michgyver

ass shot

just love to hear the rumbling sound of jet blast.

went to MIA just now after spotted a Falcon jet parked on the apron yesterday. This morning, after back from hill climbing at bukit beruang, the bird is still on the apron. Then I thought of taking some photo but abort the plan..nature call.. I decided to go the airport during lunch. Luckily, the falcon still waiting for me..haha and was about to fly off. Wings Air just arrived and with full load. small bird from Singapore Wings Air ATR flying back to Pekan Baru. Sky Aviation will arrive at 2.30pm from Tanjung Pinang. at last, the airport had bunkering facilities.. there are 2 tanker. [YOUTUBE] [/YOUTUBE]

every airport are the same. when i was in changi, there are lots of pax in terminal 1 between 7am to 9am but terminal 2 was empty. apart for those in uniform, i reckon there were no more than 50 pax. likewise when i was arrived in incheon at 6.20am, we are the only pax in the concourse area tho' 30 min after disembark.

RIP to the victims and speedy recovery for those who survived. credit to desertpunk and cosmin

Happy holiday. Looking forward your TR

By Steve Gutterman MOSCOW (Reuters) - A Russian passenger plane crashed and burst into flames after takeoff in an oil-producing region of Siberia on Monday, killing at least 31 of the 43 people on board, emergency officials said. Thirteen survivors were pulled from the wreckage and rushed to hospital by helicopter but one later died. Television footage showed the plane, which had broken in two, lying in a snowy field. Only the tail and rear part of the fuselage were visible. It was not immediately clear what caused the UTair airlines ATR 72 to crash with 39 passengers and four crew on board, the latest air disaster to blight Russia's safety record. "There are no explanations yet," Yuri Alekhin, head of the regional branch of the Emergencies Ministry, told Russian television from the scene of the crash. He said the "black box" flight recorder had been found and added: "Contact was lost with the plane just over three minutes after take-off." UTair said on its website that the twin-engine, turbo-prop plane had been trying to make an emergency landing when it came down 1.5 km (one mile) from the airport in the western Siberian city of Tyumen en route to Surgut, an oil town to the northeast. At least five of the survivors were in critical condition, RIA news agency quoted hospital officials as saying in Tyumen, some 1,720 km (1,070 miles) east of Moscow. RUSSIA'S POOR SAFETY RECORD UTair has three ATR-72 craft made by the French-Italian manufacturer ATR, according to the Russian airline's website www.utair.ru. ATR is an equal partnership between two major European aeronautics players, Alenia Aermacchi, a Finmeccanica company, and EADS. The crash was the deadliest air disaster in Russia since a Yak-42 plane slammed into a riverbank near the city of Yaroslavl after takeoff on September 7, 2011, killing 44 people and wiping out the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl ice hockey team. President Dmitry Medvedev called for a reduction in the number of Russian airlines and improvements in crew training after that crash, which followed a June crash that killed 47 people including a navigator who had been drinking. The International Air Transport Association said in December that global airline safety rates had improved in 2011 but that in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, which groups former Soviet republics, the rate had risen. Gunther Matschnigg, IATA senior vice-president for safety, said a key problem in Russia was that pilots and ground technicians were having to adapt to a growing number of a highly sophisticated aircraft. He said Russian aviation officials and political leaders had accepted that pilot training needed rapid improvement.

hope the stewardess uniform will be like the rendering...

Quote saw this on facebook.. airliner from India ?

heard got new airlines coming.

did you book? looking forward your tr if you do.

just do a dummy search for MH 380 to London. One way ticket is 1000+. Total fare MYR 10K+?

first special livery for A380, I guess what this top people at MH wants!

third mh 380

from the pic is from google search actually.

I will be there next week

Malaysia Airlines’s safety performance versus Air Asia’s safety performance 4 Votes Mohamadon Abdullah a.k.a. Dr. Don, one of MAS pioneer leaders has recently wrote his testimonial about Malaysia Airlines’ history and achievement in YB Wee Choo Keong’s blog. Here’s Dr. Don’s testimonial about Malaysia Airlines and what he doubts about Air Asia’s capability and the insult of appointing Mat Salleh’s consultant and Advisor who knows nothing about the history of Malaysia Airlines. Dr. Don’s testimonial:- MAS Corporate Safety and Security record has been excellent since 01 October 1972. Its Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) Programme has been internationally recognized since late 1980s. Asiana Airlines adopted MAS CRM. When MAS was established way back on 3rd April 1971, MAS litreally started from Ground Zero. However through the commitment of people like Tan Sri Saw Huat Lye, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman, Mr. Lee Shu Poh, Allahyarham Tuan Hj. Sidek Alwi, Dato’ Resham Singh and many others, developed the Airline to be a major Player in the Aviation Industry. All this was possible unfer the Chairmanship of Allahyarham Raja Tun Mohar Raja Badiozaman. Not many realized that MAS started its operations on 1st. October 1972, three months ahead of schedule. That was really Malaysia Bolih. Yes, this was history. Whilst I appreciate that we must look forward, but once in a while we must look back at the past. It is just like driving a car, once in a while in moving forward, we must look at the rear view mirror, just to be safe. The Five Objectives established by the Founding Fathers are now somewhere buried in the archives. But these Five Objectives were the driving force of the Pioneer Group and is still relevant. MAS is an Engine of economic growth for Malaysia. Not many people appreciate the contributions made by MAS to the people of Malaysia. As a simple example, MAS produced approximately 25,000 sticks of satay per day. To some, so what? But do you know where the satay sticks come from? It was not from Tokyo or London but from Ulu Yam, in Selangor. What about the development of Human Capital? MAS has over the years developed Malaysian expertise in Aviation Industry especially in the technical areas. What has Air Asia done in this area? If one tourist visit Malaysia and fly MAS, Can you imagine how much they contribute to the Country? Tourism Malaysia states that each Tourist spend at least RM 600 per day, can you imagine how much can 25 million tourists spend in a day in Malaysia (RM 600 x 25,000,000 per day). Who do you think will benefit from this tourist spend? Today, are we saying that Malaysia do not have expertise in the Aviation Industry? What about those people I mentioned.? Do we really need a foreigner to be an Advisor to MAS when we have our own people who have years of experience in the Aviation Industry? No point in gloriously giving accolades to someone, being a Member of the Board of Directors for the last ten years, to justify his appointment in MAS? Where was he when MAS went through Y2K, September 11, the introduction of Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) or for that matter where was he when MAS was formed? Did he really contribute to MAS Safety record or is he reaping the fruits of past labors? There are Malaysians who have contributed to the development of MAS. Ignoring these people, to me, it is an insult to us Malaysians, after 55 years on Independence. MAS provided its expertise in setting up of Jet Airways, supported Asiana Airlnes in their B777-200 introduction and Korean Air etc. Are we saying that Malaysians are incompetent, that we have to look for foreign expertise? Sad…..sad….sad. Is this is not a National Tragedy? Is this not a National Tragedy? Well said Dr. Don and let us look at Air Asia’s performance for the past decades; The chick below will show you whether Air Asia can performed safely or not. Hi, there, my name is Miss Air Asia and here below is the photographic evidentiary affidavit which will prove my Air Asia most recent record of safety performance where our low fares value has added the “refined experience” in aircraft skidding during landing that led to one of our AirBus aircraft crash-landed in Kuching International Airport. However, this fatal accident was totally covered up for our Air Asia’s bosses. So where is the safety guaranteed when flying with Air Asia? Honestly, we in Air Asia cannot guarantee your safety because we are operating a low cost airlines. Fair? Well! Our boss, Tony Fernandez said he knows Malaysians very well and if that we fared our prices a little lower, Malaysians are willing to risk their lives and the above is the exemplary of our guarantee service when flying with us, Air Asia. Here’s another performance by “Air Asia B O L E H” where it has been investigated by the Australian authority for another two more hazardous incidents occurred outside Malaysia which they cannot cover up for the reason the bribery concept isn’t availed for Tony Fernandez and his gangsters in that country. The Australian Transport Safety Verdict : The AirAsia jet, “descended to a height where there was no longer separation assurance from the ground and from planes operating outside controlled airspace.” - Australian Transport Safety Bureau. (Copied from airasiaannus.blogspot.com) For us laymen, that means AirAsia was precariously close to both the ground and to any civilian aircraft that may have strayed into its path. No longer was separation from the ground assured means – but for the grace of God, it could easily have crashed. If you’re hard pressed to imagine any of this, cast your mind back to the Charlton Heston movie classic ‘Airport 1975′. That’s what generally happens when commercial airliners come into contact with light aircraft in mid air. So what could be the root cause? Please memorize this “citing” by the International Investigators - Pilot training was cited as a major factor in the incidents. According to today’s The Australian, Investigators said the crew were “probably not adequately equipped to manage the approach in other than autopilot managed mode”. In essence, theses guys were on their P-Plates, flying you and your family. To be more accurate, they were in the middle of a lesson, with an obviously bungling ‘instructor’ that allowed this to happen. What International Reporter has to say about AirAsia’s Pilot training? Chan Sue Ling of Bloomberg reported thus : Some airlines aren’t waiting for qualified talent to walk in the door. Singapore Airlines and Air Asia, based near Kuala Lumpur, have each set up their own tuition-free training academies. Singapore Air’s flying school turns out about 150 cadet pilots a year, while AirAsia’s facility trains as many as 500 annually. People, 500 pilots annually versus 150 for respected carrier – Singapore Airlines. That is really Air Asia B o L e H…….you gotta be kidding! Quantity versus Quality by retarded leaderships……and retarded leaderships never passed! Agreed? Flying with Malaysia Airlines, your safety as passengers and flight crew are guaranteed 100% because it is an organized “Legacy Airlines” as compared to a Low Cost Airlines. But nowadays, can AJ and Danny Rash Dan guaranteed the safety for Malaysia Airlines under the ruling of Air Asia board of directors camouflaging as board of directors of Malaysia Airlines? Malaysia Airlines has lost its first class platinum customers since the collaboration between MAS and Air Asia took effect last year because of Air Asia’s past track record – bad paymaster and aircraft crashed landing for more than 5 times. Would you like to know who are the platinum customers that have left Malaysia Airlines for Singapore Airlines? It is the Sultan of Pahang and his entourages. So MAS has since lost a yearly RM2 million or more revenue. Sad…sad…sad…as quoted by Dr. Don, it is indeed a National Tragedy to have Air Asia KAMBING (coming) on board Malaysia Airlines. The airasiaannusblogspot.com wrote : Is this lax attitude toward safety/remuneration – not to mention their attitude to maintenance leading to airlines such as AirAsia and MAS becoming a very real risk to fly? Mr Ozman-Rani shows that AirAsia are deceptive spin doctors who will stop at nothing to wriggle out of acknowledging responsibility. Do you trust them? In time, these bent politicians and puppets like Fernandes will be brought to justice. In the meantime, they are gaining a stronger stranglehold of the Malaysia Airlines board of directors by the day; a previously upstanding, safe and professionally run airline will soon be in tatters if Malaysia doesn’t wake up. The evidence has clearly shown to us before our eyes that MAS/AirAsia Collaboration Agreement is only SAVING AIR ASIA. How to save Air Asia? The Collaboration Agreement is to improve the Air Asia group’s earnings. CLEAR! Well..Mr. Prime Minister, you gotta move faster before this burns your entire team. Whether people choose Barisan National again or not, it’s all depending on your decision made for Malaysia Airlines. Malaysia must wake up now and you, the Prime Minister must wake up and stop listening to your crooked mentor – Tun Dr. Mahathir. Some people said Anwar Ibrahim has two faces, well, we say Tun Dr. Mahathir has four faces. Plane Talking ATSB unable to understand why AirAsiaX pilots by throttlejockey » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:55 am Cikey..February 10, 2012 – 12:58 pm, by Ben Sandilands Students of sloppy standards and crashes caused by pilots who press on regardless should find the ATSB report into two examples of really poor flying at the Gold Coast airport by AirAsiaX in May 2010 a fascinating read. The good news is that after being caught out the Malaysia flag carrier changed its procedures and instructed its pilots as to follow the published Australian requirements for approaching this particular airport in bad weather, without descending too steeply, or disregarding safe mininum altitudes, which are there to stop them hitting the mountain ridges of the Gold Coast hinterland. Actually, the ATSB was a bit less blunt than the above, but this is a post about air safety breaches, written in plain english, and with a view to stopping practices that could scatter hundreds of dead across the landscape which the rules are there to keep jets from hitting. On 4 May 2010 an AirAsiaX Airbus A330-300 with 258 passengers, nine cabin crew and two pilots made three missed approaches to a Gold Coast airport the pilots couldn’t see through the cloud and rain, after which they landed the jet at nearby Brisbane airport. On 10 May 2010 a different AirAsiaX crew in the same A330 landed safety at the Gold Coast airport with 260 passengers and the same head crew for the cabin crew and pilots on board, after one non-compliant missed approach in similarly poor visibility. These were pilots that fly single aisle A320s and twin aisle A330s in the same roster period. The jets are very similar in flight operations, but not identical, and not all Airbus users with such mixed fleets accept the premise that their pilots should mix ‘n match their duty time on the two models. In its report the ATSB details all of the missed approaches in clinical detail. This is an extract from the 4 May missed approaches, with emphasis added to show that at times the flights were above the required altitude, below the required altitude, and in breach of the published approach procedures. When the aircraft was about 5 DME(9 km) from the Gold Coast Airport, and 2,500 ft above mean sea level (AMSL), the aircraft was above the recommended descent profile for that approach. With the selected flightpath angle (FPA) of -4.9°, the aircraft was descending at a rate of about 1,300 ft/min. The flight crew continued descent until the aircraft was about 1,000 ft at 1 DME (2 km). At that point, a landing was not possible and they initiated a missed approach. The crew was radar vectored at 2,500 ft for a second VOR approach to runway 32. Subsequently, the crew was cleared to make a pilot intercept of the final approach track and to conduct the approach. The crew used the autopilot in selected mode to fly the approach. At 11 DME (20 km) they commenced descent, selecting an FPA of ‑3°. At that point, the aircraft was below the recommended descent profile and was descending below the procedure’s segment minimum safe altitudes. Approaching 7 DME (13 km), the flight crew reduced the FPA to achieve level flight at 1,300 ft. At about the same time, the aerodrome controller advised the crew to check their altitude and that the radar lowest safe altitude in that area was 1,500 ft. The controller cleared the crew for further descent in accordance with the runway 32 VOR procedure. The aircraft remained below the segment minimum safe altitude until reaching 5 DME (9 km). Soon after, the controller provided the crew with surface wind information and cleared the aircraft to land. At about 4 DME (7 km) and 1,300 ft, the crew reselected an FPA of ‑3° to commence the final descent to 750 ft, which was the minimum descent altitude (MDA). The aircraft reached the MDA at 2 DME (4 km) but low cloud, rain and reduced visibility prevented the crew from landing and they commenced another missed approach. The flight crew then conducted a runway 14 VOR approach. Again, due to weather, they were unable to land the aircraft and conducted a missed approach and diverted to Brisbane, Qld. The aircraft landed at Brisbane at 0823. In its account of the 10 May missed approaches the ATSB says The flight crew conducted a Runway 32 VOR approach but were unable to land due to reduced visibility in low cloud and rain. Following a missed approach, the crew conducted another Runway 32 VOR and landed. For both approaches, the crew commenced descent from 2,500 ft at about 10 DME (19 km), which was below the recommended descent profile. During each of those approaches, when between 9 and 7 DME (17 and 13 km), the aircraft was below the procedure’s segment minimum safe altitude. Both approaches were conducted in selected mode, with the vertical navigation of the aircraft initially conducted in ‘open descent’. In open descent, engine power reduces to flight idle and the aircraft descends at the FPA required to maintain the selected airspeed. The aircraft reached 1,500 ft by about 8 DME (15 km), recording a maximum FPA of ‑5.6° and a rate of descent of about 1,500 ft/min. From 1,500 ft, the descent to the MDA was conducted using a selected FPA of ‑3°, in accordance with the published procedure. Later in its analysis of these incidents, the ATSB says of 4 May stuff up: The descent from 2,500 ft to 1,300 ft at the selected flight path angle (FPA) of -3° was continuous and was conducted without apparent regard for the published segment minimum safe altitudes. That resulted in the aircraft operating below the segment minimum safe altitude prior to the aircraft reaching the final approach fix at 5 DME (9 km), with the effect that separation from terrain and other aircraft operating in non-controlled airspace was no longer assured. It was not clear why the flight crew commenced descent prior to the aircraft intercepting the recommended profile for the approach. Being above the recommended flightpath on the first approach might have influenced the crew to descend earlier to avoid being similarly high during the second approach. Unfamiliarity with the conduct of non-precision approaches, and especially those that incorporated intermediate segment minimum safe altitudes, was another possibility. It also says of the 29 May instances: In both approaches on 29 May 2010, the crew initiated descent at about 10 DME (19 km) and before the aircraft had intercepted the recommended descent profile for the non‑precision approach. Those descents were conducted without apparent regard for the published segment minimum safe altitudes. As a result, separation from terrain and other aircraft operating in non-controlled airspace was no longer assured. It was not clear why the flight crew commenced descent prior to the aircraft intercepting the recommended profile for the approach and descended below the segment minimum safe altitudes. However, unfamiliarity with the conduct of VOR approaches that included intermediate segment minimum safe altitudes was again a possibility. One possibility that the ATSB doesn’t canvas is that the crew didn’t read the navigational notes or had no intention of paying any attention to them, preferring to press on regardless. AirAsiaX did respond fully to these incidents with comprehensive safety actions. Action taken by the aircraft operator In response to these occurrences, AirAsia X developed a simulator training session that specifically targeted the Gold Coast approaches and emphasised the preference for pilots to conduct managed approaches. All flight crews were required to complete this training prior to further operations into the Gold Coast. In addition, AirAsia X: Issued a ‘flight operations circular’ advising that open descent mode should not be used when performing an instrument approach. Issued revised Gold Coast approach charts. Implemented additional training and checking of crews operating to the Gold Coast. Implemented a policy recommending a maximum of two approaches before diverting to an alternate airport. Reduced the incidence of mixed-fleet flying such that pilots only fly either the A320 or the A330/A340 during a roster period. Implemented an instructor standardisation and enhancement program. During the press conference earlier this week at which AirAsiaX rival Scoot announced its plan to fly to the Gold Coast from June, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh confirmed that an ILS system to improve bad weather access to the airport would be installed there sometime this year.