XWRed5

Dear all,Bryan brought this thread to my attention, I'm not an expert in performance but I'll see if I can shed some light on some of the questions asked.And don't forget guys, UTOPIA is just a multi dimensional interpolation machine with a whole bunch of fudge factors for various variables, the fact it's providing derates anywhere near charts is a miracle.The maximum derate (minimum thrust) allowed for takeoff is controlled by a number of things. The main limitation we are seeing here is that take off thrust cannot be less than climb thrust. It would make no sense to take off, reach the acceleration altitude and then increase power to climb away. You can never take off with less than climb power set.I don't know how climb power is calculated but I do know that it increases with pressure altitude. i.e. the higher you go the more thrust climb power will produce.Therefore if the derate limit you are up against is climb power then as you place yourself at airports increasing in altitude then the maximum derate will go down (i.e. produce more thrust) so that at least climb power is always being produced on the take off roll.That is why the aircraft will not let you set a take off derate temperature that would equate to less than climb power.Hope this helps,Ian

One is never too low and/or slow to go around.A go around can be performed right up to the selection of reverse thrust ... and to be honest, there's nothing physically stopping you after then.So to answer your question, go around.Hope this helps,Ian

Hello CJ,My apologies for not spotting your post sooner, I'm not in this part of the forum so much any more. I'm also unsure why the email bounced, I thought it was all set up.I don't have the Wilco 737 so I can't really help but I would be happy to talk you through making your own tod file. It's not quite as complex as it first looks, although it can require an awful lot of take offs.Hope this helps,Ian

Not according to my documentation but I reserve the right to be wrong :( Alternate law feels very similar to normal law, slightly more twitchy in roll but barely noticeable. True, but in the few minutes they had before hitting the deck I can't imagine they would have been overly concerned about recovering the rudder trim. It would have flown just fine without it. Unchanged would be my guess, they've proved (in the hardest and most stressful way possible) that their procedures allow for a double engine failure at low level and low speed over a built up area and everyone still walks off the aircraft alive. Sounds like pretty good procedures to me, I would have thought it would be every other airline that would say "woah! would our procedures result in the same outcome?".QRH and ECAM drills are all well and good but let's not forget they had very limited time, I'm sure they went through some kind of procedure to get things together but the pair of them would have had to make some very difficult decisions very quickly, time was of the essence, they wouldn't have wasted any going through an unwieldy QRH drill or nonsensical ECAM drill. They would have had to prioritise flying the aircraft and ditching safely well before worrying about drills, procedures and backside covering histrionics, they're pilots you know, not politicians :( that's why everyone lived. Normally summed up with that one, oft overlooked little word ... airmanship.Hope this helps,Ian

Not an expert by any means but...When both engines failed the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) would have dropped and after 30 seconds or so started providing hydraulic pressure (to the blue system) and electrical power to the essential buses.Fly-by-wire wise it would have dropped out of normal law and into alternate law (without protections). It would fly very similar, if a little twitchy, to usual. If they had put the gear down it would have gone into Direct law which can be a little unfamiliar but not overly difficult.They would have had control over most of the control surfaces, the only exception being the flaps, they would have had slats only. They wouldn't have had that many spoilers either but it would fly and be controllable.The Airbus uses a mechanical backup for the rudder and trim only, the idea being that you can keep the aircraft flying with those until you can get something else back and get into another law, in this case it was unnecessary.Overall they did a great job, you can't argue with no fatalities. Also goes to show the Airbus is perfectly safe in an emergency situation, FBW Luddites notwithstanding. Also proves that ditching procedures and training are all spot on, text book ditching, aircraft behaved exactly as designed, Crew did everything they were trained to and ... no one died. Gold stars all round then, so hopefully we can get people to shut up and watch the safety demo now ... I live in hope.Hope this helps,Ian

Correct, Angle of Attack (AoA) sensor.Ian

Most modern airliners have a GPS receiver (usually 2) feeding data to the FMC (or FMGC).They are usually used as the primary source of position data. Of course, they are being backed up by the IRS's and being constantly monitored.If your IRS's go and you've no GPS your FMC becomes a giant integrated doorstop with buttons on. In the absence of a valid position feed the FMC is worth zip.Assuming your worst case scenario, one would fall back on radio aids to find the runway. Pilots "know" how to do this because it's part of the training course for the licence.Hope this helps,Ian

Look for the little util to make FS9.exe >2Gb aware.I have to run it in WindowsXP compatibility mode.You may run into a number of issues getting products installed (mostly due to the Vista thing rather than the 64bit thing) but you'll get there in the end.Make sure you've got all your 64bit drivers to hand...Runs like a charm, no OOM errors ever (when I used to a lot).No complaints here.Hope this helps,Ian

I'm not sure, I'm not in front of it either but a quick search in the PMDG forum brought up ...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...28200&mode=fullHope this helps,Ian

Hi Mark,I think the problem may be that you're not turning the autothrottle on.In your list of things you did you said you turned the autothrottle on ... but how? My guess is that you armed it. In the top left hand side of the PFD is the autothrottle status. Check what that says before you takeoff, my guess is that it's either blank or it says ARM (in white). To takeoff you have to push the TO/GA buttons to actually switch the autothrust on. When this happens it should change from ARM to something else (THR?) in green to show the system is now active.After that everything you said should work.Hope this helps,Ian

I learnt to fly in a Socata Ralleye, stall speed down in the 40 something knots.One particularly windy day my instructor and I reversed across Kent.Most surreal....Ian

>Qantas still holds the record as the only major carrier to>never have a fatal. Much as I agree with the other posters on this thread about the media's effect on people's perceptions of airlines safety ... (and to quote my broker) : Past performance is no indication of future returns.Make no mistake, Qantas is no more or less safe than any of the other major US or European carriers, statistics notwithstanding.I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".Let's not join the media with our wild hysteria eh?Food for thought,Ian

I'm amazed no one has answered this poor chaps question, especially since it's basic trigonometry....6.4% means you go up 6.4m for every 100m you move along, giving you a right angled triangle.The tan of the angle you are looking for is equal to the opposite over adjacent, i.e. 6.4/100. The arc tan of this will give you that angle.I make it 3.661935576degs, or 3.7degs for government work.As previous posters have already mentioned, that's a minimum gradient and I wouldn't recommend you fly at exactly that, you'll get quite close to the ground.Also as previously mentioned, 3degs is about half your ground speed times 10, e.g. @140kts 3degs is approx 700fpm.I would suggest that you simply set climb power and maintain V2 + whatever increment you deem appropriate (10 or 15 is common) until about 1000ft above the airfield, then start accelerating and cleaning up. That would see you safe just fine.Hope this helps,Ian

Cabin alt is the pressure altitude of the cabin at the moment.Landing alt is used by the automatic pressurisation system to ensure the cabin is pressurised to the airfield elevation at the point of landing. i.e. there are no unpleasant pressurisation fluctuations when the outlet valve is driven open after landing.The landing alt is an input field, set by the pilots sometime before descent, the cabin alt merely indicates the current alt of the cabin.Hope this helps,Ian

In the real thing you simply enter a new airport pair (EGLL/EHAM for example) in 1R on the INIT page.Don't know if it works in the Wilco version though.Hope this helps,Ian

How do you know it was the FO?How do you know the person who edited the video spliced the mayday call audio at the right point in the outside footage?It's easy to criticise and be a know it all after the event, safely on the ground and not on fire isn't it. If you don't know all the facts you can always make them up...Irrespective of who did what and when you seem to have overlooked the basic fact that just under 100 tones of airliner hit a bird just shy of 200mph, lost a load of power close to the ground and just two guys brought it back down to earth safely (and took it back to the gate).Top marks to the flight crew...IanP.S. For the record, the pilots *always* decide what to do and where to go after take off, irrespective of ATC. Of course, it's usually prudent to follow their instructions but by no means mandatory.

>To cover a few of these points - the pilot concerned wasn't a>relief crew, and as far as I could see was happily chatting up>the flight attendants!Perk of the job, the main point is whether they were worth chatting up! Potentially a security issue in the morning :-)>Maybe I am being too sensitive, but given the events of the>recent past, I really would have thought that any opportunity>for any non authorised person to gain entry to the flight deck>during a flight would have been eliminated by strict>procedures.The flight deck door is locked and there are strict procedures in place regarding the opening of it. When it is locked both sides are free to move around as they wish, when it is to be opened the airline will have strict procedures governing its use.>I believe that long haul jets have crew rest areas, which do>not require visits through the main cabin?Some but not all.>Now obviously the pilots need to go to the toilet and get>refreshments, but I would have thought there were ways round>that.I would love to know how you would plan on getting round that ... a tube and a small hatch?>The toilet into which I was going was literally one foot from>the flight deck door, in fact I had to squeeze around the>pilot in question in order to gain access, and despite the>(half)drawn curtain, there were no restrictions on passenger>movement in this area.The door is locked, you cannot enter the flight deck while it's locked, there doesn't need to be a restrictions when the door is locked ... it's locked.>I suspect(as has already been suggested) that this sort of>issue is fairly commmonplace - maybe I am just being too>paranoid!There is no issue and you are being paranoid, the only problems with flight crew in the front galley is if they start trying to prepare food or make the coffee, I would avoid it at all costs. Maybe not a security issue but definitely a health and safety one!Each airline will have it's own security policy which will have been approved by that country's security agency. It will include the company policy and procedures on the flight deck door. The fact you were on the aircraft says the policy has been accepted and they are happy it's being used. Irrespective of what anyone says, the door will need to be opened in flight at some point, flight crew are not hamsters ... or any other caged animal.Hope this helps,Ian

Chris,It's for a "physiological break", i.e. use the loo, stretch legs, relax for a minute. It is perfectly legal and eminently sensible for him to do it. On a four hour flight I would suggest it's nigh on essential, particularly to help avoid DVT.If your security problem is that the door has to be opened, well, the door has to be opened anyway when the cabin crew bring food/drink in. It makes no difference who passes through the open door, just that it's open. I'm sure the airline concerned had procedures to mitigate those risks (you mentioned the curtain).I would be interested to know why you would think that flight crew trips to the passenger cabin would be forbidden. If they're allowed to fly the plane I can't help feeling that using the loo is a much less security risk.Honestly interested in your thoughts, Ian

Dan has hit the nail on the head and to take his point a few steps further...The engine will wait for a suitably inappropriate time like over a large expanse of water, or mountains or just at rotate speed on a short runway surrounded by houses, then exercise it's Murphy's given right to quit :-). Quite possibly in a spectacular fashion involving bits of valves, propeller blades and piston heads flying about all over the place and almost definitely flames.Leaving you up a proverbial creek with no means of propulsion. In the sim, no one cares, in real life it's game over, in every respect but hopefully not for the kids playing in the garden of the aforementioned houses ... and herein lies the rub.Ian

Hopefully it won't, if it does it will be the end of BA as we know it.I expect the US won't ratify stage 2 of the Openskies treaty, Stage 1 will be rescinded and we'll all go back to how it was a few years ago.Ian

Apologies, my mistake.I'm talking about the full ATPL not PPL. When I did my PPL there was no such requirement, I sat them as and when I felt fit.Hope that clears things up.Ian

Not entirely sure and it seems to change every time someone in Brussels burps but when I did my mine a "certified establishment" had to book the exams on your behalf and they wouldn't put you forward if they didn't think you had a chance. I believe the answer to your question is 'no'.However, there are a number of places that will run a part time, short course that will just prepare you for the exams (i.e. help you with practise questions and the like) rather than give you each and every lesson. They will then organise the exams for you.I reserve the right to be wrong and/or out of date though as I didn't do it that way.Hope this helps,Ian

In a word, yes.250kts below FL100 (or 10,000ft) means exactly that. It's to allow for the fact that there are lots more (slower) aircraft (read GA) operating down there. It applies when climbing and descending.In the US I believe it's law so you always do it, pretty much everywhere else on the planet it's recommended but can be (and often is) not applied. I think this is something to do with the airspace rules below 10,000ft in the US. I know in the UK we can have class A airspace (airways and TMAs) down low so the controllers have a better idea of who's where and what they're doing so it's easier for them to decide if greater than 250kts will be OK. Out of Heathrow, on first contact to London they always used to say "ident, no speed" but just over a year ago it changed and they started keeping us at 250kts. Every so often you get it but it's much less likely now, I've never been restricted to anything less than 250.In some places they have different restrictions, e.g. in Russia it's 270kts below 3000m.If you're in a heavy and your minimum clean speed is higher than 250 then you can get alleviation from this rule.As an aside the 300kt climb gives you a good rate, 250kts gives you a better angle (usually) so climbing at 250kts can be quite a good idea if there's high ground around.Hope this helps,Ian

>>It's not routine, I've only seen one guy do it, indeed when>we>>operate from our shortest runway on the network we're>reminded>>*not* to start the (act of) rotation early, despite the end>of>>the runway looming rapidly. It sometimes even comes up in>the>>brief. In fact, our safety monitoring system has picked up>>some instances of guys doing exactly what you are trying to>>advocate and being corrected.>>I know you think you must not touch the stick prior to Vr, and>in doing so you are convinced that this puts someone in>technical violation of rotation before Vr because you feel>this starts the ACT of rotation. Whereas I believe it is>acceptable and used in the real world as long as the aircraft>is not actually rotating prior to Vr.Any rearward motion of the yoke during the take off roll is the start of the act of rotation, technical or otherwise. I understand what you are getting at, I've heard these dangerous bit's of advice (usually in sim details and being told not to do them) like :Taking the weight off the nosewheelPressurise the stickTake up the elevator slackI've been categorically trained not to do it, it is incorrect and potentially dangerous. I appreciate the (perceived) problem they are trying to solve but it's based on the faulty definition of "rotate speed" (that and under confidence in the strength of the nosewheel) that you and I have discussed to death :-).I know it is not acceptable in the company I fly for and I've only seen it once on the line. Maybe other companies use a different calculation method for rotate speed that assumes the pilot already has a rearward control input in place. That speed would be a bugger to calculate though, when and how much rearward motion was already in place would be a moveable beast. The only time the state of the aircraft controls is known for sure is when it is at neutral, that's why rotate speed starts at that known point. The trim is used to account for any C of G variations so the aircraft should behave in exactly the same way, given the same control inputs, on pretty much every take off. How could they calculate the time taken to the lift off attitude (and hence the speed the aircraft will be at) if they don't know where the controls are starting from? I appreciate I'm being unnecessarily picky here (I'm arguing with you over fractions of a second and a couple of knots) but there is only one correct way and it's that way for a reason.>This is something we are not going to agree on becasue I feel>you are too strict in your interpretation of Vr and I backed>this up by quoting a very well known 747 pilot who has>routinely violated your interpretation of Vr, and advocated it>to other 747 pilots in training as proper procedure.Correct, I am a pedant of the highest order :-) that doesn't make him right.>>You need the lag, reducing it means you get to the optimum>pitch too slow. That's a bad thing. And for the third time,>we're not talking about the sim.>>Do you have specific quotes from 747 manuals that backs up>your assertion that you need the extra lag from a 'slack>stick'? Because I am willing to learn if this can be>documented for the 747 and shown that Capt Ray is wrong. Yes, our company 747 training manual, unfortunately I would get fired if I started quoting that on a public forum, I understand and accept your scepticism on this point :-).>But since he is the only expert on 747's that I have read on>this exact subject and advocates pulling back on the stick>slightly before Vr as normal procedure, then I must side with>him. And for the third time, he did this in a real 747's.With all due respect a sample size of one is hardly an overwhelming consensus in that method.>On this we can agree. I like the argument because it does shed>light on interesting technical interpretation differences of>Vr. Indeed, I'm always fascinated in the workings of the human mind and how we all see and understand the same information differently. It's a great human factors debate that we will probably never solve. Nevertheless, there is only one correct interpretation, other, admittedly minor, variations may be close, so close they make little difference, that doesn't make them a correct interpretation.I think we've both run out of authoritative information to back up our respective claims. Let's just agree we shouldn't "try and take off" before rotate speed, any minor variations won't make that much difference anyway.Take care,Ian

>>The rotate that Vr refers to is the *act* of rotating, the>speed at which the pilot first moves the controls.>>No it doesn't.:-) And herein lies the rub. We are disagreeing on a fundamental part of this discussion. I can't find any authoritative definition to quote so we'll have to agree to disagree ... but it kind of makes the discussion moot. >Yes I think we are emphasizing two different things things. I>was try to point out that pilots do routinely anticipate Vr by>pulling back the yoke prior to Vr, not always, and not all>pilots, but certainly in conditions where they don't have a>lot of runway and they want to make sure the aircraft rotates>at or as close to Vr as they can get.It's not routine, I've only seen one guy do it, indeed when we operate from our shortest runway on the network we're reminded *not* to start the (act of) rotation early, despite the end of the runway looming rapidly. It sometimes even comes up in the brief. In fact, our safety monitoring system has picked up some instances of guys doing exactly what you are trying to advocate and being corrected.>You are emphasizing there must be some lag time between Vr and>when the aircraft actually rotates. As I said, we are>splitting hairs because as Capt. Ray suggests, if you load up>the elevators prior to Vr, the moment you pull back at Vr, the>aircraft will rotate without lag, whereas your suggestion of>grabbing a slack stick will produce more lag. Capt. Rays>method which will rotate the aircraft at Vr is not incorrect>because it does not have the required amount of lag you>suggest. I believe he also states that the SIM responds with>lag where the real 747 doesn't. I'm not sure you read all my previous post, Vr is calculated to include these lags, it is designed so that these lags in aircraft response occur, allowing the speed to build up to the optimum lift off speed when the aircraft reaches the optimum pitch. You need the lag, reducing it means you get to the optimum pitch too slow. That's a bad thing. And for the third time, we're not talking about the sim.I'm not sure we can continue this much more, we've established we fundamentally disagree on the main definition of Vr and we've both written the same thing three times to each other. In fairness, we are talking about very minute differences in actual real life performance, I'm just being a pedant who likes to get everything perfectly correct. Hope this helps,Ian