A spate of recent air accidents has been attributed to human factors. Is this an emerging trend or simply history repeating itself?
With the use of additive manufacturing (AM) on the increase in the aerospace industry, the lack of standards for testing such products is a source of growing concern.
The aerospace testing community has recently experienced a number of catastrophic, loss-of-platform accidents. Naturally, the short-term response is to seek answers in support of safe return-to-flight. What do such incidents mean for the long-term success of the program?
Space has traditionally been the jewel in the crown of the aerospace testing world – the ultimate showcase for a nation’s technological prowess. But has the public lost its appetite for extraterrestrial achievements?
There are two areas of enormous development with civil airliners: commercial change and technological change. It can be argued that the biggest game changer was the breakthrough in certifying twin-engined larger airliners
Successful test flights are good advertising, but incidents in aerospace testing can propel organizations into the headlines worldwide for all the wrong reasons. Should such activities be locked away behind closed doors?
The aerospace testing community is made up of individuals from a diverse range of backgrounds, but does formal education offer an advantage over on-the-job training?
Aerospace testing activities are often accused of being ‘process heavy’ – too much time is spent on activities that do not directly produce results. Is this accusation fair?
Many aerospace test programs can feel like they are overwhelmingly governed by the golden rule ‘time is money’ – but is this the right approach?
Is there really any substitute for physical attendance at trials? Aerospace engineers Garnet Ridgway and Sophie Robinson, share their opinions, but will they agree?