New projects – AviationFact Media

Well, we’re pleased to announce three new opinion projects and two new opinion sites which are on the service, but they weren’t linked to this site.

First, there’s a blog on Sett, that talks about Aviation in general:

Second, a defense, political history and politics-related blog:

And finally, the AviationFact Media main blog:

They’re created to expand the opinions on the issues related not only ot the aviation, but also with politics, political history and defense matters, which are (sometimes) on the headlines of the day.

Airbus’s Fabrice Bregier Lied about A380 and 777X

Well, the Airbus A380 vs Boeing 777-9X saga isn’t started yet, but Airbus’s Fabrice Bregier opens hostilities against Boeing’s Aircraft.


We will face after 2020 the challenge of the Boeing 777X. It is clear that as the challenges evolve, the A380 will have to evolve as well.

Well, a little diference here: The 777X is a twinjet, and A380 is a quad jet. The 777X has the economics, trip costs and the revenue in advantage, the A380 is only the passenger capacity and luxury. And I don’t see A380 winning in any technical aspect, against the 777X.

And the 777-9X is stealing succesfully some potential customers of A380, likewise Cathay Pacific and even gained some interest of British Airways.

In other side, the A380 received a bogus order of an leasing company, based from Doric (not changed the name), called Amedeo, which claims of changing name and ordering A380 were also refuted by Doric:

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter rates this claim: Mostly False.

AvFact Mostly False

Airbus has said the tax breaks distort the economics of building Boeing’s largest ever twin-engine jet in the state, where most of its commercial operations are based.

And Aeroconstellation tax breaks in Tolouse? Is not unfair asking for the same tax breaks elsewhere, not only in Europe, but also in U.S. (Seattle, Charleston or Mobile), or even in Canada or Brazil. Airbus here fakes that forgotten the benefits that received, that puts Boeing in difficulties, when, according to Vero Venia blog “Airbus reached a point where was delivering more aircraft than U.S. aircraft industry”. Bregier’s outrage is well documented: “This is bullshit”. And Seattle tax break will not be allowed only to Boeing, but also for Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer suppliers.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter and Flip-O-Meter rates this claim: False and Full Flop.

AvFact False

AvFact Full Flop

“Europe is the only part of world that doesn’t look at its currency from the point of view of support to its export industry,” he said, noting the Japanese yen had been sharply devalued because of action from policymakers.”

Claiming on a strong Euro to make those operations doesn’t make any sense either. The U.S. Dollar has lower rating (€0.76) and this is not happen in America. The problem is the higher taxes of the United States, in a combination of State and Federal taxes, that pushed to high levels of taxes in this country.

Europe had comitted also a huge mistake to not look to devaluate the currency to exportation industry. Was harmful for some weak countries and ECB should take measures to create some stimulus packages, likewise the U.S. Federal Reserve did after 2008.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter rates this claim: Pants On Fire!

AvFact Pants on Fire

Could Fabrice Bregier be lying? He is losing with these facts. He also compares a ugly, impractical and oversized airplane (A380) with a practical, economic, profitable and perfect airplane (777-9X), when A380 SHOULD concentrate in the eyes of 747-8, which is stealing the freight market of A380 (a thing that Airbus fails miserably), and Airbus should concern with the future of the earlier A380s built, because there is no P2F conversion and no one want to take that type of plane.

Thanks for reading.

MH370 Lawsuit: History of OZ214 repeats again

After the OZ214, the Ribbeck Law Firm didn’t learn to not making false predictions to attack, either Boeing either the airline that was involved in an accident. Well, now reached the MH370 case, after the Boeing 777 gone missing, possible by hijacking or pilot suicide (like TM470, MS990 and MI185) or other criminal situation (like PS1771). Because, I don’t see the Boeing 777 as defective aircraft, like the DC-10 and his cargo door, and this firm and the families of the victims wants to see the 777 as the new DC-10 and grounding them if needed.

History is here:

Our theory of the case is that there was a failure of the equipment in the cockpit that may have caused a fire that rendered the crew unconscious, or perhaps because of the defects in the fuselage which had been reported before there was some loss in the cabin pressure that also made the pilot and co-pilot unconscious,”  – Monica Kelly, head of Global Aviation Litigation at Ribbeck Law

Well, this is repeating an classic error of predicting without facts and figures with the clear intention of creating a huge moss in confidence of Boeing. Well, the OZ214 is other accident, that Asiana admitted that is at fault and then wrongly blames Boeing. This is a repetition of that “confirmed” history a priori without concrete data and experiences to the objects. The cabin pressure loss, can also be created by deactivation of Automatic mode of pressurization of the cabin, like the Helios Airways Flight 522 crash, on Boeing 737. The defects in fuselage were also verified in an FAA Airworthiness Directive on the Cracks on communication anthens.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: Mostly False.

AvFact Mostly False

“That plane was actually a ghost plane for several hours until it ran out of fuel.”

Kelly said the conclusion was made based on experience on previous incidents, dismissing the possibilities of hijacking or pilot suicide.

Excluding the human factor and referring that was a ghost plane without considering that factors (like that happened in Helios Airways Flight 522) is an huge (and ridiculous) mistake likewise the fact of Boeing and Malaysia Airlines being sued so prematurely, without the aircraft being founded.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: Pants On Fire!

AvFact Pants on Fire

Additional pleadings will be filed in the next few days against other potential defendants that designed or manufactured component parts of the aircraft that may have failed, Kelly said.


Ribbeck is also asking that U.S. scientists be included in the search for wreckage and bodies, the firm said.

Getting suppliers of Boeing to the lawsuit might be good idea, but if the crash was pilot suicide, there’s no chance to be an supplier that fails. It’s absurd, because of the claims itself of that lawsuit makes the people enraging against this money-hungry lawyers, because they don’t understand where is right or wrong in a plane crash. And about the U.S. scientists, there’ll be, from the U.S. Navy and the NTSB, but also from Boeing itself.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: False.

AvFact False

So, these things makes the people more stupid because of an falsity that comes so broadly and the people doesn’t do more exaustive fact-checks of what is going around the world.


New Truth-O-Meter images

To uniformize ratings (on Barely True/Mostly False case), and to avoid copyright issues of the original Truth-O-Meter and Flip-O-Meter (PolitiFact) we created a new collection of new Truth-O-Meter segments, based on a electric cooktops, but with colors which indicates the truthfulness of the statements (view here):


AvFact True

Mostly True:

AvFact Mostly True

Half True:

AvFact Half True

Mostly False:

AvFact Mostly False


AvFact False

Pants on Fire:

AvFact Pants on Fire


No Flip:

AvFact No Flip

Half Flip:

AvFact Half Flip

Full Flop:

AvFact Full Flop

So, we in something always have to change, but also have in mind the risks for the consistency and the truth.


The Asiana Airlines OZ214 Misinformation

Those days were atribulated, not only due to the 777X vs A350 war, and also by another 787 battery issue (thank god to the titanium box who eliminated the chances of propagation of the cell overheating and subsequently the grounding of the aircraft (again!!)

Now it’s time to turn to the accident of Asiana Airlines flight #214, involving an Boeing 777, killing 3 people (one ejected, other was run over by a SFFD rig, another was in hospital). The NTSB conducts right now the investigation and the facts were revealed.

Now 80 of the almost 300 passengers wants to sue Boeing due to an “defective component of the 777”.

The firm said Asiana Airlines will be added as a defendant in the next few days. Legal action will also be taken against several unidentified “component part manufacturers who may be responsible for this disaster,” the firm said in a statement

The statement said “the various component part MFGers” that would be the suppliers of the Boeing plane who crashed in SFO. So, It’s not only Boeing responsibility but also the suppliers of the equipment: engine, avionics and other things. So, the statement said about the lawsuit being directioned ONLY to Boeing isn’t true.

By this check, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: False.

Another thing is the “malfunctions of the autothrottle”:

The law firm also cites reports that the crash could have been caused by “a mechanical malfunction of the auto-throttle,” according to the firm’s statement

According to the NTSB, there is no malfunctions of the autothrottle founded on the plane crashed, or there is an awaiting-to-reveal secret by Edward Snowden or Julian Assange’s Wikileaks about this? I doubt. (Even by the fact that Obama finished NSA Mass Spying on phones). The facts were this: The aircraft functioned as designed, the low speed warning system functioned also as designed. So there is no reason to doubt the Boeing 777 performed as thay designed. Repeating this lie again won’t be making a truth statement!!

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: Pants on Fire!

The other issue, was the conditions of the plane on emergency:

During the crash, sliding ramps deployed inside the plane, blocking passengers’ access to the exit door and trapping them inside the burning plane, the law firm alleged. Also, passengers were injured when seats collapsed during the crash-landing, Kelly said.

The passengers should be waiting for the ramp to be deployed, like the US Airways flight 1549 who ditched in the Hudson River. So, it is a nonsense claim by the law firm. The seats weren’t at the Boeing responibility, were of the responsibility of the company whose choses the airplane seats (Asiana) and the company whose supplied the seats. The injures were real, but not the causes of that injures.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter Says: Mostly False.

So, the accident investigation is an preliminary state, which isn’t possible to blame somewhere.

And also I had some questions: The 777 has problems were considered critical? Was companies who had accidents/incidents applied lawsuits against Boeing?

For example: the General Electric GE90 issues of the TAAG Angola Airlines’s 777-200ER on two incidents: in Lisbon (on a DT651 Lisbon-Luanda) and in Luanda (on a DT550 Luanda-Dubai) (both in December 2010). Does one of the 122 passengers on DT651 (D2-TEF) or the 32 passengers on DT550 (D2-TEE) severely sued Boeing and General Electric for the “defective engine (the GE90) and the defective aircraft (Boeing 777)”? No! The 777 has a great record of safety in 20 years!! And is a terrible aircraft? Look at worse examples, like the 737 with JT8Ds!! One crashed in Angola on June 28 2007, killing 7 people!

The consequences would be discussed by settlement, and in the end, the lawsuit may be an lost of time. I hope so.

Thanks for read us. Source is CNN:

How Airbus denied the existence of CFRP wings on 777X to make false claims about A350-1000

With the 777X remained in Everett, Washington (thanks to both Richard Aboulafia and Saj Ahmad to know about the real benefits of the 777X (and subsequently of the 737 MAX) being built in Washington State to state’s Economy and about the risk factor of 777X), is now time to make a fact-check on the growing competition on 777X vs A350-1000. The Aspire Aviation has a story about the 777X improvements after the news of the order of Cathay Pacific for 21 Boeing 777-9X:

The story starts to talking about the technical facts of the 777X and A350-1000 engine, one against one:

The centrepiece of the revamp that drives the 400-seat 777-9X to have a 20% lower block fuel burn per seat than the 368-seat 777-300ER and a 15% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat, as well as a 12% per-seat fuel burn and 10% COC per seat advantages against a 344-seat A350-1000, is the 132-inch General Electric GE9X engine that cuts its engine specific fuel consumption (SFC) by 10%.

The GE9X engine will sport 16 fourth-generation composite blades, 2 and 6 blades fewer than the GEnx and GE90-115B engines, respectively, in addition to a 61:1 overall pressure ratio (OPR), 27:1 pressure ratio, a 3rd-generation twin-annual pre-mixing swirler (TAPS III) utilising ceramic matrix composite (CMC) that requires 20% less cooling and is at 1/3 the weight, yet at double strength than conventional materials.

These combined will make the GE9X having a SFC advantage of 5% or more against the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 onboard the Airbus A350-1000, which only has a 52:1 overall pressure ratio (OPR) and a 118-inch engine fan size.

This prompts Derby, United Kingdom-based engine-maker Rolls-Royce to claim that its Trent XWB engine is the only turbofan that is “validated” and that a bigger engine fan size creates more drag and weight, which in turn requires more thrust and carries a fuel penalty in the end.

“The situation today is that the Trent XWB has completed its ground tests and is well advanced in its flight testing regime on the A350 XWB. Only two parties that have the complete data on how both the aircraft and engine are performing – Airbus and Rolls-Royce. And while neither party, naturally, would share all the data, there is a very clear message coming from the test programme: The Trent XWB is the most efficient engine flying in the world today and is on target to meet its specifications at entry into service next year,” Rolls-Royce spokesman Bill O’Sullivan insists.

“One key difference, of course, is that the Trent XWB is delivering its performance now and the GE9X is aiming to achieve a performance level at entry into service, which now appears to be stated as 2020. In terms of measuring performance and fan size big does not always equal best – its about delivering the optimum engine for a given application, so the engine is right-sized for the aircraft’s specific mission requirement. And ‘big’ comes with significant drag and weight both of which translate into fuel burn penalties,” O’ Sullivan adds.

However, while it is true that the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB is poised to become the most fuel-efficient turbofan when the A350-900 enters into service in early-September 2014 (“Boeing’s widebody dominance hinges on 777X success“, 24th Oct, 13), Rolls-Royce’s claims appear somewhat vague, as a 1-inch increase in fan size usually leads to a 0.5% reduction in specific fuel consumption (SFC). Given the GE9X is 14 inches bigger in fan size than the Trent XWB-97, a 5% SFC advantage makes sense even after accounting for the drag and weight penalty.

Next, the GE9X features ceramic matrix composite (CMC) that is 20 years in development and is likely to usher in a new level of thermal efficiency since the CMC is able to withstand an operational temperature as high as 2,400°F (1,316°C), which is unlikely to be matched by the Trent XWB-97 engine, although Rolls-Royce’s study into a RB3039 engine featuring composite fan blades could theoretically negate some of GE9X’s advantages by the end of the decade.

Most importantly, any claims saying the GE9X engine is “oversized” overlooks the fact that the 777-9X is a considerably larger airplane than the A350-1000 and as such, the airframe-engine combination needs to be looked at in a proper perspective and is likely to be optimised. For example, the 777-9X is 76.48m (250.11ft) long and its wing has a 71.1m (233.4ft) wingspan, compared to the A350-1000′s 73.78m fuselage length and 64.75m wingspan. – Aspire Aviation

Despite of being more larger and taller than the Trent XWB, the GE9X has a larger compressure pression ratio (27:1), and contributing for a total pressure ratio of 60:1, and, the fact is the GE9X is larger due to that largest pressure ratio, and that improves efficiency. The Trent XWB-97 is also based on a older architecture than GE9X: The RB211, who also has revolutionated the aviation, had the early problems with carbon fiber fan blades, on the manufacturing, then used a more heavier titanium fan blades, and those delays on RB211 trounced Lockheed L-1011 in 1970s, favouring the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 (who had only GE CF6 and Pratt & Whitney JT9D), and the RB211, and his variants, used/uses conventional methods of manufacturing which makes the engines more heavier. The GE9X was based on GE90, a completely new engine at the time of launch. The use of CMCs also increases resistancy and lowers the weight, while using additive manufacturing process, which also reduces maintenance costs. The RB3039 project, also forgets the number of the blades of the engine, the use of CMCs and the maintenance costs, and how forgotten the use of 3D printing for engine parts and the impact of that. The 777X may be heavier and larger than A350-1000, but has lower costs for operation.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says about this statement: Mostly False.

Now, here it is an image of the weight comparison of the 777X vs A350-1000.

How Airbus distorted the older difference between size and weight. An engine being larger, isn’t meaning of being heavier. Based on the backward statement, the engine of the 777X will be more lighter, and Airbus also denied of the fact of the 777X wing being in CFRP, which cuts weight to the plane. Staying only the Aluminium fuselage being heavier due to stretch. But will be better than a CFRP panel fuselage, during an eventual repair. The Folding wingtip also helps the 777X being more efficient and accessible to narrower gates and smaller airports, using the raked wingtips, to be an Code F airliner on a 45m (Code E standard) runway and Code E outside. More larger a wing is, better will be the performance on air, and also the fuel efficient.

In this case, the rating of the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter about the claims of the graphic: False.

And about the practical use of the 777-8X:

Together with the 9,300nm ultra long-haul 777-8X that is capable of hauling 17 more tonnes of cargo when deployed on the same mission as the 344-seat A350-1000 while having a 5% lower block fuel burn per seat, or flying sectors that its competitor cannot, it would be safe to assume Boeing believes the 777X will be the ultra long-haul leader in the future.

The 777-8X has earned 70% of the replacement market of the 777-200LR and also be praised to carry the same passenger count of the A350-1000 and 777-300ER using the same range of the 777-200LR, Etihad ordered 9 777-8X and Emirates ordered 35 777-8X replacing some of the 777-200LRs. In fact, the 777-8X will be, without no bias, the ULR leader, with those facts.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter has the rating to this statement of: True.

The reverse holds true in terms of seat width, as Airbus launched a futile 18-inch seat width campaign for long-haul travel that backfired from airlines, despite the clear industry trend that the 10-abreast configuration is becoming increasingly commonplace accounting for 69% of all 777-300ER deliveries in 2012, up from 46% in 2011 and 15% in 2010

In fact the Airbus campaign for larger 18-inch seat was only an “carnival barker” to distract from the real issues, and for this fact, Lufthansa negated support for an project similar to that:

“It is completely an issue for airlines. We want to be able to address our markets in the way we are best positioned in each segment,” Lufthansa executive vice president (EVP) Nicolas Bucholz commented.

And other airlines, did the same. In fact, the 69% figure for 10-abreast 777 is true, for that fact, Boeing redesigned walls of the 777X to be more comfortable at 10-abreast, likewise the A350 is at 9-Abreast. The campaign failed due to that fact and Airbus doesn’t want to admit their defeat. Airbus also forgot to announce publicly the plan of making 11-Abreast economy seats for the A380, which would be smaller than 18-inch, probably at 16.5-inch.

So, for this statement, AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: Mostly True.

So, this is the claims and also the confirmation, or even negation of the claims, explained with facts. This is fair. Happy new Year 2014!!

Fact-Checking a Fact-Check: Bias against StrategicAero Research

We entered in 2014 with the new hope of being better, but there is a story that should be reviewed: the constant bias against Saj Ahmad and StrategicAero Research (it’s not a defense post, nor even an endorsement). This comments and fact-checks, are similar that we are doing, for example, with some of the fact-checks that we’ve done in this months (the AviationFact started after 777X launch in Dubai) – (Non-Sense Information on A340-600Bias and Lies of Leeham News on 777X and WTO, The TAAG Angola Airlines case Against Airbus) – and they (the critics) have the right to do, but should be viewed with more accuracy, and if it’s not a flip-flopping on the issues. On the A340-600 issue, for example, John Leahy flip-flopped on the issue of the number of engines, and on the issue of seat width.

The Blog is: – An hater blog, like PolitiFact Bias blog:

It begins on a JAL order of A350-900 and A350-1000, considering that “isn’t ailing”.

But based on a fact-check that we made on a Daniel Tsang’s Aspire Aviation report about JAL’s rival (ANA), JAL still needs the 777X for growth on a restricted space, despite being 10-abreast on economy.

And 777X has 280 orders, compaired to the 170 for the A350-1000.

So, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: False.

Other article is about “the Saj Ahmad Mayhem”: The 787-10 will be a good airplane, of that there is no doubtIs the A350-1000 as bad as Saj suggests? Tell that to the airlines that are now lining up to order the airplane and the possibility that Airbus will create a production line dedicated to the demand for it.

Talks about 787-10 (in fact is a good airplane, that recognizing the fact, like us, we recognize that A350-900 is a good airplane) and A350-1000. Despite the demand of A350-1000 has grown, it hasn’t grown significantly to beat deadly the 777X (and someone said that they’re thinking on A350-1100 or something else!!) – This may be true for some airlines, but when Cathay Pacific ordered 21 Boeing 777-9X, a order in similar size of their order for A350-1000 and Lufthansa ordered 34 777-9X and did not chose the A350-1000, they get busted (despite they did not order the 787-10)!

In this case, the AviationFact’s Truth-O-Meter says: Mostly False.

There is another thing about the 787 can’t beating the A330:

His latest posting simply repeats the line promoted by Boeing that the 787 will “kill” the A330 and the claims about how much kore efficient the 787 is than the A330.

No way to deny the truths about 787. And despite of that amount of problems, the 787s keep continuing on the right path to be one of the most revolutionary airplanes, and in the Dubai Air Show, the 787 reached the 1000th airplane sold (more faster even than the 777 or even A330 (took 20 or more years the latter case!). And, fortunately, Boeing managed to repair the Ethiopian 787 that was on fire on Heathrow.

On this whole site, there is in fact a flip-flop: they criticize the 777X to be a “older” airframe to be redesigned and prefering the “newer” A350-1000 to beat them (a false claim) and now claims that 787 is inferior to A330 (an aircraft based on a 40-year old airframe (of A300)). This issue of “unreliability” was also subject and argument used by John Leahy of Airbus, that argument wins the AviationFact’s title of Lie of the Year in 2013.

In this case has a double rating: Half True (for the 787 “killing” the A330) and Full Flop (about the A330, A350, 787 and 777X claims on this site) (Truth-O-Meter and Flip-O-Meter, respectively)

This is nothing more than a game of bias and arguments, but against facts, there is no possible arguments to counterreact.

Happy new year 2014!!