunately for that phone and the crew on that day, the phone started to emit radio signals in frequencies it should not have, with quite some power.

The company ended up having to test all electronic devices used by the CEO and division presidents, and those that failed, were sent back to the manufacturer. This company seems to have had bad luck with 2 - 3% of the devices failing the tests, although the person that provided the story suspects the number would generally be lower.

It would be very expensive to get consumer devices to be certified for use on airplanes. We've seen that banning use of these devices is in many cases a losing battle. We've also seen many cases of interference during approaches that couldn't be repeated in the lab. I've heard of cases of airplanes being thrown off the ILS due to cellphone interference. But note the trend there... most if not all of this occur at low altitudes. At high altitude, I haven't heard of any disturbing cases, either because the interference there is not there, or doesn't affect aircraft equipment other than the crew hearing an annoying rapid pulses on their radios.

So, why am I saying that cabin connectivity can reduce interference?

There are two main points:

1. Inducing devices to emit at low energy

Most of the interference problems from cellular devices are caused by high powered transmissions in search for a tower, or the struggle for the device to latch on to a cell tower. Installing picocells in airplanes connected to the ground through Air-To-Ground datalink or SatCom datalink, can allow the phones to be connected to a cell "tower" at low energy, which reduces or even eliminates stray radio frequency transmissions from these devices.

So providing for connectivity, can already reduce stray RF interference from onboard cellular devices.

But this doesn't always solve interference at low levels on its own. When you give a cellular device a choice of two signal sources of equally strong cellular towers, which one would it choose? Once the airplane goes to lower levels, the risk of cellular devices from latching onto a cell tower on the ground increase... and the lower the airplane goes, the more dangerous interference becomes. At this point, we must rely on the next benefit.

2. Induce the willingness to switch off and wait

The willingness of people to switch off their devices when they're told to depends on the time they have to wait until they can switch it on again and connect. The shorter the wait, the more willing they are.

I, like many people, is addicted to being connected. I hate having to switch my devices off, but as a passenger, it is my duty to do so. But not all people are willing to switch it off. Many still push their lucks by remaining connected to the very last moment such as the aircraft commencing the take off roll, or switch the devices on while the aircraft is still rolling down the runway on landing.

Since airlines begin to allow devices to be switched on on airplane mode, I was happy to comply and switch it off as soon as I sat down and buckled up and then switch it back on in airplane mode as we passed 10,000ft... that was until I had 3G connection (yes, I'm hooked). So at times, I must admit, that I've joined the "push your luck" crowd (and been caught a few times!)

But I honestly believe, if I can switch my device back on and connect as soon as I've passed 10,000ft, I would no longer join the violators and the "push your luck" crowd". I've only enjoyed 1 flight with connectivity on board, and I was willing to switch my phone off as soon as we pushed back, because I know I can connect again in less than an hour.

The cause of Saudi Arabian's connectivity with OnAir has gone a different way. With many people forgetting to switch their phones off, they resorted to keeping the picocells active at all times even in the ground and when the aircraft is at low level. Not only does it reduce interference, it allowed them to remind passengers through a cell or sms broadcast that they forgot to switch their phones off (and advertise their service too of course).

So, let's get back to the two points:

1. Inducing devices to emit at low energy

2. Induce the willingness to switch off and wait

Both, need the aircraft to be connected.

Now back to the business jet story... At the end of the day, the company decided to install connectivity onboard its corporate jets. Although it is unclear whether it is WiFi only or include GPRS service, but one can safely guess that those two points work. Now, has anyone with connectivity onboard ended up with more interference problems during approaches? I guess not.

Sriwijaya's 1st 737-800 finally arrives as 2-class service launch nears

Sriwijaya's first 737-800 finally arrived in Jakarta in the early hours of Sunday 22nd April 2012. The aircraft was delivered from Cairo, Egypt, with Midwest Airlines as the previous operator. The delivery route was CAI-DXB, where the aircraft overnighted, then onto DXB-MLE-CGK.

MSN 28591 (ex SU-MWD) arrives in Jakarta CGK
to join Sriwijaya Air as PK-CLA

The aircraft  flew on 11 March 1999, and owned by GECAS. It has a colourful history, originally starting with Istanbul Airlines as TC-IAH, and transferred to Pegasus Airlines of Turkey a year later as TC-APY. During its stint at Pegasus the aircraft also saw service for Khalifa Airways under wet lease, and finally left Turkey on 30 May 2007 and joined Futura as EC-KFB until the latter folded on 9 September 2008. The aircraft saw service briefly with Axis Airways as F-GZZA from 30 March 2009 until 7 Dec 2009 when that airline too ceased operations. On 10 June 2010 the aircraft joined the troubled Midwest Airlines of Egypt as SU-MWD, before finally finding a new home with Sriwijaya Air, with a new registration PK-CLA.

SU-MWD/PK-CLA enjoying the first
day in Jakarta basking in the sun

The delivery flight have been delayed for a while, due to paperwork for flight clearances on both the Indonesian end and the Egyptian end. But all the wait is now over. The aircraft is due for a C-Check where it will also be painted in Sriwijaya Air's new colour scheme, and cabin to be configured with 8 Business Class and 168 Economy.

All of Sriwijaya Air's 737-800s will
operate in the new colour scheme

Sriwijaya Air's launch of the new 2-class service is now overdue to delivery delays of SU-MWD and the recent arrival of an ex United/Continental 737-500W currently undergoing cabin reconfiguration, repainting, and C-Check. The 2-class service launch has been revised to (15 May 2012. All 737-800s and 737-500Ws will be reconfigured with 8 Business seats and the rest of the cabin in economy. Several aircraft in service have already been configured ahead of the new service launch. According to the website CH-Aviation, Sriwijaya Air reportedly has also leased 2 737-800s from TUIfly in Germany but the delivery dates are not yet known as both aircraft earmarked for Sriwijaya are still flying with TUIfly.

Several Sriwijaya aircraft have already been fitted with 8 business
class seats prior to the 2-class service launch.

The Indonesian airline industry continues to grow but as capacity boosts are accelerating, we are seeing increased differentiation on the service front. The airlines realize they cannot continue to rely on competing similar schedules and prices as fuel price continue to rise. While Garuda have focused on the premium sectors and reactivating its low-cost arm Citilink, low fare giant Lion Air's past failed experiments have resulted in creation of its premium sector carrier, originally dubbed Space Jet and currently reported to be called Batik Air. Sriwijaya Air as so far enjoyed the "middle ground" between the premium carriers and the low fare / cost carriers, but it is a place it shares with Batavia Air. Batavia Air itself have launched widebody service to Saudi Arabia and select domestic destinations with mixed results, and have recently announced it will postpone the start of the service into Tokyo Haneda citing fuel prices as the reason.

Rather than rushing into its next strategy, Sriwijaya have over the past two years formulated a plan to continue dominating the middle ground. Now that the aircraft it needs for the expansion under the new strategy begins to arrive, it's going to be an interesting ride for this "traditional carrier."