/pilot/ - Aviation

I was under the hood when my instructor had to take control to evade another aircraft. I didn't see shit but he looked pretty shaken so it must have been close. Another time I was solo and saw an aircraft ahead of me, as we got closer I realized he was coming right at me so I had to turn to dodge. Nothing so serious has happened to me that I've gotten out to kiss the ground and I hope it never does.

I think it makes sense. There are only so many routes that have the volume to justify such large aircraft, everyone already has what they need. Also, perhaps more frequent flights with smaller loads are more profitable.

>>94

As I recall the a380's development was motivated primarily by the "hub and spoke" concept of airline operation which was at the time though to become dominant.

In the end however the market has evolved instead to make great use of smaller and shorter flights which delights me greatly since it means smaller airports thrive where wide-bodies can't go.

BMA in Stockholm for example was faced with possible closure a couple years ago but that was shot down when it became obvious to all involved (apart from the moronic greens) that it filled an important niche

If they know he is doing this can't the cops tell him to stop?

I'm surprised he's been doing it long enough for them to mention it on the approach plates and the cops haven't stopped him yet. It should be easy enough to figure out who all the nearby truckers are.

>>81

How do the wings stow on that thing? Do you have any of the official performance figures?

>>82

Performance is just off wikipedia

Maximum speed: 100 kts (115 mph or 185 km/h)

Cruise speed: 93 kts (107 mph or 172 km/h)

Stall speed: 54 kts [32] (62 mph or 100 km/h)

Range: Flying - 425 nmi (489 mi; 787 km) () ; Driving - 805 mi (1,296 km; 700 nmi)

Maximum speed on road: 70 mph (110 km/h)[7]

Fuel economy in cruise flight: 5 US gal (19 L) per hour, 21.4 mpg-US (11.0 L/100 km; 25.7 mpg-imp)

Fuel economy on road: 35 mpg-US (6.7 L/100 km; 42 mpg-imp)

Certifications: Both FAA and FMVSS certifications planned

>>83

I'm going to be shocked if that goes into production and anyone buys it. A old 172 will easily cruise at upwards of 120 knots and has a far longer range while still having space for 4 people and cargo. My old Sienna minivan can break 100 mph.

Based on the performance of this thing and the fact that it appears to only have space for 2 people and basically no cargo it seems like it is suited best for flying in a region like the northeast where it's basically nothing but large metropolitan areas. Some problems with this that I see are the fact that this going to have poor rear visibility and the wheel fairings are going to get destroyed by potholes. Considering how most airports in these regions have FBO's with crewcars and an abundance of taxis and Uber drivers, I don't see how it would be of that much use even in those regions.

Everyone imagines that the flying car will mean the end of waiting in traffic jams. I wish that dream was achievable but it's just not. A flying car the requires an airport just seems like a pointless toy that rich people can show off. They remind me of amphibious cars, they are not the best cars or the best boats and there really isn't any point to them but to show off (or scare the shit out of your passengers by telling them the brakes have failed as you fly towards a lake like Lyndon B Johnson did).

>>87

Well apparently there is a market for these or development would not have gotten as far as it has. I do agree though that a float/amphibious aircraft would be much better though a suitable waterfront can be difficult to find.

Perhaps their next model will be more practical though from the sound of it they want to simplify it to the point you won't even need to be a /pilot/ to fly. Plus, I can't imagine the neighbors appreciating the noise of takeoff on your morning commute.

Some of those must have been terrifying for the passengers. The one starting at 5:00 almost certainly soiled a few pairs of pants.

If I remember right, in case of fog, you can land this thing by stalling.

>>73

How is that supposed to work?

As convenient as using tablet computers may be for handling your documents, I don't think I could ever fly without the important stuff like charts on paper. This just goes to show that it can shit the bed at any moment for stupid reasons. They should have just pulled out the paper chart and not had a delay rather than fiddling with the app.

The issue was with Jeppesen. They need to learn to make a good app.

Might've been a software update that fucked them over

http://airinsight.com/2015/05/01/an-ipad-update-results-in-74-delayed-flights-at-american/

This reminds me of how a lot of industrial users are still running Windows XP and have never updated since initial installation of their software, all for the sake of running their processes uninterrupted

How did that even happen? Did they land at the same time not knowing about each other? That's impressive.