Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Gabriel
Gabriel
Senior Member
Last Activity: Yesterday, 21:58
Joined: 2008-01-18
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts



  • Randazzo is not a simulator. Randazzo is the head of Precision Manuals Development Group (PMDG) who develops add-on airplanes (including the 747) for different flight simulators platforms like Microsoft Flight Simulator X and X-plane. I never tried one of their products but, allegedly, they are closest as you can get to the real plane in a PC-based simulator, with good flight models, excellent systems simulation, and complete and fully realistic procedures from dark and cold at the departure airport to parking brakes set at the destination gate.

    YouTube is full of videos of PMDG virtual planes in action.

    Example: Atlas 747-8F departure from Santiago.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAMqPl1k7tA...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It does, but what is the margin in an engine-out situation in a single-engine airplane? Visibility can be helpful there.
    Small GA twins are NOT required to have ANY engine-out climb capability. Yow can legally operate a small GA twin in weight / density altitude combinations where the engine-out climb rate at best-climb speed is negative.
    Bigger twins have engine-out minimum climb gradient requirements, and so do airplanes with 3 or ore engines, except that the engine-out minimum climb gradient for twins is quite less than for airplanes with 3 or more engines. So again the safety margin is better for airplanes with 3 or more engines.


    No, in aviation that's not the point of visibility, especially not in IMC. There are other provisions to ensure that nothing will be in the active runway except you. When these provisions fail it is called a runway incursion and it is taken as a very serious incident precisely because of the severe potential consequences....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yeah, well, it is known that some things are stupid even if they are legal. Hence the 3we's reasoning.

    I wonder if a take-off in 0/0 would violate the "no reckless or careless flight allowed" provision, which does apply for all types of operations....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It improves your climb gradient and hence obstacle clearance (obstacles that you can't see) in case of an engine failure.


    No. In aviation you know beforehand how much tarmac you have ahead and you know (or count with) there will be no other vehicles, traffic lights, pedestrians or curves ahead....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • But does this rule apply for a private flight in a GA plane?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Although I have a few hours under the hood and a lot (for PPL standards) in simulated instrument conditions in flight training devices, I have less experience than you in actual IMC, less than 1 minute. During that 1 minute I did feel disoriented, We flew into a white fluffy cloud, and managed but found it hard to keep straight and level. By when we popped out of the cloud the plane was straight and level but my head was tilted. I didn't like it, and I thought that if that had lasted a few minutes longer (and if I wasn't with an instrument-rated instructor) I may have very well lost it. That was before the all the FTD hours I accumulated later. I don't know how well I would have performed in actual conditions afterwards, but I don't feel confident that I would have performed well.

    So the following comment is from an "academic" point of view, based on someone else's experience and some real accidents.

    Taking off into solid IMC or solid darkness (like...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I agree. I just digressed after making a small correction to what LH said about the Cessna 152 being not more than 100 HP.
    It is totally irrelevant for the thread, I apologize....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, I flew the Cessna 150 (100 HP), Cessna 152 (110 HP), Piper Tomahawk (112 HP) and Piper Tomahawk with engine STC (125 HP).

    The Cessna 150 has 10 HP less but is also smaller and lighter, The main difference is that it was even more uncomfortable than the 152 which is already uncomfortable.

    The Tomahawk, with almost the same power than the 152, is a completely different airplane, totally different wing design (airfoil, planform and flaps), it is low wing and T-tail, so it is impossible to tell what difference, if any, these 2 HP do. Now the 125 HP Tomahawk is identical to the normal Tomahawk, even the engine, except that it has taller pistons which increases the compression ratio hence increasing the fuel efficiency at the same power OR giving you more power for the same fuel. These 13 HP do make a noticeable difference especially in climb rate at full power, it will give you like 100~150 fpm more. You'll see: when flying at 70~80 knots, you are already using...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Actually, it's 110 hp....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not necessarily non-commercial. Boutique Air operates a fleet of PC-12 for regular scheduled flights.



    EDIT: Just found that this PC-12 was no one of Boutique's. So go ahead ban all non commercial aviation in IMC.
    http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/1...-accident.html
    https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinq...umbertxt=N56KJ
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I am not sure what is the exact definition of an engine surge (or how exactly that's different from a compressor stall, terms that tend to be used interchangeably but I don;t think that they are).
    When I think of fuel contamination I tend to associate it with an engine just stopping working or under-performing. Not emitting bags and unburnt fuel through the tailpipe which then burns in contact with fresh air. Now I don't know what would happen for example if you put 100LL in a jet..

    With that said, regardless of the symptom, I see no reason why fuel contamination has to affect both engines in a short time. There had been cases of fuel contamination affecting different engines with quite a span of time between them (see example below). If that sort of things can also cause a symptom like the one in this flight, then your argument stops being a good one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKxgne1J2pU...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I do value BB's input, and also yours. We could keep this "yes I do, no you don't" game. But I have the final say on what I value....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • No he didn't. Would you be criticizing him if he did?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • New Feature Discover episode just out.

    Episode 4: Cockpit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLcSNppK14k...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Right. The alternative is to broadcast PAN-PAN, PAN=PAN, PAN-PAN. You can also just state the nature of the problem, intentions and assistance requested, but the official distress and urgency procedures (that involve broadcasting 3 Mayday or 3 PAN-PAN) have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above, and is the recommended procedure by the FAA in its AIM.



    Also the AIM suggest that an emergency situation arising from mechanical failure is more in line with a distress situation than an urgency one.



    And yes, all this from a non-ATP sitting in an armchair typing in a computer. Real pilot real situation can be different....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I think that at least for some operators it is their SOP to declare emergency when an engine fails in a twin. So perhaps the pilot was just following his company's SOP by declaring emergency.
    That doesn't answer your point though, it just moves the goalpost. Perhaps what is uncalled for is not the the pilot declared emergency but that the SOP is to declare emergency.

    In any event, always biased towards safety, better to declare an unnecessary emergency than not to declare a necessary one. At least you will get the full attention from ATC, get fast routing/clearing, and be approved for anything you need. In a twin you cannot afford loosing a second engine, so the FAR requirement is landing at the nearest suitable airport in point of time (as opposed to airplanes with 3 or more engines where it gives a guideline on things to take into account for selecting an airport other than the nearest suitable one)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Hey BB, actually I agree with you more than you think. I said that I must be missing something and that they probably have a good reason to weight towards keep flying and burn or dump fuel vs landing ASAP. You said "You have no f'n clue to how the real world works when YOU are the one sitting in the seat". Kinda in the same line, isn't it?

    That's why we (or at least I) value the interaction with the transport category pilots in the forum, you bring a good dose of reality to our outsider's speculation.
    Now, that I value i doesn't mean that I will always agree ot that you will convince me with "because I say so and I know better than you". Which brings us to my signature.

    In the post above, you did not impose your credentials. You didn't expect us (or at least me) to just surrender under your authority and believe at face value anything you said just because you said it and you are YOU, the one who knows. And you did NOT do that in the...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Are you sure? I am not, either way. But I am sure that many (not necessarily most) engine failures happen with no or little warning.



    "Coincidental" means just that they happen together but it doesn't say anything about independence of events. The failure of the second engine can (and has always been proven to be) be much ore than just "coincidental".

    I am not aware of a single case where 2 turbine engines failed randomly and independently of each other. In all the cases that I know both failures were correlated by a common or consequential cause. Fuel starvation, fuel exhaustion, fuel contamination, flying pieces of an engine (or the whole engine) hitting the other engine, volcanic ashes, birds, severe water injection, severe hail damage, fuel frozen, ice clogging of the oil-fuel heat exchanger, same maintenance mistake done on multiple engines, shutting down the wrong engine, and overstressing the remaining engine. As I said...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • What is "in proximity"? A certain distance? A certain time away? Gliding distance? Did El Al remain "in proximity"?

    I don't know what the exact intent of the rule is. But I will tell you one thing: My confidence in a safe outcome is very high in either way, but not equally high. Remaining in "close proximity to the airport" doesn't increase significantly my confidence in a safe outcome. Landing ASAP* (even above MLW) would.

    * (ASAP includes all the provisions for stabilizing, running required checklists, securing the cabin, and flying a reasonable non-aerobatic approach)...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied to Canary Islands hub
    Why would airlines do that? What's the benefit?
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

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