Squawk as you see fit (Off Topic Thread)

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Its nuts to think that these are operated with TO-1 and TO-2 both with 40% ATM thrust reductions, so you are basically planning your takeoff with less than half the power available after V1 of only ONE engine!

Try CLB 2 on an RR powered 300. At thrust reduction, it'll come back to about 85% (EPR, I've no idea, don't even look at that). You'll then be getting 700fpm on a good day.
I've had ATC comment " are you alright?".

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Its nuts to think that these are operated with TO-1 and TO-2 both with 40% ATM thrust reductions, so you are basically planning your takeoff with less than half the power available after V1 of only ONE engine!

I'd a very good TRE teach me an alternative EFATO procedure during my upgrade.
When it fails, push the thrust levers to max. At 400 feet, let it come back to CLB when THR REF engages. Performance wise you should be OK. If you need extra thrust, just disconnect the autothrottle and nudge them up a bit.
On selection if CLB/CON or FLCH at flaps up speed, the autothrottle will automatically reengage.
Means you have full lateral modes available at all times and no large power changes.

It works a treat every time.

smurfjed

Taken from avherald.com



Says a lot about the benefits of wing mounted engines.

Full report @ http://avherald.com/h?article=48ba2b21&opt=0

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

Taken from avherald.com

Says a lot about the benefits of wing mounted engines.

Indeed, it's not going to require a great deal of work to repair the damage from that one, and for sure the hair dryers won't have noticed that they are pointing downwards for a change.

JCX BXC

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/463091/Ryan-Air-jet-near-miss-UFO

Please, please delete this awful excuse of a journalistic establishment.

According to the story, it happened on a "Ryanair Airbus"

fr336

Carnacalla wrote: »

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/463091/Ryan-Air-jet-near-miss-UFO

Please, please delete this awful excuse of a journalistic establishment.

According to the story, it happened on a "Ryanair Airbus"

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Probably a bird, yeah.

Is that video sped up? I'm guessing the aircraft was turning for a final approach? The plane looks odd to me.

Lockheed

Carnacalla wrote: »

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/463091/Ryan-Air-jet-near-miss-UFO

Please, please delete this awful excuse of a journalistic establishment.

According to the story, it happened on a "Ryanair Airbus"

While the press did make an error there, Ryanair leased A320s in the past for additional demand out of STN

JCX BXC

Lockheed wrote: »

While the press did make an error there, Ryanair leased A320s in the past for additional demand out of STN

But they didn't have any Ryanair logos on them did they? The vast majority of Ryanair flights are on Boeing aircraft (I'm talking 99%+) so its safe to assume Boeing.

Lockheed

Carnacalla wrote: »

But they didn't have any Ryanair logos on them did they? The vast majority of Ryanair flights are on Boeing aircraft (I'm talking 99%+) so its safe to assume Boeing.

Yeah, I saw the winglet in the video and it was a 737 , so the press were wrong

fr336

As an aside I think easyJet tend to brand their hire ins, for instance I think they have a 757 from Titan in again this year (or summer just gone) and it's EZY branding

Peregrine

Replying to the feedback thread here.

crosstownk wrote: »

It was due to close last night but due to unforeseen conditions it has had to do a go-around....

L1011 wrote: »

I am at least slightly upset there's no fr24 screenshots of the repeat approach :pac:

Well, since you asked :pac:

fr336

Since when do Wizz go to Belfast?! http://www.flightradar24.com/WZZ525/7568753

JCX BXC

fr336 wrote: »

Since when do Wizz go to Belfast?! http://www.flightradar24.com/WZZ525/7568753

Either the start of this summer or the start of last winter.

fr336

Carnacalla wrote: »

Either the start of this summer or the start of last winter.

Weird, never seen them this way on fr24 before. Weren't they in a Cork for a while a few years back?

L1011

fr336 wrote: »

Weird, never seen them this way on fr24 before. Weren't they in a Cork for a while a few years back?

Until basically bullied out by Ryanair, yes.

fr336

L1011 wrote: »

Until basically bullied out by Ryanair, yes.

Thought so!

JCX BXC

I wonder if Ryanair will even venture back to Belfast, BFS or BHD?

L1011

Carnacalla wrote: »

I wonder if Ryanair will even venture back to Belfast, BFS or BHD?

Going back to BHD would be embarrassing over the insistent reasons why they left (runway length - if they extend it that removes that though).

JCX BXC

L1011 wrote: »

Going back to BHD would be embarrassing over the insistent reasons why they left (runway length - if they extend it that removes that though).

Ryanair have proven to be hypocritical in the past haven't they?

If it was the real reason over the pullout then I'd imagine BFS would be more likely?

fr336

Researchers at Oxford University have done a study on the jobs most likely to be taken over by robots / computers within two decades. Pilots and engineers not very likely (25%), aircraft maintenance not very likely (35%), air traffic controller quite unlikely (7%).

_Tombstone_

fr336 wrote: »

Researchers at Oxford University have done a study on the jobs most likely to be taken over by robots / computers within two decades. Pilots and engineers not very likely (25%), aircraft maintenance not very likely (35%), air traffic controller quite unlikely (7%).

Their was a study out a few months back that had pilots gone in less than two decades and it is something you could see happening.

smurfjed

two decades and it is something you could see happening.

Ah well, i will have retired by then

martinsvi

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Their was a study out a few months back that had pilots gone in less than two decades and it is something you could see happening.

without any working prototypes that study is based on nothing, worth nothing and is telling us no more than your average sci-fi movie.. It took google 10 years to get self driving cars to where they are now - and where they are is that most of them have crashed at some point - although google claims that none of the accidents have been caused by cars themselves, it is clear that the robots are very limited when it comes to accident prevention due to someone else's fault.

To make pilot-less aircraft somewhat safe you need them to be driven by artificial intelligence - when crisis happens in midair you need your machine to be capable on making decisions without key information or ability to tell true information from false (your typical unreliable airspeed indication scenario as an example) and so on. You almost need you machine to be able to learn as it goes.

Your google car can stop if it can't handle a certain scenario and wait for Tech support - an airplane can't.. Robots can only solve problems they are programmed to solve. AI could figure out a workaround for something they were not prepared for, just as human pilots do

This raises the next question - how close are we to an true AI and is it possible at all? Scientists have been cracking this nut for more than 50 years with marginal results, I simply don't see one "plane-ready" in less than 2 decades

Jawgap

Niiiiceeee......

New lavish British Airways first class cabin created by London design company

highlydebased

Just something I saw flicking through twitter as I have my afternoon coffee. The new Berlin airport which has been plagued with construction problems so far has hit another serious glitch. Construction stopped as they are concerned extraction fans have compromised the integrity of the roof! http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/dach-zu-schwer-bauaufsicht-stoppt-bauarbeiten-am-flughafen-ber_id_4962632.html

Lustrum

Just read the last post on the AL cadets thread, sad to see that although the cadetship will be paid for, they're allowing a few be charged for the assessment. It seems they've also joined the slippery slope into squeezing as much as they can out of people who want to make a career on the flight deck

Negative_G

Lustrum wrote: »

Just read the last post on the AL cadets thread, sad to see that although the cadetship will be paid for, they're allowing a few be charged for the assessment. It seems they've also joined the slippery slope into squeezing as much as they can out of people who want to make a career on the flight deck

Having to pay a small amount to sit assessments is a small price to pay for what is a privileged career.

It also serves to weed out those who may not be all that interested.

highlydebased

The Telegraph are rocking with their ignorance of aviation, this flight must be flying backwards....





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/4973350/20-stupid-questions-asked-by-tourists.html

JCX BXC

You wouldnt expect an article that bad from Waterford Whispers!

tricky D

And they show Yosemite for Carlsbad Caverns National Park. I wish this was some quality trolling by someone in the graphic design dept (I would) but doubt it highly.