AvTalk Episode 342: Two statistically improbable events

AVT 342 Transcript
EPISODE 342
[EPISODE]
[0:00:08] IP: Hello, and welcome to episode 342 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here, as always
with –
[0:00:16] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. How's it going? Wait, this is the A340-200 episode.
[0:00:22] IP: This is the most underpowered episode that we will ever have.
[0:00:26] JR: In more way than one.
[0:00:29] IP: Just wait until next week. We've got a good joke coming.
[0:00:32] JR: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
[0:00:34] IP: Jason, we record in the depths of business travel. I want you to describe where
you are sitting today in order to make this episode happen.
[0:00:45] JR:  It seems like, whenever I make my pilgrimage to the corporate office in Dulles, it
ends up being Wednesday is my busiest day, where it's hard to get away. Today is actually our
first day in our still yet to be completed new corporate headquarters. I am currently in an interior
gymnastics room inside the workout room, inside the lobby of the building which our office is
being built in. It is literally the only place I could find that I had access to, that could be quite
enough to record this podcast.
[0:01:18] IP: For added authenticity, Jason is in fact wearing sweatbands.
[0:01:23] JR: It's actually quite nice. There are towels here, and it's nice and cold, and you turn
all the lights. I've recorded this podcast in worse places than this.
© 2025 AvTalk  1
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:01:33] IP: This is true. This is true. I think in episode three, we actually had you crawl inside
of an airplane.
[0:01:38] JR: In Malta. That was fun, though.
[0:01:42] IP: Let's get to the news, because I know you have to get back to your day job.
[0:01:45] JR: I do. I'm here for actual reasons.
[0:01:48] IP: Actual reasons. On Sunday, or early Monday morning local time, an AirACT
747-400 veered off the runway in Hong Kong, struck a ground security vehicle that was
stationed along the northern perimeter road, pushed the vehicle into the bay, and followed it in.
Unfortunately, both occupants of that vehicle were killed. The crew of the aircraft, all four crew
members onboard to the cargo plane, escaped without injury. This is just a bizarre one.
[0:02:31] JR: It's a wild story. When it was first reported, it was being reported as a Emirates
777, not even a 747. We couldn't get the type of aircraft right, or even the name of the airline. It
was first reported that the aircraft hit a vehicle on the runway, which is unfortunately, something
we've seen a number of times in recent history, and then went into the water. Apparently, that
isn't what happened. It veered off the runway at a pretty high rate of speed, then hit a vehicle,
which was just in the worst possible place at the wrong time, it seems, and then went into the
water, which turns us into a very different discussion.
[0:03:12] IP: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. They landed on runway 07 left, which is the northernmost and
newest runway at Hong Kong International Airport. They were traveling at 134 knots over the
ground when they passed over the touchdown area. They exited the runway at a ground speed
of 90 knots, about 5,000 feet down the runway. They continued to travel through the grassy area
towards the perimeter road, where the vehicle was, at about 50 knots, and made it into the
water at 49 knots, and the last received position in the water from the aircraft was at 43 knots.
This was not a low speed driving off the runway.
[0:04:02] JR: There was a lot of inertia going into that one.
© 2025 AvTalk  2
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:04:04] IP: Yeah. We've seen photos from Hong Kong that show skid marks on the runway at
the point where the aircraft left the runway. That's basically all we know at this point. There's
been no indication as to why investigators are working on that. Hong Kong is leading the
investigation. The NTSB has sent a team to assist that investigation as the state of manufacture
of both the aircraft and the engines. We will hopefully know more in about a month's time with a
preliminary report. As of right now, the only thing we know is that the aircraft was traveling down
the runway normally, and then veered hard left.
[0:04:47] JR: Yeah. Going to be very interesting to see what would have caused that. Was it
mechanical failure? Did somebody grab the wrong thing? Did they run over something else on
the runway that caused them to veer off? We don't know anything. Really, really tragic about the
people in that vehicle that just happened to be in the worst possible spot. The odds of that is just
tremendously unlikely.
[0:05:09] IP:  Yeah, absolutely. Hopefully, we'll learn more in the preliminary report about why
the aircraft veered off the runway, and investigators will be able to learn more. I will note that the
aircraft came to rest in the water in two pieces, with the tail section breaking pretty much clean
off.
[0:05:28] JR: Yeah. At least everyone onboard the aircraft was able to get out safely, even
though it's a freighter. There aren't that many people onboard to begin with. But every last
person onboard counts, even if it's a freighter.
[0:05:39] IP: Yeah. Crew 4 and the aircraft was empty. Obviously, we don't know if that has any
impact on the accident, but just to note that, I guess. The weather was seemingly calm with
gusts up to 21 knots, visibility was clear, and there was no significant weather reported. In my
mind, turning towards, what's up with the aircraft?
[0:06:04] JR: Yeah. Not like they were flying into a typhoon, or anything. It was insignificant.
[0:06:09] IP: Yeah. We'll definitely be following this one very closely and hopefully, have more to
share in the next couple of weeks.
© 2025 AvTalk  3
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:06:16] JR: Yeah. Speaking of incredibly unlikely wrong place, wrong time events, it seems
like we have some more clarity into what it is a United 737 MAX 8 hit in the skies over Utah.
There's been a lot of speculation about, was it space debris. Was it aliens? Was it a media
right? No, it was something much more terrestrial and boring. What was it, Ian?
[0:06:43] IP: I mean, boring in so much as it's the one thing that has been blamed since the
beginning of unexplained things being blamed. It was a weather balloon, or at least there is firm
belief now that it was a weather balloon. Let's back up and talk about what happened. Last
week, United flight 1093 was flying from Denver to Los Angeles when it struck something at
36,000 feet, or something struck it at 36,000 feet. The aircraft safely diverted to Salt Lake City.
Photos that came out after the incident showed a shattered flight deck window, showed blast
marks, for lack of a better term. We'll get to that in a moment on the windscreen frame and
showed a bloodied arm from the captain and glass inside the cockpit.
[0:07:38] JR: Yeah. Crucially, that would be aircraft did not lose pressurization. That was not a
problem. That would be a very different conversation. The aircraft did lose pressurization, but
that windshield sure was compromised, but held strong, thankfully.
[0:07:53] IP: Multiple layers really, really saving the day out on that one, not creating an
explosive decompression. But speculation went wild. Is it a bird strike? Probably not. Though
there have been bird strikes at 37,000 feet, but the only bird that flies that high is native to
Africa, and this was Utah. Could it be space debris? Could it be a temperature stress in the
window? We've seen that before. That happened in China just a few years ago, where the
windscreen heater shorted and the window blew out. It turns out that WindBorne weather uses
weather balloons all over the United States to help collect weather data and make informed
forecasts.
The CEO of WindBorne says, “I think it was a WindBorne balloon.” When they learned about the
incident with United 1093, they took a look and saw that they had a balloon in that area at that
time, and then it stopped reporting. The shape, size, and characteristics of the impact to the
windscreen match the characteristics of the ballast and structure of the balloon. The balloon
carries sand for ballast. It can go up and go down based on releasing gas, or releasing ballast to
forecast, or gain information about whether to forecast at different levels.
© 2025 AvTalk  4
AVT 342 Transcript
What they did, looking at those pictures, going, that looks like a sand blast. Sure enough, now
that when you think about it, you're like, Oh yeah, that does look like something has been
sandblasted. All signs point to weather balloon. The NTSB is investigating, and we’ll likely know
more in a couple of weeks officially and get a preliminary investigation out of this. This is looking
to be answered a bit more clearly very soon. I will note that it's interesting, WindBorne is actually
putting into effect ADS-B tracking, not of their balloons, but using ADS-B tracking around,
knowing where their balloons are. Then, using ADS-B data from around those balloons to move
the balloons out of the way of aircraft. That's pretty cool that they're actually putting that into
effect this week. I assume it was already in planned, so unfortunate timing that that goes into
effect.
[0:10:37] JR: Maybe those balloons should be transmitting ADS-B.
[0:10:41] IP: Well, I think the issue here is that it's a weight and power issue. We'll put a link in
the show notes to our post that includes a photo of the balloon component tree, I guess. It's a
bag of sand with a tiny solar panel and an antenna. There's not a lot of weight to work with. In
the future, I'm sure that they'll want to add something as the ADS-B transmitters continue to
decrease in size and weight. Right now, it seems like this is the best solution. Let's talk about
another incident that wasn't really an incident, but it did result in an air return. Jason, what
happens when the phone doesn't work?
[0:11:22] JR: What phone are we talking about? The white courtesy phone in the terminal? Is
that still a thing? No. We’re talking about the intercom on an Embraer E-Jet, which I got E170,
E175, actually, not sure. Apparently, they took off from Omaha. At that point, the flight attendants
realized the intercom system wasn't working, or at least the phone to reach the flight deck was
not working. They knocked on the flight deck door, which is, if you're not expecting a knock
that's a little suspicious. But because the phone wasn't really working, the pilots picked up the
phone and only heard static. They thought, Oh, something bad might be happening down back.
They diverted back to Omaha because they didn't know what was happening back there.
I guess, on a lot of larger aircraft, they have CCTV. Pilots can just flip that on and see what's
actually happening back there. I mean, we legit, I guess that is not the thing at this time. Funny
© 2025 AvTalk  5
AVT 342 Transcript
that this made the news, because it was very much a non-story. But, I guess, playing it safe is
better than not playing it safe.
[0:12:28] IP: I assume this got picked up as the pilots contacted the tower. It called in an alert,
because they thought something bad was happening, so they had people on standby. That got
picked up on local news, etc. Snowballed from there.
[0:12:42] JR: Yeah. Well, I'm going to speed things along. Sometimes, flight play it safe. Other
times they don't, and they pay the price, and they go – they find themselves in EMAS at the end
of a runway, and you never want to find yourself in EMAS at the end of the runway. Ian, what
happened in Roanoke?
[0:12:59] IP: Well, what happened in Roanoke is there was no go around, even though the first
officer called for a go around twice. There was poor weather in the area, and they changed the
runway. The crew changed the runway that they were going to use, established on an ILS
approach, and they were too high. First officer says, “I saw the captain correcting. But as we
crossed over the runway markings, we were still too high. I called for a go around, but the
captain continued.” Here's where it gets even a little bit more dicey. About halfway down the
runway, the first officer again called for a go around, and the captain continued. The NTSB
preliminary report does not state exactly where the aircraft touched down, but we can assume it
was beyond halfway down the runway.
[0:13:50] JR: Halfway. That's not great. There isn't supposed to be a debate once one of the
people flying plane calls for a go around, let alone one of them calling for it twice and not
happening. This is the genesis of crew resource management. That's why we have this today,
because these incidents happened in the past, especially I think it was spread by Korean Air
had incidents like this, where there was such a stringent hierarchy that the first officer would
never say, go around to the pilot in command, and that ended up, unfortunately, leading to
crashes. This is very odd that the FL would have called multiple times for a go around, but the
pilot flying didn't hear, didn't want to do that, wasn't interested in the FL's opinion. Not great. I'm
sure they had probably many meetings after the fact to figure out what happened and didn't
happen, because that's not great.
© 2025 AvTalk  6
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:14:49] IP: Yeah. The preliminary report is out now. We'll know more when we get to the final
report. Let's go to some good Boeing news, Jason. It's time for rate 42.
[0:15:02] JR: All right. They finally did it. Is anyone working at the FAA right now? This is weird
timing, but hey, apparently somebody with a rubber stamp said 42.
[0:15:12] IP: Yeah. We’re going from 38 to 42, aircraft per month on the 73.
[0:15:18] JR: I think you said 48 to 42. 38 to 32, of course. This is not a decrease. It's not a
decrease.
[0:15:24] IP: 38. Sorry. Yes. No, we're adding four. Adding four, yes. This all coincides with
airlines that every time an airline reports its earning, or has an investor call, or something like
that, says, Hey, Boeing's actually delivering these aircraft and they're doing it very well.
[0:15:45] JR: All right. The bare minimum. We got there.
[0:15:49] IP: I mean, it's been a long road to producing the number of aircraft it wants to
produce per month and delivering those aircraft after they have been produced. It's really great
to see this happening.
[0:16:05] JR: Yes. Congrats to Boeing to building the airplane that it's been building since the
1960s and being able to say, yeah, airlines are happy with them, because that really is the bare
minimum. Let's not slide back ever again on this line, because that's – I can't believe we have to
celebrate Boeing able to deliver 737s and customers are happy in 2025. But good news is good
news.
[0:16:32] IP: Onward. Onward, indeed. Speaking of onward, the Senate has advanced a bill
that would change the ADS-B requirements in the United States and close the military reporting
loophole that was created by the first ADS-B requirement bill. This is just an advancement to the
full Senate, but the bill would require any aircraft that has ADS-B out to also have ADS-B in by
2032.
© 2025 AvTalk  7
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:17:10] JR: That would affect commercial airlines as well, wouldn't it? Because there are very,
very few out there as we know that have ADS-B in, if they have it installed, they might not have
it active, or displayed on anything, because we've talked to American before, who is toying ADS-
B in some of its hubs. That's still quite rare. That's actually a bit of a bigger story.
[0:17:33] IP: This really would affect everybody that is required to have ADS-B. The bill provides
without any specifications for a low-cost alternative to ADS-B in for smaller aircraft. Because
remember, a huge pushback against the ADS-B requirements was the fact that it was going to
cost general aviation pilots, or airplane owners a ton of money, relative to how much their
aircraft cost. They would have a carve out of 12,500 pounds. If your aircraft weighs less than
12,500 pounds, you would be eligible for this low-cost alternative, though it is not specified what
that low-cost alternative is.
[0:18:18] JR: We've got until 2032, Ian. No big deal. That's forever from now. But in December
2031, we're going to see tons of stories about, oh, my God, the industry isn't ready for this. It's
not ready for ADS-B in, and then they'll figure it out in the last week. This is not the last we hear
about.
[0:18:37] IP: No, not at all. What ADS-B in does is it takes in the ADS-B out signals. I know that
sounds – it's such a basic explanation, but that's what it does. It allows aircraft it allows crews to
see and ideally prevent incidents involving other aircraft, because they have a real-time picture
of what's happening around them, and they don't need to rely on air traffic control to tell them
that other aircraft are around them.
[0:19:12] JR: It can do other things, right? It can do other things, like bring in extra weather
radar, I believe.
[0:19:18] IP: Yes.
[0:19:18] JR: Not just that. But it other talents.
[0:19:23] IP: It does have other talents. We can spend an entire series of episodes talking
about the ins and outs of this. Generally speaking, this would enable an additional layer of
© 2025 AvTalk  8
AVT 342 Transcript
safety within the National Air Safe System. The other requirement of this bill is that military
aircraft would no longer be exempt from broadcasting ADS-B out when on regular missions. The
bill would remove the exemption, or remove the Department of Defense's ability to say, “Hey,
we're on a mission, we shouldn't have to broadcast ADS-B.” It would say, if you're on a training
mission, or a proficiency flight, or a check ride, or something like that, you need to be
broadcasting ADS-B out. If the flight is carrying someone that you think is important, that's great.
Unless they hold the rank of a cabinet member or above, you still need to be broadcasting ADS-
B.
[0:20:22] JR: That is one of these rare common sense government proposals that, yeah, this
probably should have been the case the whole time. Not great, the road to get to this point to
this proposed rule, but I was going to say better late than never, but I'm not sure at this point.
[0:20:41] IP: Let's move on and talk about IATA, which is famous for two-letter codes. UA,
United Airlines. DL, Delta Airlines. BA, British Airways. But Jason, are we running out of two-
letter codes?
[0:20:58] JR: We're running out of two-letter codes, which is remarkable. ICAF has already had
three-letter codes, so it's not BA, it's BAW, and it's not DL, it's DAL. But IATA, although
apparently, it has had the capability to roll out three-letter codes, it's never actually done that for
airlines. Of course, airports have three-letter codes, JFK, LGA, LAX, whatever. But for airlines,
we have just seen IATA reuse codes. At this point, when an airline goes defunct or merges,
those codes are being reused very quickly at this point. We're apparently going to run out by
2028. There's the potential that we will shift to airlines having three-letter IATA, or not three-
letter, three-character IATA codes, because it's not just letters, it could be also numbers, Ian.
There are numbers involved here, too. That's going to be a change. You wouldn't be on flight
DL1; you would be on flight DAL1. Some people are not going to like that.
[0:22:02] IP: I'm not sure what I think of this. I think it's really interesting that we're running out
of codes. I think I brought this up when we were talking before. Even though IATA seems
technically capable of doing this, I'm concerned that other systems that rely on IATA's codes
might not be, and that would be very interesting to me.
© 2025 AvTalk  9
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:22:20] JR: That’s why they're raising the alarm years ahead of time, because apparently,
they don't expect to run out of codes until 2028. We got a couple of years to figure that out,
which in this industry isn't all that long. But better than someone at IATA trying to issue a new
airline code in 2028 and going, “Oh, no. We’re out of codes when we do that one.” You just can't
be a new airline.
[0:22:44] IP: Oh, boy. Oh, wouldn't that be something terrible?
[0:22:47] JR: Yeah. There's a lot of airlines, though.
[0:22:49] IP: In not great news, there has been another lithium-ion battery fire onboard an
aircraft.
[0:22:57] JR: I think this one was more like a blaze.
[0:23:01] IP: I mean, this one had video and all. This was an Air China A321 that flight 139
departed from Hangzhou for Seoul, diverted to Shanghai, because about 40 minutes into flight,
a lithium-ion battery that was in an overhead compartment “spontaneously combusted.”
[0:23:24] JR: Huh. That's what these do. We've talked about this a number of times, that
lithium-ion battery, little bombs. A lot of airlines at this point do not let passengers use power
banks, or whatever, onboard, and a lot of other airlines won't let you store them in the overhead
bin for precisely this reason, because if it bursts into flames, you're going to want to know about
it. Then again, if it bursts into flames, I don't want to be holding it at the same time either. This is
a really strange situation.
There are a lot of low-quality lithium-ion batteries out there, and it doesn't take much for them to
go boom. I don't think we've ever seen flames of this nature. I don't know if there's anything else
in there. Was there bottles of alcohol, or whatever? Because this was way more than a small
battery bank fire should have been able to generate. These were flames. Usually, a lithium-ion
battery it has a very big outgassing. There's some fire that shoots out of it, and then that's that. I
guess there was maybe some other stuff in that bin that ignited, which is also not great.
© 2025 AvTalk  10
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:24:24] IP: Assume that there will eventually be a report from the CAAC.
[0:24:29] JR: Or remember, 51% of incidents never get a final report. Whatever it was last
week, 58%.
[0:24:36] IP: Yeah. They get a final report. It just takes forever. This one hopefully, we’ll see at
least a preliminary report.
[0:24:43] JR: Yeah. There's no easy answer to this solution. Lithium-ion batteries ain't going
anywhere. Just ask Boeing on the 787. They're still there. They just put it in a bigger container
and gas the fire out of the airplane. You can't really solve this. You can only mitigate it, and it
really feels in the passenger cabin the mitigation is going to be banning these outright, which
isn't really possible. I don't know what to do here.
[0:25:09] IP: Nor I, but I feel like we're moving in that direction. There's just so many different
shapes and forms that Li-ion batteries take. Are certain brands approved? Are certain kinds
approved? If it's in a laptop, that's okay. But if it's by itself, it's not.
[0:25:24] JR: It's impossible to regulate, because there's so much counterfeit junk out there that
even if it says it's a battery cell made by Panasonic in Japan, if you buy it online, there's a very
good chance that it is just some piece of crap from some black market. There’s no answer to
this.
[0:25:41] IP: I don't like leaving things with no answer. We'll leave it there.
[0:25:44] JR: Sorry.
[0:25:45] IP: Now, I'm holding you personally responsible. Let's go to some order and delivery
news. Indigo has firmed its options for A350s, doubling its order from 30 to 60 total A350
aircraft.
[0:26:01] JR: Indigo, the airline, or Indigo, the leasing company that are owned –
© 2025 AvTalk  11
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:26:06] IP: Indigo, the Indian airline.
[0:26:09] JR: Ah, there it is.
[0:26:09] IP: Yes. Sorry.
[0:26:11] JR: That's a lot of airplanes.
[0:26:11] IP: Yes, it is.
[0:26:13] JR: Indigo just seems like an insatiable appetite for airplanes right now.
[0:26:17] IP: I mean, if you want to grow an airline, India is a great place to do it.
[0:26:22] JR: Just get airplanes that work.
[0:26:26] IP: It seems to me they are. Elsewhere, the Abra Group is putting on the crossover
event of the season. They placed an order for seven A330neos and pulled a Lufthansa group.
They said, “We'll give them to whichever airline we own when we take delivery, and we'll figure it
out then.”
[0:26:49] JR: Which is like, six years, I think, right? These are coming shortly. There was a lot
of, or at least there was one specific article I'm not going to reference directly that outright said,
these will go to GOL, the Brazilian carrier. Even in Google's own material, they said, “We don't
know where these are going. Maybe they come to us. Maybe they don't.” That will be decided
when the airplanes are, I guess, painted? I don't know. They got to come out of the hangar with
some paint, but maybe they go to Wamos Air. Maybe they go to GOL. Maybe they go
somewhere else entirely that we're not expecting. I don't know. They'll go somewhere.
[0:27:20] IP: They will go to an airline, “According to market-driven operational and financial
opportunities at the time of their integration.”
[0:27:29] JR: Oh, okay. I mean, they could end up at Petchmo Air then.
© 2025 AvTalk  12
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:27:33] IP: Anything's possible at this point. Abra also ordered 50 A320neos at the same time.
Topping up the narrowbody order book as well. Jason, this is news for you, sir. airBaltic is
adding Air Serbia to the list of airlines for which it operates on wet lease. Four airBaltic A220s
will be operating for Air Serbia. I say, this is relevant to Jason, because he'll be flying Air Serbia
in the new year.
[0:28:05] JR: Yeah, that's right. I found a good fare to Zurich. All I have to go do is go to Serbia.
No big deal. Possibility. I could find myself on one of those, not all that rare airBaltic A220s. That
would not be too bad. Those are nice planes.
[0:28:21] IP: In Vietnam, Vietjet Air is winding down its C-909 operations. The airline has
decided not to extend the lease that it has on the planes. This was a big deal for the Comac
C909, seen as one of the larger outside of China operations. It was a big deal because Xi
Jinping visited Hanoi and basically highlighted the launch of the C909, deepening economic ties
between China and Vietnam. Via Jet says, “No, we're not going to keep going.” Mostly, because
the paperwork is just too much. What I didn't realize is that they didn't lease them the aircraft.
This was a whole, basically, an acme package, where Chinese pilots were flying for Vietjet Air in
the C-909s.
[0:29:22] JR: Yeah. The Reuters article says that, well, their sources say that they're terminated
the lease due to high operational costs linked to foreign crew and maintenance services and
regulatory constraints under Vietnam's aviation laws. Like you were alluding to, it was actually
operated by Chengdu Airlines. It had Vietjet paint on the plane, but it also had a Chinese B-
registry, so it really wasn't a Vietjet airplane. It was a test drive for six months, and apparently,
even if the plane itself did well, the agreement to actually operate it did not. They might try a
different lease structure, maybe even take these planes directly. I don't really know, but I'm not
going to say it is embarrassing for Comac, but it is certainly a setback.
[0:30:10] IP: Jason, let's end the show with two bits of great news for av geeks.
[0:30:15] JR: Love great news for av geeks. That's the best news for this av geek podcast.
© 2025 AvTalk  13
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:30:21] IP: For fans of Los Angeles International Airport, you are getting an air-side spotting
area in the new Terminal five.
[0:30:32] JR: What?
[0:30:33] IP: I know.
[0:30:33] JR: The new terminal five that I didn't know was even going to be a thing, until I saw
two days ago that JetBlue and Spirit are moving on out and scattering to the wind of LAX, which
is not easy. Apparently, there's going to be an outdoor deck, “so you can do some plane spotting
and enjoy the natural landscape to the area.” There's going to be this article that we'll link to
from our friend, Ned Russell, on his Substack, airport architecture, a whole write-up of this, of
outdoor terraces at airports in the US, which do exist, believe it or not. Great to see LAX
incorporating it, because literally any improvement to LAX is good news.
[0:31:18] IP: Absolutely. That one will be available ahead of the 2028 Olympics. You can spot all
the –
[0:31:28] JR: Yup. Definitely going to make that deadline.
[0:31:32] IP: Well, they better. We'll keep an eye on that one. I have a feeling that spotting from
that terrace will be in our future, Jason. In Dublin, the airport finally has approval for a plane
spotting park near the airport. This had been granted permission before it was held up by folks
who hate fun. There was an appeal against the park and spotting location. That has been
dismissed, or overruled, or gotten rid of. Now, they're going to build it. This will be fun
observation area just outside the Dublin airport fence. That will be –
[0:32:21] JR: Next thing you know, they'll even be approving a train to Dublin's airport.
[0:32:26] IP: That's not going to happen.
[0:32:26] JR: Wouldn’t that be wild?
© 2025 AvTalk  14
AVT 342 Transcript
[0:32:27] IP: That's not going to happen.
[0:32:30] JR: No. That's crazy talk. Again, Dublin is one of those airports where any
improvement is welcome. But this was this much to do over a couple paving stones and a
canopy and a tiny parking lot, really. Hey, what's done is done, and good news is good news.
[0:32:47] IP: Good news is good news. On that note, we will call this episode good enough.
Jason, I will let you get out of your gymnastics room, take off your sweatpants, and get back to
work. Dear listeners, we will be back with you next week for episode 343. In the meantime, this
has been episode 342. I am Ian Petchenik, here, as always with –
[0:33:11] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Thanks for listening.
[END]
© 2025 AvTalk  15