Sentences with phrase «aircraft performance in»

• Supervised overall aircraft performance in the changing conditions.

Get real - time weather for active or planned drone flights for optimal aircraft performance in dynamic airspace conditions.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

In Germany, researchers at the University of Stuttgart have been working on what they describe as a «high performance,» electrically - powered two - seater aircraft called the e-Genius.

Inspired by the single - seat fighter aircraft from World War II of the same name, it blends vintage design details into a timepiece that's elegant in design, precise in performance, and stylish in its commitment to the wearer.

«We have a strong safety culture at Finnair, and are also a very data - driven organization, so we want to ensure we have the best possible data in use in aircraft performance and loading calculations,» Finnair said.

The pop singer will perform live on the aircraft, which will be streamed back to Earth in a pioneering performance.

IBISWorld analysts also discuss how external factors such as Global per capita income and GDP of the BRIC nations in the Global Commercial Aircraft Manufacturing industry impact industry performance..

Crafted in the United States from materials like Moso bamboo and aircraft - grade aluminum, Haiku offers cooling and style in a durable, performance - driven package.

Lithium hydroxide is used to absorb carbon dioxide in space vehicles and it is alloyed with aluminium, copper, manganese, and cadmium to make high - performance alloys for aircraft.

In 2000, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Pentagon agency best known for helping invent the Internet, radar - evading stealth aircraft, and pilotless drones, began funding research into exoskeletons that could improve combat performance.

Ian Bentley, a director of a rival light aircraft maker, Cirrus Design of Duluth, Minnesota, says pilots are interested in anything that improves aircraft performance even by a few per cent.

«This discovery means that the fibrous structures found in limpet teeth could be mimicked and used in high - performance engineering applications such as Formula 1 racing cars, the hulls of boats and aircraft structures.

This is partly because the air is thinner and partly because modern aircraft, with small swept - back wings, are designed for optimum performance in the stratosphere.

Initial sample implementations of GPI have worked very successfully: «High - performance computing has become a universal tool in science and business, a fixed part of the design process in fields such as automotive and aircraft manufacturing,» says Dr. Christian Simmendinger.

They are also used in research projects, as students design aircraft models and test their performance.

Of the world premieres, the major gets for Toronto include Freeheld, Peter Sollett's LGBT drama starring Julianne Moore and Ellen Page; Stonewall, Roland Emmerich's drama about the birth of the gay rights movement; Alan Bennett's The Lady in the Van, which is rumored to feature an awards - worthy performance from Maggie Smith; Jay Roach's film Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston as the famed Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted in the 1940s; Terence Davies's anticipated follow - up to The Deep Blue Sea, Sunset Song; Charlie Kaufman's first stop - motion film, Anomalisa; and Eye in the Sky, Gavin Hood's thriller about piloted aircraft warfare, starring Aaron Paul and Helen Mirren.

In January 2018, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 20.38 percent of their flights were delayed — 5.30 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 5.58 percent in December; 6.16 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 6.72 percent in December; 4.93 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.46 percent in December; 0.72 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.56 percent in December; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in DecembeIn January 2018, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 20.38 percent of their flights were delayed — 5.30 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 5.58 percent in December; 6.16 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 6.72 percent in December; 4.93 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.46 percent in December; 0.72 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.56 percent in December; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; 6.16 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 6.72 percent in December; 4.93 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.46 percent in December; 0.72 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.56 percent in December; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; 4.93 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.46 percent in December; 0.72 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.56 percent in December; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; 0.72 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.56 percent in December; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December.

FAA regulations state that «no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.»

In December 2017, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 19.73 percent of their flights were delayed — 5.58 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 3.60 percent in November; 6.72 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 3.89 percent in November; 5.46 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 3.61 percent in November; 0.56 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.16 percent in November; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in NovembeIn December 2017, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 19.73 percent of their flights were delayed — 5.58 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 3.60 percent in November; 6.72 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 3.89 percent in November; 5.46 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 3.61 percent in November; 0.56 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.16 percent in November; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Novembein November; 6.72 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 3.89 percent in November; 5.46 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 3.61 percent in November; 0.56 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.16 percent in November; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Novembein November; 5.46 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 3.61 percent in November; 0.56 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.16 percent in November; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Novembein November; 0.56 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.16 percent in November; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Novembein November; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Novembein November.

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures save aircraft fuel and time, increase traffic flow, and result in fewer carbon emissions, by enabling more precise and efficient paths for aircraft to follow.

In March, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 5.70 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.92 percent in February; 8.09 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 9.09 percent in February; 6.11 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.78 percent in February; 0.39 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.74 percent in February; and 0.02 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.02 percent in FebruarIn March, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 5.70 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.92 percent in February; 8.09 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 9.09 percent in February; 6.11 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.78 percent in February; 0.39 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.74 percent in February; and 0.02 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.02 percent in Februarin February; 8.09 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 9.09 percent in February; 6.11 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.78 percent in February; 0.39 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.74 percent in February; and 0.02 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.02 percent in Februarin February; 6.11 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.78 percent in February; 0.39 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.74 percent in February; and 0.02 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.02 percent in Februarin February; 0.39 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.74 percent in February; and 0.02 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.02 percent in Februarin February; and 0.02 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.02 percent in Februarin February.

In June, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 4.83 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 4.75 percent in May; 6.98 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 5.56 percent in May; 5.62 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.59 percent in May; 0.50 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.58 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.03 percent in MaIn June, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 4.83 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 4.75 percent in May; 6.98 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 5.56 percent in May; 5.62 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.59 percent in May; 0.50 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.58 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.03 percent in Main May; 6.98 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 5.56 percent in May; 5.62 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.59 percent in May; 0.50 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.58 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.03 percent in Main May; 5.62 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.59 percent in May; 0.50 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.58 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.03 percent in Main May; 0.50 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.58 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.03 percent in Main May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.03 percent in Main May.

In October, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 5.42 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 4.98 percent in September; 6.13 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 5.72 percent in September; 4.97 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.65 percent in September; 0.25 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.34 percent in September; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.03 percent in SeptembeIn October, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 5.42 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 4.98 percent in September; 6.13 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 5.72 percent in September; 4.97 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.65 percent in September; 0.25 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.34 percent in September; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.03 percent in Septembein September; 6.13 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 5.72 percent in September; 4.97 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.65 percent in September; 0.25 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.34 percent in September; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.03 percent in Septembein September; 4.97 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 4.65 percent in September; 0.25 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.34 percent in September; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.03 percent in Septembein September; 0.25 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.34 percent in September; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.03 percent in Septembein September; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.03 percent in Septembein September.

In January, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 6.60 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 7.77 percent in December; 9.87 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 11.25 percent in December; 7.66 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 8.03 percent in December; 1.26 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.95 percent in December; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in DecembeIn January, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 6.60 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 7.77 percent in December; 9.87 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 11.25 percent in December; 7.66 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 8.03 percent in December; 1.26 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.95 percent in December; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; 9.87 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 11.25 percent in December; 7.66 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 8.03 percent in December; 1.26 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.95 percent in December; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; 7.66 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 8.03 percent in December; 1.26 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.95 percent in December; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; 1.26 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.95 percent in December; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December; and 0.03 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Decembein December.

In April, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 7.57 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.15 percent in March; 8.35 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 7.41 percent in March; 5.68 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.35 percent in March; 0.55 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.32 percent in March; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.04 percent in MarcIn April, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 7.57 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.15 percent in March; 8.35 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 7.41 percent in March; 5.68 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.35 percent in March; 0.55 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.32 percent in March; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.04 percent in Marcin March; 8.35 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 7.41 percent in March; 5.68 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.35 percent in March; 0.55 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.32 percent in March; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.04 percent in Marcin March; 5.68 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.35 percent in March; 0.55 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.32 percent in March; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.04 percent in Marcin March; 0.55 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.32 percent in March; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.04 percent in Marcin March; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, equal to 0.04 percent in Marcin March.

For purposes of the clause entitled «Loss of or Damage to Leased Aircraft,» the fair market value of the aircraft to be used in the performance of this contract shall be the lesser of the two values set out in paragraphs (a) and (bAircraft,» the fair market value of the aircraft to be used in the performance of this contract shall be the lesser of the two values set out in paragraphs (a) and (baircraft to be used in the performance of this contract shall be the lesser of the two values set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) below:

In May, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 6.67 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 7.57 percent in April; 7.71 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 8.35 percent in April; 5.47 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.68 percent in April; 0.68 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.55 percent in April; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in ApriIn May, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 6.67 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 7.57 percent in April; 7.71 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 8.35 percent in April; 5.47 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.68 percent in April; 0.68 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.55 percent in April; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Apriin April; 7.71 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 8.35 percent in April; 5.47 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.68 percent in April; 0.68 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.55 percent in April; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Apriin April; 5.47 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.68 percent in April; 0.68 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.55 percent in April; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Apriin April; 0.68 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.55 percent in April; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Apriin April; and 0.05 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.04 percent in Apriin April.

In June 2017, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 23.76 percent of their flights were delayed — 6.86 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.89 percent in May; 8.85 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 7.40 percent in May; 5.96 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.19 percent in May; 0.70 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.37 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.02 percent in MaIn June 2017, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 23.76 percent of their flights were delayed — 6.86 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.89 percent in May; 8.85 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 7.40 percent in May; 5.96 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.19 percent in May; 0.70 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.37 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.02 percent in Main May; 8.85 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 7.40 percent in May; 5.96 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.19 percent in May; 0.70 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.37 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.02 percent in Main May; 5.96 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 5.19 percent in May; 0.70 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.37 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.02 percent in Main May; 0.70 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.37 percent in May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.02 percent in Main May; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.02 percent in Main May.

In August, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 5.07 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.21 percent in July; 6.42 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 8.13 percent in July; 5.16 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.37 percent in July; 0.46 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79 percent in July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in JulIn August, the carriers filing on - time performance data reported that 5.07 percent of their flights were delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.21 percent in July; 6.42 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 8.13 percent in July; 5.16 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.37 percent in July; 0.46 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79 percent in July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Julin July; 6.42 percent by late - arriving aircraft, compared to 8.13 percent in July; 5.16 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.37 percent in July; 0.46 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79 percent in July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Julin July; 5.16 percent by factors within the airline's control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared to 6.37 percent in July; 0.46 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79 percent in July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Julin July; 0.46 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79 percent in July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Julin July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05 percent in Julin July.

The Range Rover Sport, the fastest production Land Rover to date, representing the latest advances in all - terrain performance has been pitted against Britain's most famous fighter aircraft in a high - speed off - road race along the grass airstrip at the Goodwood Aerodrome in Sussex.

This event, held in ExcelAire hangar, will showcase state - of - the - art aircraft, high performance vehicles and our live and silent auction items.

Using the principles in this subject, new materials having specific properties are invented, or the existing ones are modified to improve the performance of the aircraft.

Carlisle Brake & Friction produces braking systems and friction products for use in the construction, agricultural, mining, aircraft, heavy truck and performance racing markets.

He further said Garuda strove to improve its work performance by operating nine of its 17 new aircraft and by expanding to Europe, where people could reach via Heathrow and Gatwick airports in London, the UK.

Boeing has built the Onboard Performance Tool for iPad, which shows pilots ideal speeds and engine settings for an aircraft in any weather on any runway — full story»

At the inevitable end of your game, you are given a score and rewarded with a «refreshing beverage» that is typically both a reflection of your performance and related to the locale in which you were controlling aircraft.

NASA used detailedmanufacturers» proprietary performance information on each aircraft - engine combination and the flight profile shown in Figure 9 - 6.

If I was setting up an airport thermometer with a bias I'd be sure to make it read high, because reading low could be dangerous in terms of aircraft performance on takeoff (denisty altitude and such).

In addition, the Endangerment Rule authorizes or obligates EPA to establish: (1) greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy trucks, marine vessels, aircraft, locomotives, and other non-road vehicles and engines; (2) greenhouse gas performance standards for potentially dozens of industrial source categories; and, (3) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases set below current atmospheric concentrations.

My past life involved helping to build, operate and test the most sophisticated models we had for predicting the performance of imaginary aircraft fighting against imaginary threats in an imaginary world.

The airlines have plenty of detail on how their aircraft need to fly in order to burn the minimum amount of fuel, especially on the arrival segment, but traditionally this has been balanced by an air traffic control imperative, driven primarily by on - time performance and runway capacity.»

Sampling tubing and instrumentation control cables laid out on the pavement beside NASA's DC - 8 flying laboratory in between synthetic fuels emission and engine performance tests at the Dryden Aircraft Operations Facility in Palmdale, Calif..

The company aims to develop electric hybrid propulsion systems that would allow smaller aircraft to take off and land in pure electric mode, and match the performance of internal combustion engines in hybrid mode.

Aircraft pilots and crew, Armed Forces personnel and Artistes engaged in hazardous performances are totally excluded

Performed various tests on aircrafts in order to define climb, takeoff and landing performance

Test pilots are aviation professionals who work for the Federal Government or for private aircraft companies, in charge of testing new built aircrafts, aircraft that have just passed the process of maintenance, experimental and prototype aircrafts and modified aircrafts; with the purpose of determining their worth and their performance.

«SCHEDULING AND COORDINATION: Performed daily inspections on assigned aircraft; assisted in preflight inspections performing final checks; monitored aircraft performance during flight; assisted as a lookout and advised pilot of obstacles and other aircraft.

Continuously monitored employee, hangar, and line performance in effort to uphold reliable aircraft maintenance, personnel safety, and company standards to minimize mishaps and accidents and maximize productivity and efficiency in order to maintain operational readiness and compliance.

SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS ✔ Led a quality control initiative aimed at ensuring aircraft maintenance staff's training and certification ✔ Reduced probability of mid air engine malfunctions by 20 % by incorporating maintenance quality control measures ✔ Awarded the Diligence Award 2011 following exceptional performance ✔ Commemorated for impeccable aircraft maintenance record following 0 incidents in 3 years