[RVD]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

I am not so sure though, because my manual specifically says that the engine anti-ice systems can also de-ice when required, in air or on ground. Although I have never seen or heard about anyone using their engines to de-ice on the ground. It depends on the operator and the aircraft as well. Here is an excerpt from my manual. Read the 2nd paragraph.

There is no point in using engine De Icing on ground as, if the engine needs De Icing, there is a good change that the airplane critical surfaces also need De Icing and the best way to do that is to call for the de icing truck and have them spray the fluid or fluid/water mixture as per your requirements. I am just curious about the in flight De Icing that your manual talks about. Is it from the same source and same pneumatic ducting as the one used for engine anti ice. I just wonder if the manual means that the same bleed air is able to De Ice as well in case of ice accretion caused as a result of the crew not turning on the anti ice in time.

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

While the limitations of CG do take into account a wide variation in load distribution, proper CG value is extremely important for an aircraft to takeoff properly and fly efficiently. The FMC calculates the takeoff performance values, V1, V2 & V3 based on the CG % and flap values. If I used a value of 35% instead of 26%, the takeoff performance will vary, even though both values are within the limits for a given weight. Please note that the CG referred here is the takeoff CG.

While in cruise, we use another value called the cruise CG, which is set in the FMC.

Do you actually use the V1,V2,VR generated by your FMC ?? Is that not for Balanced Field length ? Do you not use the optimized charts prepared by your performance engineering ? Also, When do you enter the Cruise CG ? Is it not default calculated based on T/O Cg and fuel burn. I guess it must be specific to long haul operations.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

As far as I know it is also a legal requirement to perform and document a W&B calculation to do so, on any plane, prior to take off. I know I always do, because that's what a pilot is supposed to do and on top of it, its also a legal requirement. Jeroen

100% Legal requirement. The load and Trim is a mandatory document that has to be carried on board and a copy is to be left at the departure. The L&T staff that prepares the document needs to counter sign it along with their license number.

[searchingheaven]

Originally Posted by RVD

I am just curious about the in flight De Icing that your manual talks about. Is it from the same source and same pneumatic ducting as the one used for engine anti ice. I just wonder if the manual means that the same bleed air is able to De Ice as well in case of ice accretion caused as a result of the crew not turning on the anti ice in time.

When ice is detected, they first function as de-icing systems, then as anti-icing systems for continued flight in icing conditions. The de-icing is done using the same bleed air.

Originally Posted by RVD

Do you actually use the V1,V2,VR generated by your FMC ?? Is that not for Balanced Field length ? Do you not use the optimized charts prepared by your performance engineering?

Yes, the FMC generated V-Speeds are for BFL. But our operator uses the following procedure rigorously to eliminate any errors that might arise due to wrong calculation on the part of flight ops.

• Calculate V-Speed from FMC initially.
• Match and confirm V speeds with the performance sheet. If there is a deviation of more than +-7 knots, a re-calculation is requested.
• If the deviation is less than +-7 knots, overwrite the FMC generated values with the ones generated by the performance software and continue.

PS: Performance Data Uplink is strictly not allowed by our operator for reasons quoted above.

Originally Posted by RVD

Also, When do you enter the Cruise CG ? Is it not default calculated based on T/O Cg and fuel burn. I guess it must be specific to long haul operations.

It is not specific to long haul operations only, but to the 777. In the older 773's, the FMC always had a default value of 7.5% in the FMC. This is because when the 773 was first introduced, there were some airframe vibrations or wing flutter due to the raked wingtip design. The only solution at that time was to fly at a lower altitude than normal. So Boeing used the Cruise CG value to limit the maximum altitude. Kind of like a software fix. In the later airframes, this issue was rectified and the FMC was updated to a default value of 17.5%. But nowadays, operators have started specifying a fixed default cruise CG of 30% throughout the 777 range. Even my operator has the 30% Cruise CG rule.

Some operators still use the default CG of 7.5 or 17.5. Having a low Cruise CG means that the VNAV page of the FMC calculates a lower maximum altitude. While this is safe and conservative – it’s not accurate, and prevents the crew from climbing when the option is available.

Originally Posted by hangover

That's why planes dump fuel before emergency landings. The risk of an explosion is not mitigated. (10 tons burns for a lesser time than 100 tons. It's still a fire.) It is to save the landing gear systems.

No, I have said this before in this thread itself. Aircrafts do not jettison fuel due to landing gear issues. They do so to achieve the required Missed Approach Performance (MAP), in case they have to go around.

FAR criteria require that landing gear design be based on:

• A sink rate of 10 feet per second at the maximum design landing weight
• A sink rate of 6 feet per second at the maximum design takeoff weight.

Sink rates at touchdown are generally 2 to 3 feet per second, and even a hard landing rarely exceeds 6 feet per second. Additionally, the landing loads are based on the worst possible landing attitudes resulting in high loading on individual gear. So theoretically, the landing gear can take the load of an aircraft landing even at the maximum takeoff weight.

[hangover]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

NO, not necessarily, its not about tail or nose heavy perse. It is ensuring the centre of gravity falls within predescribed limits. Its about the plane being balanced in seach a way that
Not sure where the must" comes from? It would be nice, but even on widebodies you would be lucky to see 2 maybe 3 doors used during boarding.

Many studies have been conducted on what is the quickest way of boarding.
First/Business/Economy, by seatnumber, by row etc.

Many test have been run with variying degree of result. As a frequent flyer with Titanium status on three different carriers I would say the biggest factor is how well adherence is being applied to whatever method is used.

Jeroen

Consider a 3 X 3 seating configuration. 25 rows. Loading in being done only at one door from the front.

People if left to themselves will grab the window and aisle seats. When the middle row passenger comes in the aisle guy has to get up.

People will try to occupy seats near the front of the plane. They start loading the overhead bins. So nobody else can enter or pass through at this point.
Leaving aside people with kids for this example, the best way is to line up passengers in the airport as below.

1. First all the window seat passengers get in. First 2 passengers go to the very back of the plane and sit down. Next guys take the window seats in front of the first 2 guys.
2. Next all middle seat passengers get in again settling from the back of plane to front.
3. Then the aisle passengers get in.

This way you load the plane quickly. The air hostesses can do the headcount in half the time.

While disembarking they usually say - first ten rows get off now. They do it row wise which is wrong. It must be column wise.
What they should announce is - row 1 to 10 aisle passengers get off now. Then row 10 to 20 aisle seats. And so on.

At least that's how I'd run my airline.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by hangover

This way you load the plane quickly.

As I said before, there is a lot of research available on how to board plane fast.
One of the most well known methods is the Steffen Method.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...planes/383181/

If you google ‘how to board planes faster’ you get a lot of information including this one, which as always is quite interesting and amusing:

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/mythb...ong-1636981904

What I always find interesting that all actual tests show that random boarding is typically the fastest or second fastest method!

Originally Posted by hangover

The air hostesses can do the headcount in half the time.

I don’t see a correlation with the boarding. The air hostess takes the head count when everybody has sat down, not during boarding.

Originally Posted by hangover

While disembarking they usually say - first ten rows get off now. T

I have never heard them say that. In my experience they let first/business of first and then just the rest.

Apart from what might be the best theoretical model or tested model airlines do need to take note of what their customers prefer. When I fly business class I expect to be the first one to board and the first to disembark, no matter what Steffen or Mythbuster say!

Jeroen

[sriramr9]

Pilots, If you have any sort of information about the root cause of the right wing fire of the singapore airlines 777, request to please share here and help us understand how it was detected on time and how it was averted just in time with seconds to spare.

The reason mentioned was oil leak, but the reason looks very vague and was the engine shutdown entirely and was the air craft returning with just one engine powering ? if the engine was shutdown how come the fire still managed to engulf ?

I am still in awe of the heroic efforts shown by the firefighters who put off the flames in minutes just like that, they are the real hero's who need ovation in every possible way to appreciate their efforts in saving lives.


http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...27-gpsl5n.html

[hangover]

Originally Posted by sriramr9

The reason mentioned was oil leak, but the reason looks very vague and was the engine shutdown entirely and was the air craft returning with just one engine powering ? if the engine was shutdown how come the fire still managed to engulf ?

I am still in awe of the heroic efforts shown by the firefighters who put off the flames in minutes just like that, they are the real hero's who need ovation in every possible way to appreciate their efforts in saving lives.


http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...27-gpsl5n.html

That's a tail pipe fire. It occurs only on the ground during engine start or stop.

There are 2 types of fires in plane engines - internal (in the fuel chamber) and external (in the outer chamber)

Imagine the engine as 2 cones one inside the other. The gap between the cones has no fuel at normal times. Sometimes fuel gets in there due to leakages, pipe rupture or aging component failure.

There are 3 inflammable fluids in planes. Fuel (auto ignition at 230 degrees centigrade), general oil (260) hydraulic oil (450). Any of these could have spilt on to the outside of the super hot internal cone and caught fire.

You shut down engine. Isolate it by closing electrics, hydraulics and Pneumatic. Spray fire extinguisher chemical.

Internal fire is what you asked about. Only reason is an excess surge of fuel. This is not dangerous.
Why? The internal cone is anyway designed for high temp. operation.

The fire fighters did the wrong thing. I guarantee the airline manager and airport fire chiefs are fighting now.

You need to shut down the engine fuel supply.
And dry crank the engine. This removes the unwanted fuel.

No point releasing the internal fire extinguisher. It does not go into the inner cone.

You can release the internal extinguisher if you like. It will ruin the engine. Like what the fire fighters did anyway.

A bird hit can cause a fire. Actually not one bird. 5.
Engines are built to provide 75% power even if a 3.5 kg bird is followed by 4 more 1 kg birds. I swear.

Engine flame out is the opposite of engine fire. Literally the bulb is off. Or no flame in the candle. The auto ignition gets triggered. It will continuously try to relight the engine. Like the automatic gas stove at home.

The most spectacular fire is a tail fire. Fuel and oils sometimes accumulate on it. Sometimes it catches fire. You'll be seen blazing a trail of fire across the sky.
Adults Panic. Kids won't be surprised. That's exactly how space ships work in cartoons.

Again not a worry. When the inflammable stuff burns out the fire will stop. Usually.

When I'm a trillionnaire all my planes will have a fire-tail system.

When the fire is detected pilots don't do anything to the engine.
They let it burn.
Because first thing is they regain control of the plane.
Then point in the right direction.
Then they try to identify if it's a genuine fire alarm.
Then identify which engine.
Then isolate it.
Then do the steps mentioned above.

Some pilots abort take off or turn back. Sometimes fresh pilots apply the wrong procedure for tail pipe fires. Like NOT dry cranking.

If the fire is out and the plane is flying you try to keep the engine in idle if possible. This still provides electric and hydraulic power.

[Turbanator]

The fire fighters did the wrong thing. I guarantee the airline manager and airport fire chiefs are fighting now.

Can you please elaborate this ? You mean that with 220 + passengers on plane they should have waited to let fire cease on it's own and there was no chance of this fire getting spread to fuel tanks or am I missing something ?

[audioholic]

Not sure if people have observed this, but I find that Emirates have aggressive pilots - Aggressive not in the attitude, but the way the flight is flown. Is the use of speedbrakes continuously really necessary during descent? Cant the descent and slowing down be possible without speedbrakes? I have sat in the B777 as well as A380 and the speed brakes are used a lot during descent compared to Air France or Lufthansa(B747). The EU carriers slow down gently and use of speedbrakes is almost nil, except it deploys to assist in banking. Is it because the ME carriers are lenient towards fuel consumption?

If thats not the case, then a general question - How are the policies of the oil rich Airlines different from the others? Is it like in Emirates or Qatar pilots can push the throttle a little more further than required, to cover up time? Sometimes I land in bangalore nearly 45 mins earlier when coming from Dubai though we left a little late. Once on a 7Hr FRA-DXB flight, we were almost an hour early into DXB only to be put on hold for around 15 mins and then allowed to land, still very much in time.

I understand its due to the tailwind, but in this case cant the aircraft be slowed down such that the actual speed remains the same and so does the time?

[hangover]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

Can you please elaborate this ? You mean that with 220 + passengers on plane they should have waited to let fire cease on it's own and there was no chance of this fire getting spread to fuel tanks or am I missing something ?

The passengers were reportedly calm and composed. It means the air crew communicated well. 10/10 points.

Sure it looks scary. It would have been controllable. But it's still not dangerous.

The fuel tank is/was not going to explode as the pilots would have closed the supply immediately.

Too many people would have sued the airline if they were asked to wait inside the plane. So evacuating it was the legal safe method.

I don't know any military pilots. If you do, ask them what they do. I'm 99% sure they stay and battle this type of fire.

The only technical matter here is there are no sensors for tail pipe fire. There is no specific warning. It has to be a visual alert.

It's always on the ground so someone or other will notice it.

There are 3 parameters continuously monitored on the engine.

1. Outer fan speed
2. engine pressure difference between entry and exit
3. exhaust gas temperature (egt).

The EGT may have increased. That can be overlooked/missed at times. Because the EGT will always rise to peak and maximum values.

Maximum EGT means max. safe value. That's not breaking point. It will always go higher to a peak EGT. This is on full load take off.

The difference between max. and peak is a measure of engine life left. Older engines have a lower peak.

[searchingheaven]

I really didn’t want to reply to your posts, but seeing the extent of your misinformation, I had to. You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong. Let me elaborate.

Originally Posted by hangover

That's a tail pipe fire. It occurs only on the ground during engine start or stop. The most spectacular fire is a tail fire. Fuel and oils sometimes accumulate on it. Sometimes it catches fire. You'll be seen blazing a trail of fire across the sky. Adults Panic. Kids won't be surprised. That's exactly how space ships work in cartoons.

A tailpipe fire is one which occurs within the normal gas flow path of the engine. This wasn’t just a tailpipe fire. This might have originated in the tailpipe, but it spread to the wing as well on landing. But the important point to note is that tailpipe fires are indicated by a warning on the EICAS on the 777. This might have been the reason for the crew requesting firefighting equipment. In all probability, they had an oil leak in the right engine and then have used reverse thrust on landing which blew the hot oil all over the wing. But this theory assumes that the right engine wasn’t shutdown, something we don’t know for sure yet.

Originally Posted by hangover

The fire fighters did the wrong thing. I guarantee the airline manager and airport fire chiefs are fighting now. You can release the internal extinguisher if you like. It will ruin the engine. Like what the fire fighters did anyway. -----------
Sure it looks scary. It would have been controllable. But it's still not dangerous. -------------
Again not a worry. When the inflammable stuff burns out the fire will stop. Usually.

For once, tell me you’re joking. The occurrence of smoke or fire on board commercial aeroplanes during flight is an extremely dangerous situation. If not dealt with effectively by the aircraft’s crew, it can result in disaster. I've seen what a fire can do in a confined space such as an aircraft, and believe me, it ain't pretty. In a matter of seconds, it can from just some smoke to an all out inferno.

The only reason you're reading about this as an incident is because those fire fighters extinguished the fire. The aircraft fuselage is designed to withstand approx. 3 minutes of direct fire impact. In general you can say that after 2-3 minutes of a fire that intense, the aluminum gets burned through. The B777 wings can withstand longer as the composite material doesn't melt as fast, but still, they had no more than 5 mins of time before this fire turned the 777 into an aluminum coffin.

Originally Posted by hangover

Too many people would have sued the airline if they were asked to wait inside the plane. So evacuating it was the legal safe method.

No, no and no. Evacuation was delayed by 1 mins and 10 secs because there was a strong crosswind from the right at the time of fire and there was a chance of the fire extending to ENG 1. Also remember that emergency services were in stand by for this landing already, we can safely assume that fire fighters observed the aircraft and gave their recommendations to the crew of how to proceed, and this recommendation may well have been to not evacuate.

Originally Posted by hangover

The only technical matter here is there are no sensors for tail pipe fire. There is no specific warning. It has to be a visual alert. It's always on the ground so someone or other will notice it.

Wrong. There is a EICAS warning and caution for a Tailpipe Fire. The exact text is : FIRE ENG TAILPIPE L, R. We do not depend on visual alerts for tail pipe fire. If you want, I can post photos from my QRH.

Originally Posted by hangover

The fire fighters did the wrong thing. I guarantee the airline manager and airport fire chiefs are fighting now.

It is very immature to speculate about the flight or the airline crew's training and judge their action based on a video, which does NOT provide you with the information required to analyse the situation in its whole. If you are an aviation professional, maybe cut your fellow professionals some slack. If you are not a professional, then do not act like a manager behind a desk who just read a thick volume of "Managers Guide to Hindsight".

Originally Posted by Turbanator

Can you please elaborate this ? You mean that with 220 + passengers on plane they should have waited to let fire cease on it's own and there was no chance of this fire getting spread to fuel tanks or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by sriramr9

Pilots, If you have any sort of information about the root cause of the right wing fire of the singapore airlines 777, request to please share here and help us understand how it was detected on time and how it was averted just in time with seconds to spare.

Quoting you guys so that you can read the clarification.

Originally Posted by audioholic

Not sure if people have observed this, but I find that Emirates have aggressive pilots - Aggressive not in the attitude, but the way the flight is flown. Is the use of speedbrakes continuously really necessary during descent?

If thats not the case, then a general question - How are the policies of the oil rich Airlines different from the others?

I am not rated on the A380, so cannot comment about that. But on the 777, speedbrakes usage is very common and frequent.

And contrary to popular popular opinion, Emirates buys its fuel on the open market, and not at subsidized prices. Fuel accounts for more than 35% of Emirates total expenditure, comparable with other international long-haul carriers.

I will answer the rest of the questions day after tomorrow.

Here are some photos of the incident.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Not sure if people have observed this, but I find that Emirates have aggressive pilots - Aggressive not in the attitude, but the way the flight is flown. Is the use of speedbrakes continuously really necessary during descent? Cant the descent and slowing down be possible without speedbrakes?

My experience in Europe and the USA with a very busy airspace, its really down to ATC. The FMC can easily calculate a very efficient descent at idle power setting taking into account the various wind directions and strength at different altitudes. However, in practice you never get that. ATC will tell you when to descent. You could request a descent in line with your FMC but most likely they will deny.

Especially in very busy airspace they want to expedite the “tin”. That often results in high speeds till the last moment, followed by relatively fast descents. Hence the speed brakes.

As a pilot flying under IFR rules you are obliged to follow ATC instructions, unless it compromises the safety of the flight or they ask you to do something that your plane is not capable of doing (which often is also a compromise of safety)

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

I really didn’t want to reply to your posts, but seeing the extent of your misinformation, I had to. You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong. Let me elaborate.

Boy, talk about a mutual feeling!

Originally Posted by hangover

There are 3 parameters continuously monitored on the engine.

There are dozens of engine parameters that are being monitored continuously.

Originally Posted by hangover

There are 2 types of fires in plane engines - internal (in the fuel chamber) and external (in the outer chamber)

Not sure where you picked up this internal/external terminology. In aviation when it comes to jets the usual terms are contained and un-contained fires. Simply speaking contained would be everything that is under the cowls and can be handled by the fire suppression system. Un-contained is when it spreads outside the engine (cowling). This looks like an un-contained fire. It’s really way to early to draw any conclusions. But aviation fuel typically burns very cleanly and lub oil will get you a lot of smoke. Going by the colour of the smoke, it looks that some lub oil was involved there as well.

Originally Posted by hangover

And dry crank the engine.

This being an automotive forum I can understand the term, but I have never ever seen it in any aviation operational procedure and or check list.

Originally Posted by hangover

The EGT may have increased. That can be overlooked/missed at times. Because the EGT will always rise to peak and maximum values.

Maximum EGT means max. safe value. That's not breaking point. It will always go higher to a peak EGT. This is on full load take off.

The difference between max. and peak is a measure of engine life left. Older engines have a lower peak.

Eh, I don’t think so.

Originally Posted by hangover

It is very immature to speculate about the flight or the airline crew's training and judge their action based on a video, which does NOT provide you with the information required to analyse the situation in its whole. If you are an aviation professional, maybe cut your fellow professionals some slack. If you are not a professional, then do not act like a manager behind a desk who just read a thick volume of "Managers Guide to Hindsight".
.

Agree. Until we know what was known on the flight deck you can’t really judge whether the crew responded adequately.

Jeroen

[searchingheaven]

To add to what I said above, the pilots are getting called out for not evacuating immediately. Here is the truth:

The decision to evacuate is grave. People will get hurt, some badly. Deaths are a possibility. Imagine 80 year olds going down those slides. Handicapped passengers. Idiots with their carry ons. There is a real risk that someone will open an exit on the side that is on fire. There are reports of fuel fumes in the cabin. The Crash Fire Rescue Crews will be taken away from fire fighting and forced to deal with confused, panicked passengers.

And while this probably does not apply to Singapore Airlines, I will say this anyway. My colleague flew 6 years for a bottom feeding, cost cutting, scumbag run airline. For the pilots at these airlines, every day is a battle. You're pushed and coerced to cut corners in the name of saving money. You'll be challenged if you want to increase the fuel load because the weather is marginal (fuel burn is increased in a heavier plane). You'll be threatened with punitive action if you call off sick (which you're obligated to do by federal law). You'll be bullied by middle management if you ground a plane for maintenance reasons (which you're also required to do by federal regulation). And you'll have your decision making questioned if you order an evacuation of a smoking airplane not because some pax were injured on the slide, but because blowing the slides costs money!

And even on international carriers, your pilots are up front fighting this battle every day.

Video of the wing on fire

Originally Posted by Jeroen

This being an automotive forum I can understand the term, but I have never ever seen it in any aviation operational procedure and or check list.
Jeroen

What he probably meant was motoring an engine. Motoring is a standard procedure in case of tail pipe fire.

[RVD]

Originally Posted by hangover

That's a tail pipe fire. It occurs only on the ground during engine start or stop.

There are 2 types of fires in plane engines - internal (in the fuel chamber) and external (in the outer chamber)

Imagine the engine as 2 cones one inside the other. The gap between the cones has no fuel at normal times. Sometimes fuel gets in there due to leakages, pipe rupture or aging component failure.

There are 3 inflammable fluids in planes. Fuel (auto ignition at 230 degrees centigrade), general oil (260) hydraulic oil (450). Any of these could have spilt on to the outside of the super hot internal cone and caught fire.

You shut down engine. Isolate it by closing electrics, hydraulics and Pneumatic. Spray fire extinguisher chemical.

Internal fire is what you asked about. Only reason is an excess surge of fuel. This is not dangerous.
Why? The internal cone is anyway designed for high temp. operation.

The fire fighters did the wrong thing. I guarantee the airline manager and airport fire chiefs are fighting now.

You need to shut down the engine fuel supply.
And dry crank the engine. This removes the unwanted fuel.

No point releasing the internal fire extinguisher. It does not go into the inner cone.

You can release the internal extinguisher if you like. It will ruin the engine. Like what the fire fighters did anyway.

A bird hit can cause a fire. Actually not one bird. 5.
Engines are built to provide 75% power even if a 3.5 kg bird is followed by 4 more 1 kg birds. I swear.

Engine flame out is the opposite of engine fire. Literally the bulb is off. Or no flame in the candle. The auto ignition gets triggered. It will continuously try to relight the engine. Like the automatic gas stove at home.

The most spectacular fire is a tail fire. Fuel and oils sometimes accumulate on it. Sometimes it catches fire. You'll be seen blazing a trail of fire across the sky.
Adults Panic. Kids won't be surprised. That's exactly how space ships work in cartoons.

Again not a worry. When the inflammable stuff burns out the fire will stop. Usually.

When I'm a trillionnaire all my planes will have a fire-tail system.

When the fire is detected pilots don't do anything to the engine.
They let it burn.
Because first thing is they regain control of the plane.
Then point in the right direction.
Then they try to identify if it's a genuine fire alarm.
Then identify which engine.
Then isolate it.
Then do the steps mentioned above.

Some pilots abort take off or turn back. Sometimes fresh pilots apply the wrong procedure for tail pipe fires. Like NOT dry cranking.

If the fire is out and the plane is flying you try to keep the engine in idle if possible. This still provides electric and hydraulic power.

Please tell me that you are not a pilot!!!! I don't mean to be rude but you are wrong on so many levels. First of all, how did you conclude that it was a tail pipe fire ? Even if we assume that it was, clearly the situation was out of hand wherein the wing was engulfed in fire as well. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that they should have followed the QRH procedure of motoring the engine and not called for the fire tenders because of the fear of busting the engine ?

"If the fire is out and the plane is flying, you try to keep the engine in Idle"-- Are you kidding me ? Where are you getting all this from ? If there was a fire, the engine is shut down.PERIOD!! The electric and hydraulic will work just fine.

[RVD]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

To add to what I said above, the pilots are getting called out for not evacuating immediately. Here is the truth:

The decision to evacuate is grave. People will get hurt, some badly. Deaths are a possibility.

And even on international carriers, your pilots are up front fighting this battle every day.

While what you say is 100% correct, usually in case of a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be extinguished, the usual course of action is to evacuate. Although, I completely agree that the pilots must have had their rationale for not evacuating, it will not be easy to convince either their flight safety team or the investigating team about the same.

[hangover]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Not sure if people have observed this, but I find that Emirates have aggressive pilots - Aggressive not in the attitude, but the way the flight is flown. Is the use of speedbrakes continuously really necessary during descent? Cant the descent and slowing down be possible without speedbrakes? I have sat in the B777 as well as A380 and the speed brakes are used a lot during descent compared to Air France or Lufthansa(B747). The EU carriers slow down gently and use of speedbrakes is almost nil, except it deploys to assist in banking. Is it because the ME carriers are lenient towards fuel consumption?

Spoilers are the physical things that move upwards on top of the wing. Or below the wing.
Speedbrake and lift dump are the functions it provides. Due to the A380's weight and resulting inertia of motion these are used to aid landing. One breaks the aerofoil profile and increases drag. The lift dump cancels the lift of the wings.

When the A380 was introduced runways had to be significantly modified. People thought they had to be lengthened. No.

They had to be widened. The distance between the outer 2 engines center to center is 170 feet. Runways till then were only 140 feet wide to support 747 planes.

If your engine is outside the runway it will inhale debris.

So you have the normal wheel braking to stop a plane. Planes too have anti lock brakes. A pilot can slam the brakes on landing. Passengers will not like it. A plane is designed to stop with wheel brakes alone.

Now if your runway is wet or not long enough your wheel braking is going to be a borderline case. It will stop at the last inch of the runway.

The second method of stopping a plane after wheels hit the ground is using thrust reversers (TR). Planes with this feature land at idling speed with TR deployed. If pilot wants the TR he simply accelerates. TR power is 20% of full forward thrust.

The A380 has a 20 knots (1 knot = 1.8 kmph) lesser landing speed than a 747 due to its huge wings. Due to the debris problem mentioned above it has TR's only on the 2 engines next to the fuselage (body).

Thrust reverser uses fuel when airlines are trying to save money with one engine only running at taxiing. Which is obviously irrelevant to a gulfie carrier.

French and German pilots care about passenger comfort more. So they land like butterflies.

Originally Posted by audioholic

If thats not the case, then a general question - How are the policies of the oil rich Airlines different from the others? Is it like in Emirates or Qatar pilots can push the throttle a little more further than required, to cover up time? Sometimes I land in bangalore nearly 45 mins earlier when coming from Dubai though we left a little late. Once on a 7Hr FRA-DXB flight, we were almost an hour early into DXB only to be put on hold for around 15 mins and then allowed to land, still very much in time.

I understand its due to the tailwind, but in this case cant the aircraft be slowed down such that the actual speed remains the same and so does the time?

Again it's because fuel costs are negligible for gulf carriers. So they step on it.