AvTalk Episode 265: Scott Bateman’s Hercules

AVT 265 Transcript
EPISODE 265
[EPISODE]
[0:00:07] IP: Hello, and welcome to Episode 265 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik here, as always
with –
[0:00:16] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. no time for pleasantries today Ian. We've got a lot to cover. Not
a lot of time. Let's get to it.
[0:00:24] IP: Well, we've got a great show today. Jason and I are probably off on looking at the
show notes. Maybe we have two or three good rants in us, and we also have a fantastic
conversation with Scott Bateman, who is currently a pilot for a large UK airline, but that's not
what we're talking about with him. He has written a new book called, Hercules: First In, Last
Out, the story of an RAF legend. As a former Hercules captain, he knows a bit about the aircraft.
So, we're going to chat with him a little bit later in the show, and stick around for more
information on how you can win a copy of the book.
[0:00:59] JR: Hey, we don't have many giveaways. That's good. That’s nice.
[0:01:01] IP: No, we don’t. But we're going with a great book. I've read the book. It's fantastic.
So, we'll talk more about that later in the show. But we go back to Jason's backyard first to start
the show and talk about another not-so-good situation. This time at JFK where Swiss Flight 17
decided that it was going to abort its takeoff roll after the pilots noticed, not one, not two, not
three, but four other aircraft crossing their runway as they were on the takeoff roll. That’s not
good.
[0:01:37] JR: No. That's not good. The way JFK works in many configurations, well, two
configurations, really. You have two parallel runways, two to four. And in this configuration, they
were operating, I believe, on the fours. You had aircraft that were coming in that were landing
parallel to aircraft that were taking off on the adjacent runway. What happens when these
aircraft land, they make a left turn off the runway. I'm sorry, I think this was actually operating on
the fours. But they make a left off the runway and they stagger on different taxiways to cross the
© 2024 AvTalk 1
AVT 265 Transcript
act of departure runway. They'll often queue up and wait for kind of a break for departures and
then, air traffic controllers will clear a bunch of aircraft at the same time to cross the runway
while the departure – if there's a line of departure, departure will hold. Or if there's no aircraft
waiting to go, that's great. But that doesn't usually happen during rush hour JFK. There's always
an aircraft waiting to take off.
In this case, there was a miscommunication in the air traffic control cab where unfortunately, the
way it works is that once the aircraft arrive, and they move off the runway that they landed on,
they are transitioned from the tower to the ground frequency. Then, you have these four aircraft
that are being cleared to cross runway for left by the ground controller, and at the same time,
the tower controller cleared the Swiss aircraft to take off in obviously conflict with the other four
aircraft. Thankfully, in this case, the Swiss pilots were able to see what was happening in front of
them. Because we know oftentimes, we've seen in the past that that's not always the case, and
they were able to stop, get off the runway, turn around and take off again from an intersection to
not have to go back to the gate to refuel if they had to wait in line again.
But this is extremely, extremely concerning. There was a lot of back and forth after this on the
social medias about how it's more or less unique to the US where you'll have aircraft crossing
an active runway that are not on the tower frequency, they're on ground. So, you have pilots that
are operating their aircraft that just landed that are not on the same frequency as the aircraft
that are about to take off. They can't really hear what's going on with these other aircraft. In this
case, there was a lack of coordination or a breakdown of some sort in the FAA air traffic control
tower that cleared aircraft to take off at the same time that these aircraft are being cleared to
cross the runway.
Thankfully, the absolute last line of defense in this case, which is the pilots of that Swiss aircraft,
seeing conflicting traffic worked, and they stopped their aircraft safely and they were able to
take off again. But in an alternate reality, it was foggy or it was rainy, or they were distracted by
something else and they didn't see these other aircraft, or there's too many lights. A lot of
blinking things at JFK and this could have ended differently. This is not getting the same level of
attention that the American versus Delta incident also at JFK, also including the same exact
runway last year where we saw the FAA and the NTSB get involved and there was a lot of
attention. This one doesn't seem to be getting that attention. I haven't seen anything come out
© 2024 AvTalk 2
AVT 265 Transcript
from the FAA or the NTSB. But in my opinion, this incident is way worse because it was not
caught by air traffic control. It was caught by the pilots on the ground, which is the absolute last
line of defense.
[0:05:09] IP: Yes. I mean, thankfully, thankfully, thankfully, they caught it early. The top speed
that we recorded for the Swiss A330 was 37 knots. So, they just begun the takeoff roll when
they noticed what was happening. I'm looking at the playback, and I'll put a link to the playback,
but also a link to a photo of our tracking, because it's four aircraft crossing the runway at the
same time. It's like a race to get across the runway, as there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12
aircraft lined up ready to depart. I mean, it's fast-moving stuff, and you've got a Delta 767 and
three other aircraft crossing the runway at the exact same time. And Swiss says, “No, we're not
going to do this.” I mean, it's really, really incredible to me that there wasn't coordination there, I
mean to –
[0:06:01] JR: I mean, typically, there is coordination, because you have the ground controller
and the tower controller sitting next to each other, presumably. So, they're coordinating these
things. And in this case, there was a breakdown of some sort of coordination, which is not great.
My bigger concern is that air traffic controllers didn't catch it, that the pilot of this was flight had
to – one of the pilots had to catch this, which isn't always going to happen every time for all the
reasons we mentioned earlier. There's got to be something that can be done with this.
I know that this is standard operation at JFK. This is how it works. Unfortunately, the layout of
the aircraft it's not like somewhere like O'Hare where you have a run-around taxiway where they
don't have to cross an active runway to get to the gates here. Here, you do, and like you said,
Ian, there were four aircraft all crossing at the same time. That standard. That's how it works at
JFK. They got to get to the gate, somehow, they all stack up and then they go at the same time,
so you don't have constant disruption.
But men, something has got to change. I don't know what kind of computer automation. I don't
want to say AI or something that will prevent conflicting authorizations like this to have aircraft
clear to take off, but also clear to cross the active runway at the same time. It's not great. It
reminds me of like a railway signal system. You cannot have two trains cleared to go through
the same switch or diverge to the same track at the same time because the signals interlock.
© 2024 AvTalk 3
AVT 265 Transcript
Only one can be green at the same time. You can't have two trains doing the same thing at the
same time. But in aviation, it's much more – well, the air traffic controllers got it in his head or
her head and they're going to keep them separated in their mind. In this case, unfortunately, that
broke down pretty significantly.
[0:07:43] IP: Yes. The air traffic controllers, however, did catch a possible runway incursion,
incident between – actually, technically, it’s an incursion because they were across the stop bars
between JetBlue and Southwest at National Airport in Washington DC the next day. A JetBlue
flight was departing while a Southwest flight was taxiing out to the other runway, and the JetBlue
flight had begun its takeoff roll. Southwest was cleared to cross runway four, and was doing so
when it was told to stop and JetBlue was told to stop.
Again, fortunately, both aircraft were not moving at a high rate of speed. JetBlue only got up to
about 30 knots. Again, Southwest was taxiing below that so they were able to easily stop in
time. But another incident we're adding to the list.
[0:08:35] JR: Yes. And I think the JetBlue flight did go back to the gate for whatever reason.
Apparently, the runway JetBlue was taking off on isn't commonly used. That's runway four at
DCA is not commonly used for departures because it's pretty short. So, perhaps there was
some sort of confusion because it's not a typical operation at DCA. Maybe it tripped up one of
the controllers. But this is two fairly significant events. Was it the same day or back-to-back
days?
[0:09:02] IP: Back to back. One after the other.
[0:09:03] JR: Back-to-back days. So, it brings up the topic of conversation of are there more
runway incursions happening? Or are we more in tune to what's happening? And they're getting
more attention now than they would have in the past. I think the answer to that is it doesn't
matter, whether it's happening more now, or we're paying more attention to it now, because the
media is paying more attention to it now. I think the same answer is the result here that
something needs to be done, that we have room for improvement. There's clear room for
improvement here and whether or not that's just because incursions are happening at a higher
rate, or we're just hearing about it more. I don't think that's relevant. It's being exposed. It's
© 2024 AvTalk 4
AVT 265 Transcript
being made public and something needs to change because these events, at least in my eyes,
they are happening too frequently. I don't think it matters if it happened this frequently in 2019
versus 2024, any amount is too much and there's always room for improvement.
[0:09:59] IP: Yes. I think you're absolutely right. I think that aviation safety is iterative and
there's no reason to – I mean, because statistically speaking, things aren't necessarily
happening more often. They're, in this case, just more notable. So, I think to Jason's point, who
cares? Let's solve the problem.
[0:10:17] JR: Fix it.
[0:10:18] IP: Let's fix this.
[0:10:20] JR: Well, let’s say, you might not be able to fix it, but you might be able to reduce it,
and that should always be the goal.
[0:10:23] IP: Yes. You can improve. One of the ways that can possibly improve aviation safety is
giving air traffic controllers more rest and that's what a new rule is set to do. Announced the 19th
of April and scheduled to go in effect within 90 days. This new rule by the FAA will give air traffic
controllers a minimum of 12 hours rest prior to starting a midnight shift. So, that's any shift
where the bulk of the shift happens between 2:30 in the morning and 6:30 in the morning, local
time, interestingly.
[0:10:55] JR: Yes. And it's up to 10 hours now, up from a minimum of 8 for a normal shift.
Because if anyone's ever worked a regular job listening to this podcast, eight hours between
shifts is not a lot. You should be getting anywhere from seven to eight hours of sleep every day.
I don't see how you could possibly do that if you only have eight hours off between actual shifts.
So, this is an obvious improvement to help overcome fatigue. I don't know, maybe it will lead to
a few less runway incursions that could be good. But this will come at a cost and the input is
that cost.
[0:11:34] IP: So, one of the interesting things is that the Air Traffic Controllers Association,
NATCA, is worried that it might actually lead to more overtime and fatigue because the union
© 2024 AvTalk 5
AVT 265 Transcript
says that the FAA hasn't really given a rationale for why they're laying this out the way they are,
and they aren't aware of any studies about how they're actually going to plan for this rest based
on the number of controllers they have. Because the FAA is woefully understaffed as far as air
traffic controllers are concerned.
So, the controllers are worried that by giving these shifts more rest, they're going to create
coverage holes, which will lead to more overtime for other controllers and won't really solve the
fatigue problem, which is, I guess –
[0:12:14] JR: Not great.
[0:12:14] IP: – a well-founded concern and also not great. The FAA, for its part, says that its
goal is to hire 1,800 controllers this year, up from 1,500 last year. So, that will hopefully help. But
as we've talked with air traffic controllers, in the past, not necessarily on the show, but for the
show, one of the things that they point out too, is that training to be an air traffic controller takes
an incredible amount of time. And training to be an effective air traffic controller takes an even
longer amount of time. So, new hires is good, necessary, wonderful to see. But –
[0:12:53] JR: But you don't put new hires at JFK or LAX. It takes time to get to that point.
[0:12:58] IP: Right. And you have to have people that want to work there.
[0:13:01] JR: That's also true. Maybe this would have been better if it had some triggers,
saying, “Okay. The 10 to 12-hour shift rule will go into effect when we have 80% air traffic
controller staffing met, or something like that.” Putting into effect within 90 days, that's going to
hit right in the peak of summer. And if there are not enough air traffic controllers, and we know
there are not, this is going to have consequences. It is good that they're being given the time off
between shifts that they definitely need. Eight hours is not sufficient for anyone to be doing
anything of this caliber of work. But it doesn't really seem all that well thought out. I feel like
we're going to be talking about this come 90 days from the day it was announced.
[0:13:44] IP: Yes. We’ll see what happens this summer.
© 2024 AvTalk 6
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:13:46] JR: Coming soon this summer.
[0:13:48] IP: Let's shift gears and talk about money or the lack thereof, in this case. As we're in
earnings season, and Boeing reported its first quarter earnings and their profits or lack thereof.
They lost $355 million in the first quarter. But Jason, but, that's an improvement year over a
year, when they lost even more money in the first quarter of last year, where they lost 425
million.
[0:14:22] JR: Wow.
[0:14:22] IP: Boeing says that it generated $16.6 billion in revenue during the first three months
of this year. But that figure is down 8% from last year. So, David Calhoun, talking about the
earnings said that the first quarter results are indicative of the 737 rate slowdown, taking more
time to ensure that the aircraft is actually assembled fully before it is shipped off to customers,
and also indicative of how much compensation that Boeing has paid to a variety of customers
for the 737-9 grounding.
So, not a great first quarter for Boeing. Not a ton of orders. Only 125 commercial aircraft orders
during the first quarter. That included the 85 Max 10s for American Airlines, which are still yet
uncertified. Also, mystery customers for the 777X including Ethiopian Airlines and a customer to
be named eventually.
[0:15:35] JR: The [inaudible 0:15:35] order.
[0:15:35] IP: Exactly. Far too new for [inaudible 0:15:38]. Sticking with Boeing, Boeing is set to
provide $425 million to spare air systems and advanced payments as it tries to keep them
afloat. They announced that yesterday that the money from Boeing will address Spirit’s higher
levels of inventory, because Boeing is finishing fewer 737s and give it some cash to keep on
moving through. Spirit is set to be acquired by Boeing. Eventually, the negotiations are ongoing,
and really what's holding this all up is the fact that Spirit also does work for Airbus, and they
have to figure out how to sell that off as best they can before Boeing can retake Spirit.
© 2024 AvTalk 7
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:16:24] JR: Yes. Whatever short-term gains there were for spinning off Spirit. They are
certainly coming back to bite Boeing in the behind and then some. I love for someone to run
those numbers. Maybe we should get Gavin back on the podcast one of these days to see what
did Boeing gain all those years ago for spinning off Spirit versus what they're losing now? What
was the final outcome of that?
[0:16:45] IP: All right.
[0:16:46] JR: Those are numbers above my and your head, I think.
[0:16:48] IP: Yes, absolutely. There's also the fact that late last night, Jon Ostrower at The Air
Current reported that Boeing has retaken delivery custody, I think was the phrase that Jon used.
[0:17:00] JR: An undelivery.
[0:17:02] IP: Undelivery. A dedelivery of the 737 Max 9 that suffered the door plug blowout for
Alaska Airlines. So, Alaska Airlines no longer owns that aircraft, apparently.
[0:17:15] JR: Interesting. Yes, they clarified that we don't want this on our hands anymore,
because it's taking our mechanics time to go keep it airworthy, and keep it up to date and all
that. So, make it Boeing's problem. Our mechanics can do things like keeping our planes that
actually work and our possible evidence in a criminal prosecution on the ground. Because
apparently, we've talked about this before, it is not an easy task to keep an aircraft on the
ground and airworthy because they want to be flying. So, make it Boeing's problem. I think that's
a great idea.
[0:17:49] IP: And while we're talking about Alaska, Alaska lost $132 million in the first quarter,
and the airline says that's all down to the fact that it had to park a bunch of its 737 Max 9s. So,
without that they would have made a profit. But they didn't.
[0:18:05] JR: I think the same goes for United. I don't have the numbers in front of me. But
there is a material impact to its earnings as well, because of the damn 7 Max 9 grounding.
© 2024 AvTalk 8
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:18:16] IP: Yes. We can just go back to last week's episode when we talked about that one.
So, airlines definitely impacted by the grounding.
Let's go over to Europe and talk about the fact that some pilots are set for a 35,000-pound pay
raise. But the union says we think there's more money here. easyJet pilots are set to vote on a
pay increase, or they're going to get the offer that they'll then have to vote on, that will hike
captain's salaries. So, longtime captains. If you've been captain, basically, the longest, up to
200,000 pounds. This is a 35,000-pound pay raise. First officers would see their pay rise from
93,000 to 112,000 pounds. This will go into effect next year. Those are senior first officers and
then other first officers would see their pay rise from 62,000 to 75,000 pounds. BALPA, The
British Airline Pilots’ Association leaders recommend that rank and file accept it, however, it
seems like that will be rejected because they see that the airline can offer more. The airline is
doing this to keep their pilots from jumping ship.
[0:19:36] JR: Interesting. Okay. I guess there's still a pilot shortage over in the UK?
[0:19:43] IP: There certainly is.
[0:19:44] JR: Okay.
[0:19:44] IP: So, this is definitely a move to keep their pilots from going to BA, from going to
Virgin, where they could make, ostensibly make more money. Although, now they wouldn't.
They're going to make quite a bit more except for longtime VA captains, which is, I mean, it's
pretty incredible to me. To the links that a lot of these airlines are going to, to keep their pilots.
So, it'll be interesting to see if they accept the offer or if it's rejected. And if it's rejected, what
easyJet comes back with, because I can only imagine that things could get rather acrimonious if
this goes on too long.
[0:20:26] JR: Go get that money. If there's money on the table to be had, go get it.
[0:20:29] IP: There you go. Speaking of money on the table, the Department of Transportation
issued new rules for getting your money back if your airplane gets stuck under a table. I think I
took that transition too far. But Jason, what's going on?
© 2024 AvTalk 9
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:20:44] JR: One step too far. So, depending on who you are, and who you ask, and where
you are on the political spectrum, this is either the best thing to come out of the DOT in a long
time or the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of humankind. So, consumer
protection in the US is kind of not a thing. We don't we don't really do that here.
[0:21:04] IP: That seems a wide berth.
[0:21:05] JR: It is a wide berth, but that's, when there's a thousand retweets, you're going to get
some spicy take.
[0:21:11] IP: Never read the comments, Jason.
[0:21:12] JR: Never read the replies, but I read some of the replies and they're a little unhinged,
a couple of them. But consumer protection is not our thing in the US. So, anytime consumer
protection is enacted, people react weirdly, like I don't know what the deal is. But basically, what
the DOT proposed here, not proposed. The proposal happened in like 2016. This is a long time
in the coming and what we finally got today was the final rule. If a flight in the US is delayed, a
domestic flight is delayed more than three hours, you are now due a refund of your fare. Not a
voucher, not a coupon. A cash refund to your form of payment. So, back to your credit, debit, or I
guess, presumably cash if you paid a walkup fare in cash.
An international flight would be over six hours. So, if your international flight is delayed over six
hours, you are eligible for a refund. In some cases here, there will be automatic refunds. So, you
won't have to wade through an airline's website or call and wait on hold for 17 hours to get
someone who just hangs up on you. The refund process will be a lot smoother. But there's also
the potential for some unwanted refunds. The word automatic here plays a lot into when exactly
this refund happens, in the case that either a passenger declines alternate transportation, or the
airline apparently decides there is no other way to get you from A to B. Apparently, the refund
process can automatically be triggered. I think that's going to prove problematic rather quickly.
It's probably going to be an edge case. But there are cases where Allegiant operates, let's say,
one fight a week to an airport that there are no other fights to. If that cancels and they say, “Well,
© 2024 AvTalk 10
AVT 265 Transcript
sorry. There's no other way we can get you there. There's no alternatives. So, we're canceling
your flight and we're refunding your money.” That doesn't get you home if you’re in Cancun and
you're looking to get back to, I don’t know, Scranton, Pennsylvania, and there's no other fight.
Getting a refund doesn't really help you. You're still in Cancun and there are worse places to be.
But I can foresee some problems. But the spirit of this is good, that it will make it easier, and
better to get refunds for flights that are significantly delayed or canceled. It does not go
anywhere near as far as the EU does, with the EU 261 compensation. This is not a fine. It's not
a penalty. You don't get rewarded for an airline being late. This is simply a refund on your full
flight or your whatever portion of your itinerary you have not yet used. Which, honestly, why
wasn't that always the case? Who wants a non-transferable 90-day expiring credit to Spirit if
your flight’s canceled? That's not helpful.
[0:23:56] IP: There's got to be somebody out there.
[0:23:58] JR: Not me. Basically, this is just airlines must provide you with a cash refund instead
of a voucher. Unless you want a voucher, by all means, you can take one. The airline would be
thrilled.
[0:24:06] IP: The other aspect of this is vouchers might be worth a lot more now.
[0:24:11] JR: Well, yes. If there's a delay or cancellation, the airline – and this is already the
case for some airlines. They have the power to do this. They'll say if you move off this flight,
we'll give you like 75 bucks. But if you want it in credit, we'll give you like 500, because they're
playing with house money. It doesn't matter at that point. In a lot of cases, it makes sense to
take the credit. Because if it doesn't expire for like a full year, and it's triple quadruple the value,
I'm going to take the credit if I know I'm going to fly that airline again as long as it doesn't have
strings attached like Spirit where you got to use it in 90 days because that's just rude.
[0:24:44] IP: All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we're going to chat with Scott
Bateman about his new book that is due out soon. Hercules: First In, Last Out, the story of an
RAF legend. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
[BREAK]
© 2024 AvTalk 11
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:25:03] IP: Welcome back. We are now joined by Scott Bateman, who is currently a
commercial pilot for a large UK-based airline, flying the Airbus. We've got him on today to not
talk about that, which is highly unusual for us, because we don't talk all that much about non-
commercial aviation. But Scott has a new book out called Hercules. It's about, you guessed it,
the Hercules. He's also a former RAF Hercules captain and he's put together a collection of
incredible stories about the aircraft and the people who fly it. Scott, thank you so much for
joining us to talk about Hercules today.
[0:25:46] SB: Ian, thanks for having me on. Really appreciate it. Glad I can share it with
everyone.
[0:25:50] IP: So, the book is not out yet. It's out 23rd May in the UK, and the 23rd August in the
US. Though, Scott, you mentioned by Quirk, you can preorder it in the UK for very low prices
right now on Amazon, and basically have it shipped anywhere in the world. So, if you want the
book as soon as you can have it, it seems that's the way to go.
[0:26:09] SB: Yes, it's bizarre, isn't it? That Quirk of Amazon pricing at the moment is that it's
50% off in the UK for the hardback, which makes it 10 pounds, 10 of our British pounds.
Somebody yesterday told me on X that it was cheaper to buy it in the UK and have it shipped to
New Zealand than to buy in New Zealand for release in August, which seems ridiculous.
[0:26:32] IP: There you go.
[0:26:31] SB: But it is what it is.
[0:26:32] IP: So, I've had a chance to read an advanced copy, which I'm very grateful for it
because it's a fascinating, fascinating book. It takes us through not only your career in the RAF
with the airplane, and we'll get to that in a minute. But it takes us through kind of the history of
the aircraft itself. There were so many things in here that I didn't know about the aircraft itself,
and I didn't know about what the aircraft and its crews have done. So, that's kind of where I
want to start the conversation is let's talk about how the book came about and how you were
© 2024 AvTalk 12
AVT 265 Transcript
able to put some of these things in here. Because for my understanding, some of this stuff has
never been written about before, at least in outside of government reports.
[0:27:17] SB: I'll say that a lot of the stories have never been told outside of government reports
and perhaps some media speculation. The book started when we realized that the RAF
Hercules was going to go out service. That we’re going to retire the Hercules from RAF service
and replace it with the Airbus, the 400M. Very sad occasion, and a huge legacy, 47 Squadron, in
particular, which is the focus of a lot of the stories in the book, has an amazing operational
record from 1960s onward.
All of those stories, really, as the squadron was disbanding, as the aircraft went out of service,
we thought they're going to be lost. These stories are just going to wither on the vine, people are
going to die. But perhaps, some of these guys who were running the sixties. So now, is the time
to capture it. As the aircraft's going out of service and in this 70th year of continuous production
of the airplane, it's a record-breaking year of 70 years of continuous production. Let's bring the
book out and let's tell some of the stories that have never been taught before.
[0:28:24] IP: I've heard from people when they're dealing with previously classified information,
and dealing with, trying to get things published, that it's often a long slog. Did you find that there
was a lot of resistance, or were people really keen to kind of help tell the story of the aircraft?
[0:28:44] SB: I think the individuals, the crews. There's always a reluctance to tell stories
because nobody thinks they've been heroic. It's the day job. So, trying to pull some of the
stories out of the crews was easy. Some of them not so easy. And the challenge that we do
have is a lot of this was classified. At the time, and some of it is still classified. So, we've had to
adapt some of the stories, remove some of the names, change some of the names and
locations, not to lose the feel of the story, but to just protect some of the individuals that are still
there.
The book had to be cleared by the Ministry of Defense, because we're talking about operations
that some in 1960s, which actually are still classified today, particularly some around the
Falklands in the eighties. Then, as we come closer to some of the last operations in Khartoum,
which the book ends with, those individuals are still serving. We've got to protect their anonymity
© 2024 AvTalk 13
AVT 265 Transcript
in a way that is appropriate. So, it has been a toll. It's taken months for the Ministry of Defense
to clear it. But we've ended up with this amazing book of stories, compendium of about 24, 25
stories, which really, I don't think I've ever been told outside RAF bars, and people pulling up a
sandbag.
[0:30:05] IP: I will say that RAF bars are a major theme in the book. A lot of the book comes
back to conversations that happen in RAF bars after something quite harrowing has occurred.
So, the story of an army marching on its stomach, I think the army also drinking has a lot to do
with this. But there were a couple other themes that I wanted to pull out. One of the things that
I've found fascinating throughout the book was kind of the discovery by necessity of the
capability of the aircraft, where crews were learning what the Hercules could do, not because it
had been designed to do that. Then, it was written down somewhere in the checklist said,
“Okay, we can do this.” It was, “Here's the job that we have to do. Now, we need to figure out
how to make sure that the airplane can do it.” I was fascinated by that throughout the book.
[0:30:57] SB: Yes. I think there are two real standouts, for me in terms of that one would be,
obviously, the Falklands campaign where, by necessity, it's a long way from the UK to the
Falklands. They had to literally, on the back of a cigarette packet, design and install an air-to-air
refueling system for the plane to allow them to be airborne refuel to get down to the Falklands
and back to drop stores to the ships. There are a couple of stories about that, in particular, in the
book. Then, the more famous one, is obviously the raid on Entebbe where the Israeli Defense
Forces used Hercules to rescue the hostages on the airfield in Entebbe. First time they'd used
night vision goggles.
In fact, the first time that some of the pilots had even seen night vision goggles was when they
pushed off on this amazing aviation raid flown in a formation of Hercules down to Entebbe,
rescued all of the hostages, without any hostage deaths, actually during the raid, and there was
only one IDF soldier who sadly died during that. Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother, actually, died
during the raid.
So, those having to innovate by necessity to meet a tactical need, or tactical operational needs.
It has been a theme, as you say, throughout the entire book, and the crews have been amazing
at innovating, and bringing solutions that actually, the airplane when it was built. I don't think
© 2024 AvTalk 14
AVT 265 Transcript
anyone envisaged what it would be doing in, never mind the 1980s, but what it was doing just
before it left RAF service in 2023.
[0:32:39] IP: Yes. I mean, that's the fascinating – I mean, there's so many fancy things in here,
but just the ability of the aircraft to kind of just have things bolted onto it. I mean, you mentioned
air refueling. We're going to put a link to a photo in the show notes of, actually, Victor 200, which
is one of the first Hercules from the RAF to be fitted with air-to-air refueling. When you look at it,
it's literally just a probe with a pipe bolted to the outside of the aircraft.
[0:33:05] SB: Yes. And the pipe went back directly into the wing tank, basically. And it had a
little valve that the flight engineer worked to make it work. The really bizarre thing about the air-
to-air refueling probe on the early Hercules was that it sat almost directly above the co-pilot’s
head.
So actually, when the captain was flying the aircraft and trying to put the probe into the drogue,
for the air-to-air refueling, it couldn't actually look at it. There was that kind of parallax, where
they had to focus on the airplane ahead and listen to what the co-pilot was seeing in terms of
left and right, and forward and back. You couldn't actually look at it. Because if you looked at it,
you would tend to lean away and miss the basket just because of the parallax. It wasn't ideal
when they designed it. But it did the job and it lasted a very, very long time.
[0:33:57] IP: The other thing about the air-to-air refueling story was how they had to do it at first,
with the descending refueling. Can you explain that to me?
[0:34:08] SB: Oh, so tobogganing, it was called. It's a simple challenge of aerodynamics. So,
the Victor tanker, the Handley Page Victor, which was a V bomber started out as a bomber
aircraft, nuclear bomber, was converted to be a tanker aircraft. Now, if you can imagine nuclear
bomber, V-shaped wing, it was quite a slick airplane. This airplane didn't go very slow when it
was flying.
So, the slowest speed of the Victor was actually greater than the cruising speed of the Hercules.
You've now got a problem. You've got a tanker that goes quicker even at its slowest speed than
the receiver. What you had to do was you had to plug in the receiver in a dive, so that,
© 2024 AvTalk 15
AVT 265 Transcript
essentially, the tanker is diving with its speed breakout to keep it going slower and the hack is
diving to gather speed plugged in. You'd start this out, I think, up in the region of about 25,000
feet, and you'd hope that you got all the fuel on board by the time you get down to, well, in some
cases, as you've read in the book, not a lot.
[0:35:20] IP: Not a lot. Yes.
[0:35:21] SB: Yes. So, they'd still be tanking sometimes very low, particularly over the water,
before they get enough fuel to be able to allow them to unplug and climb back up. This was a
one-shot deal really. The tanker, you had to stay plugged in to get all of that fuel in one shot.
One toboggan, as they call that. It was a bit of a hairy thing. Never done it myself. It sounds
utterly bizarre.
[0:35:50] IP: The other thing that kind of comes throughout the book is that the aircraft, I mean,
we see the crews kind of inventing ways to get around technical challenges. But the aircraft kind
of morphs out of – and this is something that kind of comes across, I think, in the stories from
the crews who flew the aircraft, where they're being asked to do things, and the government's
saying, “Oh, no, no. That's fine. You'll be fine. It's not combat. Totally fine. You don't need
additional protections for combat aircraft.” They’re going, “No, we're being asked to fly into a war
zone here. It would be nice to have a bit more here.” The role of the aircraft really changed, as
the capabilities become evident that this aircraft can actually do a lot more than we thought it
could.
[0:36:41] SB: Yes. I think that becomes really evident in some of the stories around the Gulf
War, in particular, where we bought this airplane as a transport airplane. It was effectively going
to be a removals van. This was there to remove, move stuff around the battlefield, or to remove
it between theaters. That was all we were ever going to use this for. Then, in the sixties and
seventies, it became really apparent that, as you see, that this had a role in supporting specialist
trips, particularly, initial capabilities.
So, as those roles grew, this airplane went from one that was operating behind the lines, i.e.
behind the line of your own troops to one that was actually spearheading, and going ahead and
inserting specialist troops behind enemy lines, supporting them behind enemy lines, and really
© 2024 AvTalk 16
AVT 265 Transcript
pushing a long way forward with its fast jet counterparts. Hence, the subtitle of the book is, First
In, Last Out. We saw that in Afghanistan in particular. The first aircraft into Afghanistan was a
Hercules post 9/11, and actually, the last one to leave, The Royal Air Force was also a Hercules.
That's been fairly consistent throughout the Hercules’ life, particularly in the Royal Air Force,
supporting those niche trips, as we'll call them.
[0:38:09] IP: So, you served on the Hercules in three roles, if I'm remembering correctly, and
what were those?
[0:38:17] IP: I started off my career as a loadmaster back in 1990. I wasn't quite good enough
then to be a pilot and the Air Force were right. I wasn't really mature enough. I don't think back
then. And then in 1997, I went from being Sergeant Aircrew, to commissioning and becoming a
pilot and coming back to the squadron I just left, which was 47 Squadron. I served there as a
co-pilot and a captain.
[0:38:41] IP: What about the aircraft to you is special and important as someone who's spent a
lot of time in the back end, and in the front?
[0:38:51] SB: It's forgiving. This is an amazing airplane. It has a straight wing. It flies really well.
It goes slow. It lifts a lot. It stops really quick. You can land it in someone's back garden on the
grass if you really wanted to. It's an airplane and I describe it all the time as it's the Swiss Army
knife of airplanes. If you've got a job you need doing, the Herc can probably do it. Everything
from as we've said, aeromedical evacuations, famine relief, firefighting, even drops the biggest
conventional weapon in the world, the MOAB.
So, it can do it a lot of damage, as well as saving lives. It's an amazing airplane. And for me, it
was my first command other than light aircraft, so holds a special place in my heart because of
that. But also, I spent a lot of time in it. Going across the world, doing some amazing things with
amazing people. People who today are still friends. It's not just about the machine. It's also
about the people who fly the machine.
[0:39:56] IP: One of the things that struck me about the book is the closeness of the squadron
over time. And the book does a good job of kind of containing some narratives. So, you don't
© 2024 AvTalk 17
AVT 265 Transcript
get, I guess, the full picture of how these people interact over time. But I was really impressed
by how tight that squadron remains over such a long period of time. That really shines through
in some of the more tragic stories that you tell. I was really moved by that, and first of all, how
few there have been, which is truly impressive. But how when those things do happen, there's a
real sense of community.
[0:40:38] SB: We sometimes describe work as our work family. Don't we as colleagues? Work
is our work family. I think when you're exposed to extremes, with people from your work family,
you're going to war with them, you're living in the pocket for months on end, you form a bond
that I don't think you would get in any workplace, other than the norm that we worked in. Those
bonds stick together for a very long time. People who I joined within 1990, I'm still in contact
almost on a daily basis with, and I don't think if you joined a corporate environment in 1990, you
would still have as many of those friendships as we all do.
I think what happens is when people within that environment, sadly, are lost. and as you see, we
had two very specific tragedies, one due to enemy action. One that was shot down in Iraq, and
one that was a training accident in Scotland. Now, when those things happen, they hit the family
pretty hard. Still today, those incidents, in particular, still hit the squadron family, and obviously,
the bereaved families pretty hard.
[0:41:50] IP: Your treatment of the subject is engrossing, because you do focus a lot on the
aviation aspect of it. I think that's a really important component of it. But the people really shine
through and the strength of the people really shine through and I appreciated that.
The book collates, I mean, 60-some-odd years of history, into great collection of stories, and
absolutely pick up a copy and read all the way through it. But Scott, from what I hear, there are
more stories to come. So, we're looking forward to that and whatever you do next. We've been
chatting with Scott Bateman, who is currently a pilot for a UK-based airline, a former RAF
Hercules captain, and the book is called Hercules: First in, Last Out, the story of an RAF legend,
available the 23rd of May in the UK for preorder now, for shipping worldwide for cheap,
apparently on Amazon. It's available everywhere else in the US and other places the 23rd of
August of this year. Scott, thank you so much for joining us.
© 2024 AvTalk 18
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:42:55] SB: Ian, thanks for having me on. I look forward to coming back and telling you a little
bit about the next project. I think that one will be cracking and your listeners will love that one
even more.
[0:43:03] IP: Absolutely. Looking forward to having you back soon.
[BREAK]
[0:43:12] IP: Welcome back. I am thoroughly excited about Scott's book, so much so that we're
going to give away a copy. If you don't want to rush out and buy one on your own. If you do want
to be entered to win a copy of Scott's book, email us at podcast@fr24.com with your name,
where you want us to send you the book, and say, “Hey, I want to win the book.” We'll do a
random drawing of all the entries and we'll send you a copy of Scott's book, Hercules.
It's really, really good. I hope you got that out of the conversation with Scott. But definitely check
that out. If you say, “Hey, I don't want to win a copy, I want to buy one as soon as possible.”
Then go ahead and do that as well. Or enter the contest to get another copy and then you can
give it to a friend.
[0:44:04] JR: We love a good giveaway. We should do that more often.
[0:44:07] IP: We should do that more often. All right. Good idea. You know what’s not a great
idea, Jason?
[0:44:13] JR: Shining really, really bright halogen lights in a really concentrated part of one
A321 or three 787s to the point where the windows melt.
[0:44:20] IP: That –
[0:44:22] JR: I kind of gave the whole night away.
[0:44:22] IP: – not a good idea. So, the UK AAIB report –
© 2024 AvTalk 19
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:44:28] JR: Which I didn't know we were getting. I thought we were done with this story.
[0:44:30] IP: No. That was just a preliminary report. This is a final report and it includes. Lots of
pictures. And you'll learn a lot about lighting and film and all sorts of good fun stuff. It's not just
an aviation safety report, but it is in fact an aviation safety report. And I want to absolutely
mention the fact that the final report was flagged to us by a podcast listener. So, thank you for
that, sending over the link and letting us know that that report had come out.
We all know what happened. Very, very powerful halogen lamps placed too close to the aircraft,
melted the sealant around the windows and some of the acrylic deformed the windows, and that
LED to excess cabin noise. The engineer that was on board this flight leaving London said,
“Hey, it's really loud in here.” Went to look at it, saw that the window wasn't where it was
supposed to be. They turn the aircraft around and landed safely. Then, when they investigated
things, they said, “Oh, none of this looks the way it's supposed to.” Because they had shown
very, very powerful halogen lamps, and it had distorted the acrylic and the foam sealant around
the windows. Nothing was ever coming directly into the cabin because the inner windowpane
was not affected. But it wouldn't have been good flying across the Atlantic for many, many hours
on that.
The final report by the AAIB also lists one A321 and four 787s that had been impacted by this
previously, which is something that we knew it had been – there had been previous impacts to
aircraft, but we didn't know it was that many and we didn't know that the 787 was so outsized in
the sample size. Boeing sent out a fleet team digest article in 2020, citing three of the events
where damage was caused because of these lights, and Airbus following this event, sent out a
message to operators as well. None of these others required accident investigation reports
because they all happen on the ground and were noticed before the aircraft flew again. So, they
were just repaired and put back into flight.
[0:46:38] JR: Yes. I love that one of the recommendations from the AAIB is like, “Hey, maybe
use LED lights next time. They're not so hot and melt your airplane.”
© 2024 AvTalk 20
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:46:48] IP: Yes. I mean, it's actually really interesting, like how they discuss how the lights
work and their intensity and their effects at various ranges. I mean, if you want to geek out on
this a lot, we talk about thermal conductivity, there are charts and graphs and spectral analyses.
It's all good and fun stuff.
[0:47:06] JR: It’s pretty great. I ran this by my friend from NYC Aviation, Ben Granucci. This is
like the complete intersection of his interests.
[0:47:14] IP: This is a diagram of his interests.
[0:47:16] JR: Relating and aviation. He said, “Yes, LEDs are just starting to get to the point
where they're an option for something like this.” I didn't know that you couldn't use LED lights for
lighting an aircraft and simulating, I think, it was a sunrise or a sunset like this. I had assumed
literally everything was LED at this point, was the de facto standard, but apparently not. But this
particular lighting company or production company learned the hard way why they may want to
look at it a little harder next time.
[0:47:43] IP: Yes. We'll put a link in the show notes to that report. Worth reading if you like
airplanes, if you like lights, and if you like airplanes with lights. Also, the pictures are pretty
astonishing what happens to a window.
[0:47:58] JR: Some pretty melty windows. It’s great.
[0:48:00] IP: You can definitely melt some acrylic. We also have a preliminary report from the
Chilean investigators on LATAM Flight 800, which was flying between Australia and New
Zealand and then on its way back to Chile, where we now have confirmation of what happened,
which is whoever was standing behind the captain's seat, pressed the move seat button. It
moved to the captain and the captain seat into the control column. Control column was pressed
down and the aircraft descended 400 feet.
[0:48:38] JR: Case closed.
© 2024 AvTalk 21
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:48:40] IP: Yes. There's some interesting photography of what that switch looks like and why
it looks maybe not the way it's supposed to on this particular aircraft. But not too much new
information. I did get to brush up on my Spanish. FYI, the report is in Spanish, so you'll either
need to know Spanish or know how to use Google Translate. But we'll put a link in the show
notes there. Jason, update me on your electric beaver.
[0:49:09] JR: Ah, it's not my electric Beaver, unfortunately. It's Harbour Air’s electric Beaver out
in Vancouver. They have announced that they will convert 50, I believe, if they're to have one
Canada DHC-2 Beaver aircraft to all electric which is pretty fascinating. They have had the e-
plane 1.0 prototype as it's been called, operating for a number of years now. I think even before
COVID. Interestingly, it's only logged 78 flights since then. Now, it's been in, and I quote, “For
some architecture updates”, which I guess is what you do with a prototype. You evolve it and
you go from 1.0 to 2.0. But apparently, they have liked it enough that they are converting all of
their DHC-2 Beavers to electric and they will also make their plans, their conversion available to
other operators, which I think is really cool.
[0:50:02] IP: Cool. That’s great. I hope to fly in one soon.
[0:50:05] JR: I hope to, too. Every time I go to Vancouver, I'm upset that I don't see this aircraft
somewhere. I would very much like to go on a flight operated by this electric Beaver just
because it's fun to say electric Beaver.
[0:50:18] IP: It's a great turn of phrase. Let's stay north of the border from us. Last week, we
talked about a heist in Toronto. Now, what happened in Montreal?
[0:50:29] JR: Well, Montreal is where you might find the International Civil Aviation
Organization. Apparently, I don't know if this is months or years ago, a couple of employees of
the organization decided they wanted to sell some illegal contraband because it was their
sanctions in place and they wanted to sell things like drones to Syria, using I think UN operated
flights. Basically, they were operating or wanted to, I don't know if they ever actually overtly took
that step to operate this ring. But under the guise of the organization and the UN, they were
going to smuggle in contraband to Syria.
© 2024 AvTalk 22
AVT 265 Transcript
Apparently, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not take kindly to that. A couple of guys
here, actually one of them has been arrested. The other there is a warrant out for his arrest,
who knows where he is now. But something going on in Canada. This is two weeks in a row
where we're getting aviation industry professionals here arrested due to either smuggling goods
or stealing all of the gold. It's very interesting up in Canada right now.
[0:51:39] IP: So, this happened a few years ago. Jason, I'm going to give a small correction to
what Jason said. It was Libya, not Syria.
[0:51:46] JR: Ah, thank you. Thank you. The press release they put out did not specify. You
have to go elsewhere to find out the juicy details.
[0:51:51] IP: So, these were two former employees of ICAO working in Montreal, and they were
trying to buy Chinese drones and other military equipment and get them to Libya. I mean, an
incredible concoction of ideas. Again, Jason mentioned it's unclear whether or not they actually
did any of this, but they were trying to do bad things. So, ICAO says it's cooperating with the
investigation. Hopefully, we'll learn more next week after some court appearances, and
hopefully they catch the other guy so we can know more.
[0:52:26] JR: Yes. RCMP has got their hands full with aviation shenanigans these days.
[0:52:30] IP: Busy Mounties. Busy, busy Mounties. Let's go in the opposite direction now and
talk about Oakland International Airport or soon-to-be San Francisco Bay, Oakland International
Airport?
[0:52:43] JR: I'm all for it. I’m absolutely for this. So, apparently Oakland International Airport
wants to rename to San Francisco Bay, Oakland International Airport. But the other airport
across that Bay, SFO, San Francisco Airport says, “No, you can't do that. That's our name.
We're going to sue you to stop you from changing your name.” I don't like this. Oakland as a –
Cranky Flier, Brett Snyder has a good write-up on this. We’ll link a very good article or blog post
that Oakland airport literally sits on what we believe is the landfill in San Francisco Bay. There
are some airlines that only fly to Oakland and don't fly to SFO. And for many passengers, it's
actually more convenient to fly to Oakland to get to San Francisco now that it's connected with
© 2024 AvTalk 23
AVT 265 Transcript
that little cable car thingy to BART. You can actually get to San Francisco quicker from Oakland
than you can from SFO.
I don't know why SFO thinks they have the exclusive rights to use the word San Francisco. But
it's interesting. If you go to Google Flights and type in San Francisco, you only get SFO. But if
you type Oakland, SFO comes up as well. I think that's a little lopsided. It's something Oakland I
think rightfully wants to address. But SFO thinks that will cause undue confusion and
passengers are too stupid to realize the difference, and maybe they're right, with a few. There
are some not very smart passengers. But honestly, I think they're biting off more than they can
chew here. I say let him do it. You don't own the word San Francisco Bay.
[0:54:24] IP: I think it's funny that they're arguing that the name change is illegal.
[0:54:28] JR: It's gross. There is a trademark though, so that there is legal basis because San
Francisco International is a trademarked name. So, they're saying they're infringing, Oakland is
infringing on the San Francisco International Airport name that they can't also say, San
Francisco in the name of Oakland’s airport, because it will cause confusion. And honestly, I don't
think passengers care if they end up in Oakland. They'll say, “Okay, I'll get on the same train that
I would otherwise”, presumably.
[0:54:56] IP: I guess the question is, do people think that when they book flights to Chicago and
they go to Chicago midway or they go to Chicago, or do you think like that? I don't think people
get very confused. Because the airports have different names.
[0:55:11] JR: Yes.
[0:55:10] IP: And they have different codes.
[0:55:14] JR: They do. But again, sometimes passengers book a flight at JFK and accidentally
go to LaGuardia. It happens. But be more careful, I guess, when you're booking flights.
[0:55:23] IP: I don't think it's going to move the needle all that much. Okay. Hey, this is a follow-
up to something that we talked about on the podcast, oh, many moons ago at this point. But
© 2024 AvTalk 24
AVT 265 Transcript
Norse is expanding its route network, and this time they're going in the very, very opposite
direction from anything that we've looked at so far. But they hinted at this in the past. They're
now flying to Cape Town.
[0:55:49] JR: All right. The airline that is definitely not Norwegian is doing something that
Norwegian definitely did not do by flying London to Cape Town starting October 28. This is
London Gatwick, by the way, not Heathrow. It's a very interesting move. I wouldn't have
expected this to happen, but apparently, they can do an out-and-back turn without leaving the
aircraft in Cape Town for 12 hours or whatever, like a lot of our other airlines do, and they're
doing it in the winter when tourism might be a little lower and they have the aircraft utilization
time to do it. I just personally find it interesting that Norse is doing something that its
predecessor did not do and there's no precedent for it here. It's too bad you can't connect to it
from the US because the flight times you'd end up waiting in London for like 12 hours. That's not
something I think most passengers would do. But that is an interesting move from Norse.
[0:56:43] IP: Yes. I think it'll be one that serves passengers well, I mean, given the price on BA,
the price on Virgin, and then the price on Norse being very different.
[0:56:53] JR: Yes. But Norse has probably been to Cape Town. I know they've been to Cape
Town before because they stopped over there on their way to Antarctica.
[0:57:01] IP: Maybe that's why they're doing it. They flew down there, they enjoyed it so much,
they were like, “Oh, we should do this on a regular basis.”
[0:57:06] JR: We should come back. We should come back. We should do this every day.
[0:57:12] IP: There you go. Speaking of 787s, if Norse wanted to pick one up, this might be the
place to do it, though. I think there are other designs for this particular aircraft. 787-9, MSN
37109 was built in late 2014, delivered on the second of May 2015, from Paine Field to Basel in
Switzerland, and has sat there from the second of May until the 20th of April 2024 when it was
ferried to Kemble in the UK.
© 2024 AvTalk 25
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:57:49] JR: What's wrong with it? Is it defective? Did Boeing screw it up? Did the operator go
insolvent? What happened?
[0:57:55] IP: This was Saudi Arabian operator, CAL Air. So, this was, let's see, this was the first
787 and they delivered it directly to Basel which is a well-known VVIP outfitter. You've got your
Mideast royalty planes go here to get their interiors. Anyone with more money than they know
what to do with sends their planes here to be outfitted, and it just sat for nearly a decade. Then
they said, “Yes. We're done with it.” Now, it’s off to [inaudible 0:58:26]. It's been acquired for
possibly parts, possibly to fly again. No one's quite certain exactly why AJW group has acquired
it, but they confirmed that they have the aircraft and it features an exceptionally low number of
hours and cycles.
[0:58:44] JR: That is crazy, to take delivery of something as large and expensive as a 787-9
and let it sit for nine years and then decide, “We're going to put it out.” Really? Really?
[0:58:58] IP: So, we'll see what happens to it.
[0:59:01] JR: Yes. That's crazy.
[0:59:02] IP: Speaking of parting out. Hey Jason, if you want to take apart an aircraft, normally it
happens piece by piece. But if you really want to get rid of an aircraft quickly, what do you do?
[0:59:10] JR: If you want to expedite the process, you burn it to the ground, which accidentally
happened. I believe this was in Spain last week where a Cathay Dragon A330 that was in the
process of being parted out, because I think it was like 30 years old, caught fire and burned
down. Not great for – I'm assuming there were parts on board that aircraft that could have been
used in others. The interior, landing gear, whatever. We'll link in the show notes to the pictures
but it made a great firefighting training.
[0:59:38] IP: True.
© 2024 AvTalk 26
AVT 265 Transcript
[0:59:40] JR: Good for them. I mean, there were no engines onboard this aircraft. I think the
landing gear was already detached. So, it really it was just the fuselage. But hey, the firefighters
look like they got some good action.
[0:59:47] IP: Got some good training out of it. Let's close the show with some well wishes and a
couple of things we were wrong about. We're going to say good luck, and thanks for all your
hard work. To Jeff Knittel who is the current chairman and chief executive of Airbus America. He
is leaving effective June 3rd, and Robin Hayes, the former chief executive of JetBlue Airways will
take over. Jason and I both were a bit surprised by this appointment.
[1:00:17] JR: Yes. Robin Hayes is coming off, I think a six-year stint of being CEO of JetBlue,
who retired, and I'm air quoting, “retired”, only earlier this year, because the state of JetBlue was
not great at his departure, such as him become the CEO of Airbus Americas, an interesting
move. Good luck to him and them. Not what I would have expected because he retired for
health reasons mere months ago, but apparently, he's made a miraculous recovery, and is the
new helm of Airbus Americas. Good for him.
[1:00:50] IP: Good for him. Then let's talk about a couple things we were wrong about. This.
first is [inaudible 1:00:56] when we talked about the Pratt & Whitney GTF groundings, there
was a comment that they were Azul. They are not Azul –
[1:01:05] JR: – meaning I said it was Azul. It’s not Azul. Zulu.
[1:01:09] IP: I was trying to nice.
[1:01:10] JR: But in context, Azul this is also an airline that has GTF issues with its E190 E2 to
fleet.
[1:01:19] IP: Whoops. So, all's well that ends well. They are their own airline. They were
founded by Brazilian billionaires to ferry a football team.
[1:01:28] JR: Common origin story.
© 2024 AvTalk 27
AVT 265 Transcript
[1:01:29] IP: Yes. The other thing that we wanted to mention is that we mentioned that
Southwest pilots don't need to do a walk-around between every flight. That actually changed in
late 2023 to come into line with all other airlines that we know of, where pilots are now required
to do a walk-around before each flight of the day.
[1:01:54] JR: Not just as opposed to the first flight of the day when they are in command of that
aircraft, which raises all sorts of questions of how they missed those two cowlings being
opened. Yes, now we know. Procedure has changed. But only very recently.
[1:02:09] IP: So, there you go. This is episode 265. It's a long one. There was a lot that
happened this week. I feel like there's more aviation news coming at us more often, recently, but
that's okay, because we love talking about it.
I also thoroughly enjoyed talking with Scott and I got a sneak preview off microphone about
what project he's working on next, and we're absolutely 100% going to have him back when that
project is finished. But in the meantime, if you want to win a copy of Scott's book, Hercules,
email us at podcast@fr24.com. Even if you don't want to win a copy of Scott's book, email us at
podcast@fr24.com and let us know what you think of the podcast. What you want to see on a
future episode. What you want to see more, of less of –
[1:02:55] JR: Or just say hi.
[1:02:56] IP: Or just to say hi. There you go. I am Ian Petchenik here, as always with –
[1:03:02] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Thanks for listening
[END]
© 2024 AvTalk 28