Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Gabriel
Gabriel
Senior Member
Last Activity: 2024-06-14, 19:25
Joined: 2008-01-18
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • To be fair, and while I still would not like it, if the European regulation allows the aircraft that landed ahead or the one that is taking off ahead to be on the runway if they are at least 2500m from the landing threshold, that would be an ample margin to make an outcome like the ones you describe above extremely unlikely. These are the layers of Swiss cheese:

    0- 2500m is enough landing distance for most normal landings with moderate braking. I mean if you remove 1000 of the 2500m due twice-longer-than-normal flare, a deceleration of just 0.2G which is less than 4 kts/sec (a moderate deceleration, Autobrakes 2 in the 737) would let you to go from 150kts to 0 in the remaining 1500m. Note that I am combining an abnormally high landing speed, an abnormally long touchdown, and a normal but very moderate braking. That combo is a pretty thick slice of cheese. And you still have several more:
    1- Assuming that the plane flew at that landing speed from the threshold to the...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Source? Is that in India? Because, in the US, as far as I know, this applies:



    Note that, while 6000ft is more or less 2000m, that distance can be used in lieu of "the other aircraft has crossed the runway end". Not in lieu of "the other aircraft has departed". Which means that both being on the runway at the same time would be illegal....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I've never found problems with long post (other than people complaining of my long posts, that is).
    However, I have found that there is a list of forbidden words.
    I mean, I don't have the list, but i is evident that the list exists.

    It happens to me, let's say a couple of times per year, that a post would not go through and, after rewording it, it would go through.
    At some point I started investigating which were the " blacklisted" words in this way:
    When I had this issue, I copied the whole comment in Notepad (or anything), divided the comment in sections, and then tried to post one section. If the first section went through correctly, I would edit and add the second section, and so on until adding a section would result in the error. Then I would divide that problematic section in individual sentences until I found the "offending" sentence, and then I would try adding one word of that sentence at a time until I found the offending...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eif47z4_0VM...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Don't be ridiculous. And carry all that dead weight and burn extra fuel in every flight just in case some day you may need the spare?

    Do this instead:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYYbKQ5g61M



    Oven those don't come anymore in most cars.

    Although to be fair, having a modern tire go suddenly flat is so infrequent these days that it happened to me last week when I hit the curb turning a corner...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    started a topic FAO BoeingBobby

    FAO BoeingBobby

    Sometimes in the past you mentioned "the dreaded 3-engines take-off".

    What about the dreaded 17-wheels landing?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoC8TEETNHA...
    See more | Go to post

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYvqjOi08zg

    Go on. One of these days the tower will not catch the issue and we will have 2 planes cleared to collide.

    Again:
    "Airplane approaching 22, continue the approach, airplane taking off on the intersecting runway"
    And only after the airplane taking off on the intersecting runway cleared RWY 22:
    "Airplane approaching 22, RWY 22, cleared to land".

    Is there any issue with withholding the landing clearance until you are not going to clear any other airplane to use or cross that runway before the landing airplane lands?
    It seems so common sense to me, and it is what is used in most of the world....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Again....

    https://avherald.com/h?article=5193d099&opt=0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1crkW64X0Y&t=131s

    I am going to go extreme again copy my comment in AvHerald:

    USA, you will stop allowing multiple simultaneous clearances to use or cross a runway. What I am not sure if you will do it before or after you have a 500-fatalities incursion accident.

    It is totally expectable that every once and then a human will forget that they cleared an airplane to land several minutes and several take-offs and landings ago.

    In most of the world, after you clear one airplane to land you cannot clear any other airplane to take-off, land or cross said runway (including take offs and landing in crossing runways).

    This doesn't mean that you have to hold all the other 3 or 4 take-offs and landings that the controller cleared until after the King Air has landed. This means that you will hold the King Air's landing...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Nah... If flying in HDG mode then wind will impact in the actual track but that's waaaaaay too much.

    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I saw the WSPR approach maybe a year ago and was very interested. Something that casted doubts on me, though, is what would be the measurement uncertainty of such a technology. I would suspect it to be significant.

    When I saw the plot based on the WSPR data, and how that was interpreted as a pilot live and conscious still making decisions and flying manually flying the airplane, intentionally aiming at different charted waypoints. That looks like a stretch to me, more confirmation bias than objectively analyzing the data.

    I kept thinking that perhaps that convoluted wiggly path may be in fact compatible (consistent, as in not proving but not disproving either) with a straight constant heading or great circle path, after taking into account the uncertainty of measurement associated with the reverse-engineering of the WSPR data.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Nice try but, unlike ITS's Stearman, BB's Piper Cub is a (barely) closed cockpit plane. No leather helmet or googles required or typically used....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • BB's plane MEL:

    INSTALLED ------ REQUIRED

    END OF MEL
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • At M .08 and FL 007?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The problem is not so much the vertical speed as how quickly the vertical speed changes.
    The acceleration due to gravity is just shy of 2000 fpm/s. If it takes 5 seconds or less to go from 0 fpm to -10,000 fpm, you are in the negative G's region. But the same happens if you go from 0 to -2000 in 1 second or less.

    (always assuming wings remain relatively level of course, because there is no better way to build tons of negative feet per minute with positive Gs with the plane pointing the wrong side up)...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Drop, dive, it is the same difference.

    Negative Gs mean negative lift, not just a "fall". Negative lift can be caused by a very severe downdraft or by large nose-down control inputs (humanly commanded, automatically commanded, or uncommanded), in both cases putting the plane under a negative AoA.

    Example: Lan and the seat-slide button....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X