DreamLiner and Li-ion

[Nightjar]

....

I have trimmed out the needless returns your news reader keeps adding.

You are putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say they were useless baggage. I, or rather an airline pilot I knew, said that they were there for when things go wrong, which I think is quite an important function, particularly as the most common comment on CRVs today is a 'I wonder why it did that' or similar.

large passenger

traversing the Atlantic is

require a lot of input.

A modern Cat III equipped aircraft can and, if you have ever come out of the murk at a couple of hundred feet (much higher than Cat III minima) to see the runway ahead and experienced the disorientation that brings, you would know why it is a very good idea to allow them to do so.

at Gatwick, in the days when it was still possible, I would often end up in the cockpit when I was on a commercial flight and I think hive of inactivity would be a better description. Indeed, as it was recently reported that around 40% of British pilots have admitted to falling asleep at the controls and one third of those work to find their co-pilot asleep as well, the work load cannot be quite as continuous as implied in that article.

You have still not answered my question though. How did you get to the conclusion that I might think that flying a small plane is akin to flying a Jumbo from anything I wrote?

Colin Bignell

[Andy Burns]

Sounds like an extra function of the autopilot should be to randomly require some response from the pilots to check if they are awake ...

[Nightjar]

In the days before the cockpit was kept locked, the cabin crew would appear from time to time and offer coffee.

Colin Bignell

[news]

the comment re pilots being useless baggage etc.

moderm large passenger aircraft a fully trained skilled pilot actually flies the thing.

/landing, planning etc. that require a lot of input.

In that case Sir you chose your references sources unwisely. The wiki quote was simply an easily accessible summary which I know to be correct. If you want the full details you can find them in CS-AWO (Certification Specifications for All Weather Operations) at Subpart 3.

"AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION OF AEROPLANES FOR OPERATIONS WITH DECISION HEIGHTS BELOW 30 M (100 FT) OR NO DECISION HEIGHT ? CATEGORY 3 OPERATIONS".

Sub clause 304 includes

(a) The primary mode of controlling the aeroplane must be automatic until the main wheels touch the ground (except as in CS?AWO

321(b)(1)), and for operation with no decision height, control must be automatic until the nose wheels touch down;

It is available on the web - you might ask your actual real pilot to find it for you.

[dennis]

How many of those were on auto?

[Tim Streater]

You mean turbine blades don't feather?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Is that a joke?

[Tim Streater]

Well I dunno. I'm assuming that the reason for your comment is that a jet when landing will tend to have the engine on low thrust, meaning that it takes a few seconds to get the turbine wound up - too slow.

Whereas a prop plane can come in to land with the engine on full but the prop feathered. If there's a problem he just changes the prop pitch - instant thrust.

I used to notice this at Cambridge Airport when taking the Suckling AIrways 07.00 flight to Schiphol. It was a 20 seater or so Dornier and he'd stop at the end of the runway, wind up the engines - and only then change the prop pitch. Then you'd get thrust.

[The Natural Philosopher]

yes.

yes. The mechanical inertia of the turbine is the problem. IN a turboprop it can be spooled up on low load /low throttle because as you say, the props are in super fine pitch. (not feathered- that's super coarse pitch). With (I assume) constant sped props, the opening of the throttle will coarsen the pitch to keep RPM constant, adding massive thrust.

TurboJETS cant do that..they are very much one speed devices. And dont take kindly to being revved up rapidly.

[Apellation Controlee]

I thought that many fighter pilots were found to be temperamentally unsuited to flying passenger aircraft. (?)

[Apellation Controlee]

------------8><

[Apellation Controlee]

Don't they whack it up to full thrust as they touch down, in case the arrester gear fails?

[The Natural Philosopher]

well they didnt use to.

There is a tendency of course with modern planes to come in in a high drag, high power high alpha attitude. Airbrakes and flaps everywhere.

But the terrifying physics of flight is that the typical speed range of an aircraft is from stall to about 3-4 times stall. Unless you have insane power available.

That puts take off and landing speeds of transonic aircraft somewhere around the 200mph mark.

[Andy Champ]

some supporting evidence for these claims.

You seriously telling me that you've never come across an ex-fighter pilot who later became a commercial pilot?

I'm going to ignore my father (once carriers, later civil airliners) and turn to google. I typed in "fighter airli" and it immediately realised I was interested in "fighter pilot to airline pilot"... which gave me over a million hits.

Andy

[Andy Champ]

That's my understanding. In fact before - the idea is to hit the deck as if flying a touch-and-go, except if the hook catches you don't go anywhere.

Source?

Right. And that put the take-off speed of Concorde at 300kts (not the actual 225 or so) and means that a Blackbird took off at around 500MPH.

I don't suppose the space shuttle (max airspeed 17,500 MPH) counts.

Andy

[Huge]

some supporting evidence for these claims.

I have two friends (who oddly do not know one another), both BA pilots, both ex-RAF fast jet pilots.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

Perhaps Jo Stein would like to design a program to do that.

[Steve Firth]

Yeah, sorry, despite English being the universal language of aviation the WOCABs try to do it their own way. No English version available AFAICS.

You're welcome.