[searchingheaven]

Originally Posted by vgsr

I find that the seats in the rearmost part f the aircraft are much noisier than those even slightly ahead. Can you explain why ? Is that the reason the the business and the first class are towards the front?

Engine noise is louder behind the engines, as you might expect. The 777 is one of the quieter planes and engine noise is not bad behind the wing. Even so, noise is higher at the back than at the front. Also, the sensation of severe turbulence is far more pronounced at the rear end of the aircraft than in cabins ahead of the wings. As for business/first being in the front of the aircraft, there are a variety of reasons.

• First In, First Out: They are given preference during boarding and deboarding.
  
• Quieter Environment: For reasons stated above, first class is quieter.
  
• Little Turbulence: Turbulence at the front of the plane is lower than the back.
• Seating Arrangement: First & business passengers feel that they should be in the front or on the upper deck (747 or A380), when available.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Why use hydraulic systems? Won't electric w/ redundancy be easier?

The reason to use hydraulics is because they are able to transmit a very high pressure or force with a small volume of fluid (hydraulic oil). Hydraulic systems are very reliable, its fluid is virtually incompressible and is able to transmit high pressures. And it's economical.

For electrical systems, there are 3 major issues.

• Weight. An electric motor capable of raising a 4,000 pound main landing gear would be extremely heavy and you would need two.
  
• Speed/Reaction Time. All-electric actuators do not currently have the power density or speed needed to operate an aircraft’s flight surfaces effectively. If a pilot finds himself heading toward a thunderstorm, he expects a powerful and immediate response from the aircraft the moment he inputs a command.
  
• Efficiency: Electric is inefficient, lots of friction losses at each gear/ bearing stage <75%.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Why are there so many switches for everything, wont it make sense to have fewer switches with modular capabilities?

1. First off, a lot of those switches you see are circuit breakers. Electrical failures and troubleshooting have to be handled while still flying the plane. These circuit breaker isolate a specific subsystem in case it fails.
   
   
2. When you're in a aluminum tube at 35000 ft with 300 people as your responsibility, the last thing you want to do is rely on a computer having 100% control over ANYTHING. The cockpit has manual controls and redundant systems for almost all subsystems onboard. About 60% of the switches never need to be flipped, but you want to have absolute control over everything for any sort of "just in case" moment, because at 35,000 ft. you don't have any other options if something goes wrong. Redundant controls also increase the complexity but add to the safety.
   
   eg. A perfect example of this is the RAT(Ram Air Turbine). It is a small turbine that is connected to a hydraulic pump, or electrical generator, installed in an aircraft and used as a power source. In case of the loss of both primary and auxiliary power sources the RAT will power vital systems (flight controls, linked hydraulics and also flight-critical instrumentation). On 5 flights till now, RAT has proved to be a savior, providing flight control when both engines have failed or power sources have failed.
   
   A 777-300ER landing with the RAT deployed.
   
   
   
3. The reason an aircraft's cockpit seems complicated is because there are a number of systems working at one time to keep an aircraft in flight safely while monitoring all the flight data. There are MANY systems working together and each system has its own set of switches and redundant backup systems with their own switches. It looks confusing and it can be when you're new to the field but once you start to learn systems readily used in an aircraft it all starts to make sense. You could probably put a blindfold on most pilot's eyes and they would start a 777 simply by the feel and engine sound.(Sound because the fuel cutoff switches have to be set to RUN at specific N1%).

Originally Posted by quickdraw

As a product designer, I am aghast at the UI/UX of Aircraft systems. Why does everything have to be so horrid and non-intuitive. I understand legibility is important but I'm sure there are many better ways to communicate information to pilots other than green on black etc.

As I said, it is because of your non familiarity with the aircraft systems. I am a pilot, and I find cockpits to be very well thought out and ergonomically designed. Everything that is important is there in front of your eyes at eye level(PFD + ND + MCP).

As a small example, my father works on a software called Android Studio or something like that. I find that software absolutely horrendous to even understand. For you guys, it probably is very easy to understand. It's just because of my non-familiarity with it.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Is Boeing's strategy with the dreamliner working? (For others Airbus launched A380 which carries a large amount of people to hubs who take flights from there to destination vs Boeing who has a mid size plane which takes people directly to destinations).

The 787 has seating for 242 passengers and a range of 7,850 nautical miles. The 787 takes less fuel, it flies higher and it's more efficient. That fuel efficiency, combined with the right number of seats, makes new routes profitable that weren't before. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the 787 was about enabling point-to-point long-haul flights. Rather, the A380 was a hub-to-hub tool, whereas the 787 was a hub-to-small-spoke tool. And at least for now, the A380 has lost the battle.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

What do you love about Boeing planes vs Airbus?

No comments. The only thing I can say is that both are very safe, versatile and comparable in terms of range, quality, speed and capacity. Both sides have their supporters and there is a lot of competition. Depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer as to who won these “wars”. Therefore, it’s hard to tell what airline actually provided the better service – with only very limited independent, un-sourced analysis providing any kind of legitimacy to the debate.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Why are pilots against recording everything in the cockpit? Most of the unexplained crashes will only remain theories because of absence of this.

Privacy concerns, obviously. Technically, these can be accessed only after an accident and must be heard only by investigators. But those safeguards don't always hold up. In the past, recordings have leaked to the public. For airlines looking to monitor pilots, it's a tempting way to see what's going on in the cockpit. Also, 2 hrs of data prior to the crash is more than enough to determine the cause of the same and take corrective action.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

If I can access whatsapp over the north pole, why can't every plane in the world relay its information in real time to a central database?

Well, we don't access whatsapp at 35000 ft. , but we surely do relay important data from the aircraft to the ground using ACARS.

A sample ACARS transmission.

Originally Posted by sriramr9

In the event of a loss of ground speed, is there a way of over riding the above systems and still fly the plane manually without endangering the plane from stall. If one has to avoid stall and fly manually what is the procedure. Read that pitots were blocked in one A330 and the air france 447 inexperienced officers were unable to override and bring the air craft under control upon its auto pilot going into shutdown mode due to lack of ground speed. Have you encountered pitot probe icing incidents in 777 how have the officers mitigated the problem and still flied without endangering the aircraft/passengers?

Stall recovery

Stall recovery is something we practise regularly on our simulators. And at altitudes as low as 1500 ft. The key factor in recovery from a stall is regaining positive control of the aircraft by reducing the angle of attack. At the first indication of a stall, the wing angle of attack must be decreased to allow the wings to regain lift. Every aircraft in upright flight may require a different amount of forward pressure to regain lift. It should be noted that too much forward pressure could hinder recovery by imposing a negative load on the wing. The next step in recovering from a stall is to smoothly apply maximum allowable power to increase the airspeed and minimize the loss of altitude. As airspeed increases and the recovery is completed, power should be adjusted to return the aeroplane to the desired flight condition. Straight and level flight should then be established with full co-ordinated use of the controls. The airspeed indicator or tachometer, if installed, should never be allowed to reach their high-speed red lines at anytime during a practice stall.

Stall warning is considered to be a warning readily identifiable by the pilot, either initial buffet or artificial (stick shaker). During initial stages of stall, local airflow separation results in buffeting (initial buffet), giving natural warning of an approach to stall. At cruise Mach numbers, stick shaker activation occurs just after reaching initial buffet. When the speed decreases approximately half way through the amber band, the AIRSPEED LOW caution message appears. The autothrottle wakes up, automatically engages in the SPD mode and returns the airplane to minimum maneuvering speed. The airplane can be trimmed down to an airspeed approximately equal to the minimum maneuver speed. Below this airspeed, nose up trim is inhibited.

Unreliable Airspeed due to Pitot Heat loss

Unreliable airspeed indications can result from blocking or freezing of the pitot/static system or a severely damaged or missing radome. This could mean increasing indicated airspeed in climb, decreasing indicated airspeed in descent, or unpredictable indicated airspeed in cruise. Unreliable airspeed may cause noticeable effects in the normal speed stability of the airplane since the normal pitch control law uses indicated airspeed. If the indicated airspeed falls below 50 knots, the flight control system changes to the secondary mode, which does not depend on airspeed. The autothrottle system also uses indicated airspeed and should be turned off. When the abnormal airspeed is recognized, we consult the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the manual for the correct attitude, thrust settings, and V/S for actual airplane gross weight and altitude. Ground speed information is available from the FMC and on the instrument displays. These indications can be used as a cross check. Many air traffic control radars can also measure ground speed.

PS: Read this article on the AF447. Link to Vanity Fair article on AF447

Originally Posted by sriramr9

Request to provide more insight on the make of the Attitude indicators if possible with screenshots of interior and how it works, is it full digital or a mix of both ?

I don't think I got your question properly. Do you want the internal working of the Attitude indicator or how it works in flight?

Originally Posted by THE-U-

I am not sure this is quite accurate but they are comparable though. It seems fuselage dimensions of all of the above single aisle aircraft are a few inches or so wider (~144in) than the GE90-115B (135in).

According to Boeing, the internal cabin diameter of the newer 737 models is 11 ft 7 in (3.53 m). GE-90-115B is 11 ft 3 in (3.43 m) in diameter. Add the fan casing and you will probably get the figures.

Originally Posted by karan561

I had a question regarding landing gear i.e. What tyres / brands are used ? Is it the regular Michelin, Good Year etc ? Or some other companies manufacture it ? Also are these tubeless, with tube or run flat type ?
:

Bridgestones for the model I fly on.

Specifications: 52 X 21 R 22, 36 PR

52 inches diameter.
21 inches width
R- Radial
22 rim diameter
Ply Rating 36
Speed Rating (MPH): 235
Rated Load Lbs. 44,500
Tire Weight Avg. Lbs. 156.0

My captain was telling me yesterday that Goodyear has won the bid for the 777x tires.

[carmayogi]

This is why Emirates, with 140 A380 orders, wants a new-engined A380. To be fair, if the big bird can get A320neo/A330neo upgrades, it will compete on seat cost and be justified for heavy trunk routes such as DXB-LHR, DXB-JFK or even BOM-JFK(EWR currently), where airport capacity constrains your number of flights. It's a truly fascinating battle.

I see the following thing happening: Airbus wins the A330 sized market, loses the 777 size market and wins the A380 market.

Further, there's news of a few A380 orders so it may not be dead yet.

I believe that these two airplane manufacturers need to be more flexible with their designs. It's sensible for the 747-8i to have 787 engines and similarly Airbus needs to have this flexibility to keep costs down and let their big bird survive.

In short - there is a market for the A380 still with no direct competition while the 777-X will probably be the mainstay of the less-than-jumbo size segment, just like the current 777-300ER is.

A side note though: Should there be any sudden economic downturn globally, we may see the end of the jumbo era and potentially some other collateral damage.

[AppyS]

Voted a well deserved 5* thread. I am a sucker for these big birds and sometimes literally dream of them in my sleep. I was not so excited to be in Paris once but instead of having the chance to see the Concorde displayed at the airport. Loved the engine caption and comparison with the single aisle brethren. Its easy to notice how small the 737's and A320's are in front of these mighty birds. Very informative and detailed explanation there Sir for the 777 dash. Yours must be an awesome job to be in.

[Sip]

Thank you searchingheaven for such spectacular topic and superb write up! You have just made a successful effort in introducing an often uncharted territory to most of people.

The only thing I didn't like about this aircraft is that it has killed B-747! The aircraft had its own awe and ruled an era. Its unbelievable that it can fly on single engine for 5.5 hrs!! Commendable effort towards safety.

[govindremesh]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

The reason to use hydraulics is because they are able to transmit a very high pressure or force with a small volume of fluid (hydraulic oil). Hydraulic systems are very reliable, its fluid is virtually incompressible and is able to transmit high pressures. And it's economical.

For electrical systems, there are 3 major issues.

• Weight. An electric motor capable of raising a 4,000 pound main landing gear would be extremely heavy and you would need two.
  
• Speed/Reaction Time. All-electric actuators do not currently have the power density or speed needed to operate an aircraft’s flight surfaces effectively. If a pilot finds himself heading toward a thunderstorm, he expects a powerful and immediate response from the aircraft the moment he inputs a command.
  
• Efficiency: Electric is inefficient, lots of friction losses at each gear/ bearing stage <75%.

This is a new information to me! But I read in one of the technical documents of the B787 that much of its hydraulic systems have been replaced with electronic ones and the engine now employs bleedless configuration (to make it quiter). Further , it stated that the cabin pressurization is also handled by electronics .

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Couple of questions as a passenger:

1. I'm flying in and out of Bangalore every month from Kuwait. I've noticed that the landing at Bangalore is very hard. This was common across the Emirates B777-300ER (this one bounced on landing) and the Oman Air B737-800 (2 Landings with this one, felt like it fell out of the sky!). Is there something wrong with the approach or runway at Bangalore, or was I unlucky to get a hard landing in all the three instances ?

2. I've felt that the A320 lands more smoothly than a B737. Is it just my perception or does the fly by wire of the A320 have to do something with this?

3. Why do interiors judder for a few seconds when the aircraft lifts off the ground?

[petrolhead_neel]

Wow Sir! This is some seriously great stuff you've put up here. Hats off to you for compiling so much data and putting them together for us mere mortals. Will be reading multiple times and I'm sure will have a lot of questions to ask you by then.

Keep flyin'
Neel

[gauravdgr8]

This is my aircraft of choice to either JFK or Chicago by Air India. Now eligible for upgrades, but when I did travel economy, just loved the leg space compared to the ones on United. Plus the economy has a 3-3-3 setup.

[maddy42]

Awesome thread. Few issues i have with airlines are listed:
Economy class seats are terrible with leg space, Volvo airavathas or long distance buses in india have better comfortable seat. How hard is it to improve it? Seats in economy is like a bench in school.
Business class and first class are usually about 4 times to 10 times more expensive so out of reach of many.
Infotainment system is not keeping up with time. The touch is terrible.
Passenger comfort is the least of the worry of most airline, who just care for butt on seats.

The heightened security has just contributed to increasing costs and airports are a money spinner is what i feel.

Maddy

[coolboy007]

Originally Posted by govindremesh

2. I've felt that the A320 lands more smoothly than a B737. Is it just my perception or does the fly by wire of the A320 have to do something with this?

I do not think that there is any thing with fly by wire that would give a smooth landing with the 320. Landing is a bit tougher with 320's since you do not have any feel with fly by wire, at 50 ft when the aircraft enters flare mode, the computers give an automatic nose down authority to compel the pilots to naturally flare the aircraft, then it is upto the pilots if they make a smooth landing or not. I had read a phrase some where "any landing from which you walk away alive is a good landing"
777 is also a fly by wire aircraft with flight envelope protections, Boeing's first if am not wrong. It does take a little time to get used to the side stick since in all our training with single and multi engines, we are used to typical yoke controls which Boeing uses.

I personally love the side stick, in normal law, you just give what pitch, bank you want, leave the stick and the aircraft keeps flying and you can take your hands off (this is with auto pilot off), you get much more free real estate between your legs and that tray table is very handy while eating or doing approach/performance calculations.

There are so many factors when landing an aircraft, crosswinds, glide slope angle, runway length available for landing etc so depends, one can be a pilot with thousands of hours but it does not guarantee that you will always get a smooth touchdown. In wet conditions, airbus itself recommends to avoid aiming for a very smooth landing and the pilots should have a firm touchdown.

As for interiors juddering, i had asked my instructor about it and he told me that once the aircraft is off the ground, the main landing gear wheels keep rotating at a high speed and if they are unbalanced, they may transmit vibrations to the aircraft, it is for a very small time.

[shivshanker]

[quote=searchingheaven;3971472]Basic technical details
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Weight & Payload summary
  
  Attachment 1506425
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did 9W543 yesterday and have the following observations, does my logic have any logic to it at all.?


1. The No load weight of an 737-800 Aircarft is 41, 145 Kgs
2. The Max Take off weight for an 737-800 Aircraft is 70,535 Kgs
3. Fuel required to support 168 Pax and 12 Crew for 2.5 hrs would be atleast = 6,859 Kgs
4. Weight of PAX + 28 Kgs Checked in Luggage + 15Kgs Hand Luggage is atleast 22,152 Kgs
5. The total of all of the above is at 70,156 Kgs or 99.45% of the Max Take Off Weight.

In my example shown above there is only 379 Kgs room for error!

[Jeroen]

Excellent thread, very informative with some very good pictures! Thanks very much.

I have travelled extensively across the globe on just about every aircraft. My personal favourite remains the 747-400 as I’m just most familiar with it and have had the pleasure of flying it myself (albeit on Lufthansa/Cargolux training school Simulators). But from a creature comfort point of view newer planes such as the 777 and A380 are really a huge improvement. I flew the A380 on eight different legs last year around the world. I flew Lufthansa business class and once on San Francisco to Frankfurt they bumped me up to first, overall the best experience I have ever had.

KLM has just put its new Dreamliner 787 on the Delhi Amsterdam run and I have flown that on Economy Comfort and again very nice. My very last trip out of India, returning home the Netherlands will be business class on the KLM 787, looking forward to that.

You just can’t compare them with the older planes, no matter how many times they get upgraded over the years. I’ll comment some more on the interiors further down.

Originally Posted by sai_ace

While I loved the 747 (who wouldnt?) I was impressed by the 777 as a economy passenger. Starting with the 3-4-3 config vs the 3-3-3. And also the interiors were so much better, not just in age but in design.

Whereas each aircraft cabin is limited, of course, by its physical dimensions, a lot of the big carriers do the actual lay-out themselves. You buy your plane, completely fitted with all seats, galley etc. I had the pleasure of being invited by some KLM pilots to come and see the arrival of what at the time turned out to be KLM’s last 747-400. They pick it up at the Boeing Field, Everett near Seattle and fly it to the KLM home base at Amsterdam Airport.

Apparently, for legal reason the plane has to be fitted out with all its seats So KLM used to order the cheapest and most minimalistic interior Boeing would offer. Once the plane landed at Amsterdam, they rip everything out! And put their own KLM interior, seats, panelling, galley’s etc in. It was actually the same in the cockpit. I visited about 48 hours after the plane had arrived at Amsterdam. You would not believe the internals of that plane, everything had come out, many cockpit instruments had been taken out as well.

So carriers do customise the cabin heavily themselves.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

[*]Why are the cockpit systems proprietary and not standardised? Won't this help in the longer run?[*]Why are there so many switches for everything, wont it make sense to have fewer switches with modular capabilities?[*]As a product designer, I am aghast at the UI/UX of Aircraft systems. Why does everything have to be so horrid and non-intuative. I understand legibility is important but I'm sure there are many better ways to communicate information to pilots other than green on black etc.[*]If I can access whatsapp over the north pole, why can't every plane in the world relay its information in real time to a central database?

Searchhaven has already answered all your question, but let me add a few of my thoughts and some ‘nerdy’ facts.

Cockpit system are not really proprietary in the sense they are all built around commercially available subsystems. What is true that the layout of a Boeing is very different from an Airbus. A large part of that has to do with a different design philosophy. And some very fundamentals such as a Boeing traditional yoke over the Airbus side stick. Even the way a Boeing fly by wire system works is very different from an Airbus fly by wire.

Aircraft manufacturers do try to standardised the layouts of their own cockpits for all the obvious reasons. Also, it allows easier and shorter re-training if crews move from one type to the next.

The number of switches, dials, knobs etc has come down dramatically over the years. Remember that we used to have flight engineers with very complicated panels with hundreds of dials, switches and levels. With the introduction of two pilots cockpits, all of that has been automated and has just about disappeared.

Check out this old 747 cockpit:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mahan...f8d86da4b71a28

versus the 747-400

http://www.nicksprints.com/aircraft/h218BF4D8#h218bf4d8

Also note that the 747-400 cockpit in lay-out is very similar to the 777. Of course when it comes to engines it is 4 against 2, but just about everything else is pretty much the same. The MCP panel is near identical. Also the Honeywell Flight Management Computer and System is very similar in terms of use and functionality.

Some of my KLM 747-400 pilot friends have transitioned to the 777 over the years and I have visited the KLM 777 simulators a few times. Although I did not take to the controls myself, just watched these guys sweat it out on their check ride, the familiarity with the 744 was striking. All the 744 drivers that have moved on to the 777 will tell you the same thing. They adore their 744, Queen of the skies, but from a pilot’s point of view they love the 777!

If you want to explore the 777 cockpit some more, have a look at this website, move your cursor around and get lots of detailled information!

http://meriweather.com/flightdeck/777/fd-777.html

Originally Posted by sriramr9

In the event of a loss of ground speed, is there a way of over riding the above systems and still fly the plane manually without endangering the plane from stall.

Read that pitots were blocked in one A330 and the air france 447 inexperienced officers were unable to override and bring the air craft under control upon its auto pilot going into shutdown mode due to lack of ground speed,

Note that ground speed isn’t really that relevant for pilots in terms of flying. Ground speed is relevant, of course, in terms of how fast you get from A to B. Flying is all about air speed. Loss of airspeed is what leads to a stall. On any plane under all circumstances pilots can take manual control. What that manual control actually entails and how the plane behaves under manual control is something very different. In fly by wire it’s still a bunch of computers actually controlling the plane and the pilot via a yoke or a side stick is telling the computers what to do.

Here a not to technical story on the AF447;

http://www.airfrance447.com

Here is the official accident report for those that want to read the full thing:

https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-c...p090601.en.pdf

The AF co-pilot in the right seat (pilot flying) had 3000 hours, 800 on type. Left seat had another co-pilot (pilot monitoring) with more then double the hours and the captain has close to 11.000. Between the three of them they could not figure out what was going on!

So even the right seat copilot was not inexperienced from an hours point of view.

However, contrary to popular belief, there is absolutely no correlation between number of hours flown and fatal accidents. To put it differently, statistically speaking you are as likely to have a fatal accidents with a pilot who just passed his/her first type check ride as with an old hand pilot the day before he retires with 20.000 under his belt.

Originally Posted by karan561

I had a question regarding landing gear i.e. What tyres / brands are used ? Is it the regular Michelin, Good Year etc ? Or some other companies manufacture it ?

Recently some aircraft tire has been in the news. Not sure what brand, not sure it would be good PR either. Have a look at this square tire:

http://avherald.com/h?article=498050d8

The same thing happened not to long ago to a 777 too

Jeroen

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by coolboy007

I do not think that there is any thing with fly by wire that would give a smooth landing with the 320. Landing is a bit tougher with 320's since you do not have any feel with fly by wire, at 50 ft when the aircraft enters flare mode, the computers give an automatic nose down authority to compel the pilots to naturally flare the aircraft, then it is upto the pilots if they make a smooth landing

I personally love the side stick, in normal law, you just give what pitch, bank you want, leave the stick and the aircraft keeps flying and you can take your hands off (this is with auto pilot off), you get much more free real estate between your legs and that tray table is very handy while eating or doing approach/performance calculations.

There are so many factors when landing an aircraft, crosswinds, glide slope angle, runway length available for landing etc so depends, one can be a pilot with thousands of hours but it does not guarantee that you will always get a smooth touchdown. In wet conditions, airbus itself recommends to avoid aiming for a very smooth landing and the pilots should have a firm touchdown.

.

Are you saying that in an Airbus during a manual landing the computers does nose down during flare? That sounds odd. On most planes the flare means you put the nose up a few degrees higher then the attitude you were flying during the final approach. The flare reduces your vertical speed and gets you into ground effect. You want to shorten that, but nose down?

The side stick behaviour you describe is, as I understand it, specific to Airbus fly by wire. Boeing fly by wire, from how it feels is essentially like an ordinary system with cables and links. It does provide all the various protection modes but it flies as a regular plane. The Airbus is more about vectoring. Your side stick indicates the vector/direction where you want to go. The computers figure out how to go about it.

So I think the 777 or the 747-800 would behave differently if you take your hands of the yoke. I think it would start to wonder off a bit, just like any other non fly by wire plane.
Essentially these plane feel and behave to a Cessna until you start pushing the envelope, then the computers kick in.
Of course it's computers controlling the plane all the time but they are set up to provide normal flying feel and behaviour

Landing remains one of the most challenging manoeuvres and yes, you can get it right a thousand time, the next time you might not get it completely right.

Passengers like smooth landings, but from a pilot and or maintenance point of view they are not necessarily better.

Smooth landings means you find yourself longer in between that phase between flying and rolling down the runway. It's a bit more difficult to control, so you really don't want to stretch it. Planting your wheels firmly and decisively is what I was taught, minimise ground effect. You just eat up runway with a smooth landing. Safe piloting is all about ensuring you have multiple options. Late or smooth touch downs can seem fine, but the more runway you have in front of you the safer if anything goes wrong.

Flying my little planes I was often offered by ATC to cut in front of big planes or just use an earlier entry into the runway. I never do. Even on very long runways. If I take of in my Cirrus or Diamond on a 4500 ft runway I will be airborn after about 1200 feet or so depending on weight. If I get an engine failure at 500 feet I can still land on that same runway. If I had used an early intersection I might not have that option.

I know GA aircraft and commercial jets do it all the time. They do the take off planning calculations accordingly, the FMS knows how to handle it. So all very safe. Still, it now and then adds to confusion and sometimes to errors. It might be my inexperience as a pilot, but I just prefer to do everything as safely as I can do it. So no long drawn out landings for me. That doesn't mean I have not found myself floating down the runway hundreds of feet before my little plane gear touched down. But that was never intentional. I plan to put down reasonably firmly at a specific point in the runway .

http://avherald.com/h?article=49832451&opt=0

The other thing is tire wear. A lot of research has been done into soft versus hard landings. As I understand it planting the wheels firmly, spinning up the wheels in a very short time, is preferred to long drawn out landings where it takes longer to spin up tires, thus more wear overall apparently

Jeroen

Tire wear is a function of

[harpreetkanwar]

Post deleted by the Team-BHP Support : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum.

Please read our rules before proceeding any further. We request you to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[Jeroen]

@ harpreetkanwar

Sure you can get leather in the cockpit, but you have to downgrade from the airbus and Boeings to my kind of planes:

http://cirrusaircraft.com/whats-new-in-2016/

Note the Bluetooth connectivity!? Bring you iPod or iPhone.

Jeroen

[ISO]

Excellent review.

I have few questions.

1. Why cabin lights are switched off during takeoff maneuver?

2. Why seats should be in upright position during takeoff and landing?

3. Takeoff should be against wind direction. But what to do if there is cross wind to the direction of takeoff.

4. During pre-landing maneuver, how speed is reduced (breaking) in the air?

5. What are main responsibility of Pilot and co-pilot?