Earlier, an Airbus A320 carrying at least 144 passengers and 6 crew crashed Tuesday in Southern France, fueling a mainstream media frenzied debate over plane safety as well as airline protocols and training procedures. The Germanwings Flight 4U 9525 was on its way from Barcelona to Dusseldorf when it unfortunately crashed in the Alpes de Haute-Provence, France, specifically near the town of Méolans-Revel, probably killing all its passengers and crew. Germanwings is a subsidiary of Lufthansa Group, one of the largest airlines in the world. The flight was a routine flight that was taking one of the most popular passenger aircraft in the world, alongside a route that these planes traverse on a daily basis – all without incident.

The state of emergency was declared by Air Traffic Control (ATC) 09:47AM GMT when the plane disappeared from the radar. According to scattered information, it seems that the plane made a rapid descent from 38,000 feet to 6,000 feet in mere 8 minutes. This is an eerie pattern similar to the one witnessed on fatal Air Asia Indonesia 8501 flight, which crashed on December 28, 2014 while en route from Jakarta to Singapore.

A question thus arises: how well are pilots and crew trained for the fly-by-wire systems? The Airbus A320 family consists of short- to medium-range, narrow-body, commercial passenger twin-engine jet airliners. The A320 family pioneered the use of digital fly-by-wire flight control systems, a rather important advancement in civilian aviation in that time. These jets also use side-stick controls, a first in commercial aircraft as well. For many pilots, utilizing the fly-by-wire technology was a peculiar experience and many struggled with such controls, specially the older, more experienced pilots that didn’t have much experience with new technology and wanted a more hands on approach to controlling the aircraft. However, this also brought many improvements to safety, as more people are flying in the air than ever with fewer accidents than ever.

According to several sources, the behavior of the full flight envelope protection was the source of these issues, making for several specific situations where both the Airbus and Boeing jets didn’t perform as designed.

These include the recent Air Asia Indonesia 8501, China Airlines Flight 006, FedEx Flight 705, American Airlines Flight 587 and the most prominent, the US Airways Flight 1549 where the airplane experienced a dual engine failure after a bird strike and subsequently landed safely in the Hudson River. Thanks to the zeal and experience of the pilot, the catastrophic scenario was averted. The NTSB accident report mentions the effect of flight envelope protection: “The airplane’s airspeed in the last 150 feet of the descent was low enough to activate the alpha-protection mode of the airplane’s fly-by-wire envelope protection features… Because of these features, the airplane could not reach the maximum AOA attainable in pitch normal law for the airplane weight and configuration; however, the airplane did provide maximum performance for the weight and configuration at that time… The flight envelope protections allowed the captain to pull full aft on the sidestick without the risk of stalling the airplane.”

What exactly happened with the Germanwings Flight 4U 9525 is yet unknown. The exact specifics, nature and conditions of the flight have not yet been revealed. The A320-211 was a 24 years old airplane. The jet has made its first flight in 1990, delivered to Lufthansa in 1991 and passed on to Germanwings in 2014. Airbus says there are currently 6,191 A320 aircraft in operation across the world.

On the other hand, Lufthansa has an impeccable maintenance record. Aviation expert Michael Boyd, chairman of The Boyd Group consultancy, told CNBC there were no known issues with Germanwings. “Anything involved with Lufthansa is going to be clean as a whistle as far as maintenance and operations goes,” he said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “There hasn’t been anything untoward with the A320 series. … It’s a very reliable airplane.” We can only hope that this situation gets resolved and our prayers are with the passengers, crew on the plane, but also their families.

Image: Mark Harkin

The post Germanwings Crash: Are Low-Cost Carriers Safe? appeared first on VR World.

As the Russian Airforce is deploying its TU-22M3 ‘Backfire’ aircraft into the recently incorporated area that is Crimea, there are several things changing for the NATO and other military forces in the region. While the political situation has everything to do with these being added to the might of the Russian air and sea fleet over there, the relevance to the whole situation is not that important at all. The idea behind this is to show how the Russian military, albeit strapped for cash in more ways than one since the Soviet Union took a nose dive, does have more than capable military hardware to mess up plans for United States Navy, let alone some other, smaller forces around the world that are part of NATO for example.

What the TU-22M deployment means

The TU-22M was part of Russia’s quest for a strategic bomber, capable of carrying more than enough firepower to make any military or navy cringe. This swept-wing strategic bomber might look rugged and rather simplistic in shape (compared to modern day western bombers), but this supersonic beast has all the firepower to mess up any navy captain’s day in a hurry.

The Tupolev Tu-22M (Russian: Туполев Ту-22М; NATO reporting name: Backfire) is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing, long-range strategic and maritime strike bomber developed by the Tupolev Design Bureau. Significant numbers remain in service with the Russian Air Force, and as of 2014 more than 100 Tu-22M are in use. Several are now modernized into the TU-22M3 version, allowing for all sorts of goodies like upgraded avionics, Shompol side looking airborne radar and other ELINT (electronic intelligence) equipment. Just what the doctor ordered, specially in today’s naval warfare: ELINT

Stick to the skies

The title says it all: the Russian airforce and navy never really bothered with countering United States Navy in carrier might. Simply, there was no reason to do that. On the other hand, they had more than enough firepower to protect themselves from any and every carrier strike group out there: land based TU-22M airplanes, SLAVA class missile cruisers and other, preferably missile equipped vessels (above and beyond the surface) like the Kirov class battlecruiser or the Akula class submarines. The main idea behind this was to use their supersonic and hypersonic missiles, but also cruise missiles, all in the idea to destroy a U.S. naval carrier and eventually (after the carrier destruction, when the air power is defeated) the rest of the support group as well.

The TU-22M was well countered by the usage of the F-14 Tomcat air wings, found on the aircraft carriers for the duration of the cold war, providing air cover for the fleet ships overall. These, with enough range and the Phoenix missile, could engage the Mach 1.6 capable strike groups of the said plane with a great deal of effect at distance that allowed to carrier group to stay safe entirely. The Tomcat is (sadly) long gone from the carriers. Replaced by the capable (albeit not in the same way realistically) F/A 18 Hornet for the defense and attack capabilities.

This means that the carrier groups, even though shielded by the AEGIS on board navy ships, still lacks the stand-off defense capability, offered by the F-14 Tomcat and the above mentioned Phoenix missile. Anything carried by the F/A 18 Hornet, in terms of air-to-air missiles, cannot combat these air squadrons before they launch their deadly contents on the groups. This, when the carrier attack group discovered the incoming bogies of any type, could engage these at distance, thanks to the missile available, projected range and overall, with greater efficiency as well.

The logic stands, where the TU-22M would dash along the Russian borders, achieve its top speed, launch its BVR missiles at the carriers, then scoot back to safety of the Russian airforce’s anti-air and other protection capabilities that would grant it safety after the attack happened. While the carrier or any other navy cluster of vessels does have anti-aircraft capabilities, deploying a swarm of either one of the anti-ship stuff found in Russian inventory would be a tough pill to swallow for any CIWS or other means of defense within the ships present.

Flight of the Phoenix

There’s one lethal counter to the TU-22M: the AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-54 Phoenix is a radar-guided, long-range air-to-air missile (AAM), carried in clusters of up to six missiles on the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, its only launch platform. With several guidance modes, the Phoenix is a worthy opponent and a classy match for Russia’s strategic bomber force – primarily the TU-22M and TU-160 airplanes then. The Phoenix achieves its longest range by using mid-course updates from the F-14A/B AWG-9 radar (APG-71 radar in the F-14D) as it climbs to cruise between 80,000 ft (24,000 m) and 100,000 ft (30,000 m) at close to Mach 5. The Phoenix uses this high altitude to gain gravitational potential energy, which is later converted into kinetic energy as the missile dives at high velocity towards its target. At around 11 miles (18 km) from the target, the missile activates its own radar to provide terminal guidance.

The minimum engagement range (the minimal distance for the missile to hit the target efficiently) for the Phoenix is around 2 nautical miles (3.7 km) and active homing would initiate upon launch. With an operational range of up to 190 kilometers, this would prove to be a better fit to target combat aircraft coming in from Crimean air bases.

Denial of the seas

How is this possible? The Russians, as stated earlier, always liked to counter the US Navy and its carrier forces with anti ship missiles. With the TU-22M, there are two significant aircraft based anti-ship missiles used.

These are the fastest anti-ship missile in service today, the Kh-15, NATO name ‘Kickback’ which can plow in to an altitude of about 40,000 m (130,000 ft) and then dives in on the target, accelerating to a speed of about Mach 5, which makes it the fastest aircraft-launched missile to date. Some believe that even without it’s high-explosive contents it would still do a lot of damage to the ships with kinetic energy alone. With a 300 kilometer operational range, there isn’t anything the current air wing airplanes found on the US Navy carriers can throw at them, before they launch their missiles – when you count in the distance to target seen there.

The second one is the The Raduga Kh-22, NATO name ‘Kitchen’ that is a cruise missile, a ship destroying thingie that flies in at mach 4.6 to its target.

The Kh-22 uses an Isayev liquid-fuel rocket engine, fueled with TG-02 (Tonka-250) and IRFNA (inhibited red fuming nitric acid), giving it a maximum speed of Mach 4.6 and a range of up to 600 km (320 nmi). It can be launched in either high-altitude or low-altitude mode. Both modes can be used in a swarm type of an event, allowing several TU-22M bombers to launch their missiles in various modes and overwhelming a possible target. In high-altitude mode, it climbs to an altitude of 27,000 m (89,000 ft) and makes a high-speed dive into the target, with a terminal speed of about Mach 4.6. In low-altitude mode, it climbs to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and makes a shallow dive at about Mach 3.5, making the final approach at an altitude under 500 m (1,600 ft).

The missile is guided by a gyro-stabilized autopilot in conjunction with a radio altimeter. With, let’s say six of the TU-22M’s attacking the particular navy group, this would mean that each carries four of these, totaling 24 missiles headed in various configurations, probably overwhelming any CIWS it encounters. if both the high-altitude and low-altitude modes are used, the ships and their defenses might prove to be overmatched for the swarm of missiles headed into their hulls that way.

This means that, with swarms of TU-22M’s hurdling at 1.6 mach, unleashing either the long range or short range anti-ship missiles, any and every carrier battlegroup would be pressed to combat these attacks. In other words regarding this, that the current Black Sea deployment from NATO, consisting of the Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNGM2) vessels the flagship USS Vicksburg (CG 69), HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337), TCG Turgutreis (F 241), FGS Spessart (A 1442), ITS Aliseo (F 574) and ROS Regina Maria (F 222), might be too little too late to combat Russia’s power over there. With the probable Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines lurking around, all armed with similar destructive means, the overall firepower the Soviets Russians are capable of launching at any NATO task group – is impressive.

In a way, the Black Sea security situation changed quite a bit with the introduction of these weapon systems, entirely changing the possibilities of any country, even the United States to engage Russian targets in that area. With the geographical situation making the Black Sea Russia’s own little pond, these airplanes, together with the naval might of the Black Sea fleet together with these weapon impacting the strategic relations, might provide the naysayers with the final shut up about the Russian military power alltogether. At least in this aspect.

The post Why The TU-22M Deployment To Crimea Changes Everything appeared first on VR World.

Apple (NASDAQ:APPL) announced Monday that is plans to construct two data centers in Europe and Denmark to power iTunes and iOS services for customers across Europe.

These two data centers are to be powered by 100% renewable energy, and will create thousands of new jobs during the process.

“We are grateful for Apple’s continued success in Europe and proud that our investment supports communities across the continent,” said Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, in a press release. “This significant new investment represents Apple’s biggest project in Europe to date. We’re thrilled to be expanding our operations, creating hundreds of local jobs and introducing some of our most advanced green building designs yet.”

Apple’s decision to build these data centers in Europe comes with two sets of advantages. First, having servers outside of US soil keeps data away from the quickly expanding surveillance state. While there are court rulings which state that US firms must hand over data even if abroad, these may not survive the court circuit of continuous appeals. Because of this trend, Europe has seen an uptick in data center construction as firms opt to harbor data in jurisdictions with less intrusive laws on state surveillance.

This also gives Apple a chance to tap into its massive cash reserves that are stored outside the US. Should Apple repatriate that cash to the US it would need to pay tax on it. Keeping it outside the US both puts the cash to work and also saves Apple from the tax burden.

Apple says that both centers will be operational by 2017.

The post Apple Building 100% Renewable Energy Powered Data Centers in Europe appeared first on VR World.

Regardless of what you might think about the origins on The Pirate Party, there’s no denial that the movement resulted in a substantial number of votes across Europe. While it’s almost a given that the Pirate Party would have no success in U.S. (we doubt the well-lobbied legal system would refuse the registration of such political option) and many other ‘advanced’ parts of the globe – in Europe the situation is different.

The Pirate Party managed to enter European Parliament and several parliaments across Europe, and immediately begun with its campaigns to modify copyright laws. In a recent post on TorrentFreak, Rick Falkvinge, the founder of Pirate Party highlighted perhaps a key highlight in a short, not-even-decade old political initiative.

As noticed by Falkvinge, it is strange that the mainstream media failed to report that Julia Reda, representative of German Pirate Party is currently working on revising the copyright law in the European Union:

“The collateral damage to liberties has been immense, and has spilled far outside the net. In the US, people are complaining that copyright monopoly law is now unintentionally preventing them to modify items they legally own, such as cars or games consoles. They’re absolutely wrong: that was the exact intention with the most recent round of revisions to copyright monopoly law – to limit property rights and to lock people out of their own possessions. (The copyright monopoly is, and has always been, a limitation on property rights.)”

One such example of how EUCD and DMCA legislations were used was Neste Oil’s attack on Greenpeace by threatening the internet provider of Greenpeace. Then again, Europe always had different approach to copyright when it compares to the U.S. In 2005, European Commission refused to accept software patents which are at the core of many lawsuits in the U.S. and in front of the WTO.

If we forego the political boasting of the post, Falkvinge revealed that a Pirate Party member of the European and German parliament is working on the “European Union’s official evaluation of the copyright monopoly, and listing the set of necessary changes.”

What those changes might be remains unknown at this point in time, but if European Union adopts the report on April 16, 2015 (it needs a majority vote to pass), we just might see a very interesting change in dynamic in negotiations between MPAA / RIAA-led U.S. negotiators and the European Union. As a reminder, right now the members of U.S. is trying to create not just Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), but to create a single market between U.S. and the E.U.

Even if they fail in this attempt, there’s no denying that Pirate Party is creating an impact of copyright legislature. Time will tell how hard MPAA / RIAA-backed lobbyists can reply.

The post Pirate Party to Contribute Writing Copyright Laws in Europe appeared first on VR World.