Should I trust the manuals?

[Tu154lover]

Hi,
I just got a manual for the A330, and it says that A330 requires 3100m for take-off. But Wikipedia says it needs 2500m. Should I trust the real manual as I got from a A330 pilot? I´m not Robini in the forum as many of you may think.
//Daniel

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
Wikipedia :eek: Yes you can trust the manuals :ok: they are a part of the airworthiness of your airplane, particularly the AFM, but Wikipedia ....:eek::{:{:{:{

[A Very Civil Pilot]

Wikipedia !!??:{

The current entry for A330 take off distance is 46' 10" ! (It may well be changed to a more correct figure by now)

Wikipedia can be altered. aircraft manuals can't. [Remember ronnie Hazelhurst?]

[SNS3Guppy]

Hi,
I just got a manual for the A330, and it says that A330 requires 3100m for take-off. But Wikipedia says it needs 2500m. Should I trust the real manual as I got from a A330 pilot? I´m not Robini in the forum as many of you may think.


Some erroneously say that there's no such thing as a stupid question...but here's proof positive that such does exist.

This can be nothing but flame bait. You're asking if the manufacturer performance data (compiled at enormous expense through rigorous computation and testing) should be believed over "wikipedia?" Yes. That's a very stupid question.

I have no idea what a robini is, but it's a troll, then that would be you. This forum strives to provide competent, rational discussion about technical and professional topics...and asking if manufacturer data is valid in comparison to an internet reference is neither rational nor professional. It's ridiculous.

Should performance data be believed? Yes. Should one attempt to gain performance data from the internet? Clearly no.

Obviously you're not asking this regarding an actual airplane...is this is connection with a "simulator" game, then?

[lomapaseo]

Since you obviously haven't yet passed a qualification exam for this aircraft I would say go with your own hunches.

Either way likely the rest of us would be safe.

[flyr767]

Well well well... I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry! If you're questioning if you should follow the MANUFACTURER MANUAL or Wikipedia, then sir you probably shouldn't even be allowed to look at a photo of an aircraft let alone be anywhere near one!

[Farrell]

The saddest part of this whole thread is that you all replied to it!

[spinnaker]

Is it April 1st?

Edit: I see the A330 in now available in fighter configuration:)

[point8six]

Shouldn't this be in "Some dumb questions" above?

[john_tullamarine]

Perhaps Daniel is an interested youngster ? hard to say as his profile singularly is lacking in detail.

However, I think that we all should be tolerant towards questions generally .. including those which may be a tad wide of the mark ... if we start trying to draw a line as to what questions are worth answering or not .. then we move closer toward a forum whose educational/training value is undermined .. ? Indeed, it may be said that tolerance is a measure of civilised behaviour ..

More importantly, the depth and level of a question needs to be considered in relation to the experience and needs of the person asking the question ... well might we raise an eyebrow at an elementary question posed by an appropriate professional .. but the same question might be entirely appropriate and sensible if posed by a junior highschool student.

There is no intention that Tech Log should be the preserve of the annointed .. we do ourselves a disservice if we permit the forum to become, in any way, elitist.

It has been my observation that questions/threads without a great deal of merit either are answered easily and/or tend to sink to the bottom of the bog fairly quickly .. ergo, there really is no need to critique the inherent value of questions per se .. the question, itself, will dictate the answer to the query ...

[BelArgUSA]

Attn.: Captains, First Officers, Flight Engineers, Flight Dispatchers
Effective all types aircraft, systemwide.
xxx
Due to discrepancies which have appeared in performance and certification data in our approved AOMs (all type A/C), you are instructed to refer to Wikipedia (through Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com)) for all performance computations for takeoff, climb, cruise, approach and landings, applicable immediately, and disregard any performance and procedure data derived from the company and aircraft manuals.
xxx
Further, company SOPs (standard operating procedures) and check-lists should be reviewed and discussed for daily approval in Pprune Tech Log Forum (www.pprune.org) with a copy obtained and kept in your flight documents, before each deparure of scheduled, non-scheduled, and ferry flights.
xxx
Any question pertaining to the above, should be addressed 24/7 to the director flight operations, chief pilot, manager training or chief dispatcher.
xxx
Best regards -
:E
Happy contrails

[ChrisLKKB]

Wikipedia should change it's name from the Online Encyclopedia to the Online Book of Fairy Tales. It's full of so much misinformation that you don't know what is fact or fiction, personally I never use it and I ignore anything that has been quoted from it, i'd advise anyone to do the same (IMHO).:ok:

[spinnaker]

Perhaps Daniel is an interested youngster ? hard to say as his profile singularly is lacking in detail.

Very true, and I for one am guilty of flippancy. Maybe if guys who post are just showing interest could help avoid bearing the brunt of our sometimes warped sense of humour, by stating their knowledge or level of interest in their profile or at the beginning of their post. Maybe a sticky on the issue?

[Checkboard]

The only internet site that supercedes the manuals is PPRuNe - Tech Log

Personally I think wikipedia is the best site on the internet. Maintained for free by philanthropists with no advertising! "After all, history is just a story that everyone belives ;)

[Tu154lover]

Thanks for the answers. I´m a young boy who want to know more about planes. I know this question may is very dumb. I just asked the question because I thought the runway requirement looked a bit long.
So many thanks for the answers! :ok:

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Tu-154 Lover

Let me apologise for my fellow pilots.

For sure- they didn't realise that you were so young.

I like the Tu-154 too.

It's NATO codename is ' Careless'. Did you know that?

For your purposes:

Line up. Go to full power. Take off.

After that................ it's up to you!

Good luck in the future!:ok:

[Tu154lover]

Thanks, It´s not easy to know that I´m young. So it´s ok.
Yes, I know that the Nato name of the Tu-154 is Careless.

[bflyer]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/small/9/6/2/0286269.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Syrian-Air/Tupolev-Tu-154M/0286269&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=6&sok=WHERE__%28aircraft_generic_%3D_%27Tupolev_Tu-154ESCSLASH155%27%29_AND_%28airline_LIKE_%27Syrian_Air%25%27 %29_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=0505516&next_id=0225413)

[Clandestino]

Hi Daniel!

Actually the runway required for take-off by any transport aeroplane actually depends on many factors; first is the mass (airframe+fuel+passengers+luggage). Then comes runway elevation (its height above mean sea level), runway slope (going up or down-hill), wind direction and velocity, air pressure and air temperature.

To answer your original question: any source that states that such-and-such aeroplane needs so-and-so runway for takeoff, without specifying the circumstances, is not to be believed. While I'm not A330 pilot, I'm pretty certain that the empty A330 with fuel for only couple of circuits will be happy with less than 2000m runway at sea level. However, fully loaded with passengers and fuel for six hours flight, it might need more than 3000m. And I've personally seen one A330 taking 210 passangers on three hour flight, from 2500m runway without problems.

Hope this helps.

C.

[FFS-KLOOT]

Stop bullying the poor kid...he might have been bored, or wanted to induce a few chuckles.

"Nato name of the Tu-154 is Careless"
Obviously got a good sense of humour, even if it is adolescent :E

[ChristiaanJ]

Amazing it took until post #19 by Clandestino for somebody to understand the context of Tu154lover's simple question, and answer it properly.

[rubik101]

FFS-Kloot, the Tu 154 is indeed called 'Careless' in Nato terminology.
As is the 144 called 'Charger' and so on right through the whole list of Soviet era aircraft.
So his sense of humour is not determined, merely his interest in aircraft.

[lomapaseo]

Amazing it took until post #19 by Clandestino for somebody to understand the context of Tu154lover's simple question,

How do you know that:confused:

Half the problem on these boards is understanding the question's context

Like is it a Flight simmers question?

A wannabe pilot

a Real transport pilot

or perrish the thought a wind up:\

[ChristiaanJ]

I just got a manual for the A330, and it says that A330 requires 3100m for take-off. But Wikipedia says it needs 2500m. Should I trust the real manual as I got from a A330 pilot?
Like is it a Flight simmers question?
A wannabe pilot
a Real transport pilot
or perrish the thought a wind upLook at his other posts.
Flight simmer ... probably.
Wannabee ... maybe. I would think most wannabees started off as flight simmers.
Real transport pilot ... NOT. That should be blindingly obvious.
And to me it's too primitive to be a windup.

Daniel,
Both values are probably "right". But as said above, without knowing the aircraft variant, aircraft weight, temperature, height of the airport above sea-level, and a few other items, there's no way you can validate either figure.
Dive into the A330 manual, and you'll find where that 3100m figure comes from. Dive a bit further, and you'll probably find where the Wikipedia 2500m comes from.
As Clandestino said, both will happen.
So "take-off distance" is very much NOT a constant.

CJ

[Wee Willy McGorbals]

There is a significant difference between FCOMs and Wickipedia. One is written by lawyers, the other is written by nerds.

[GEnxsux]

This really does go to confirm what kind of tightly-wound, socially disfunctional people work in the aerospace industry. Just chill out!!! He's probably just asking why the difference is there.

Although, thanks for reminding me why getting out of aerospace will benefit me 10-fold! Full of annoying, nerdish, uptight nerds.

[The African Dude]

I bet your colleagues are really going to miss you.

[Romeo India Xray]

Sorry if many here didn't get the context of your question.

I would imagine the A330 FCOM is a bit heavy going unless you already have a good fundamental knowledge of what the figures and charts refer to (I am not an Airbus pilot so I can't be more specific). If you do find it difficult, you might get somewhere if you go to your local flying club or school on a rainy day. You could be lucky enough to find a flight instructor milling around waiting for the weather to improve, and they may be able to give you more insight into the basics, and why things are the way they are (if you ask them really nicely that is).

When I started out (nearly 20 years ago), it was easy to get an impromptu theory lesson on a rainy day - I dearly hope that things are still the same.

By the way, I am sitting in the office writing this, looking out at a TU-154B parked on the ramp :) (and a TU-134 as well), and the guy sitting next to me is a former TU-154 training captain. If you want to know anything about the 154 I would be happy to ask him for you (i see him regularly).

RIX

[SNS3Guppy]

Although, thanks for reminding me why getting out of aerospace will benefit me 10-fold! Full of annoying, nerdish, uptight nerds.


Don't let the door hit you on the way out, and all that.

Annoying, nerdish nerds? Really?

Much like a double negative, do double nerds cancel one another out and result in the anti-nerd, instead? What is it you're really trying to tell us?

[GEnxsux]

Much like a double negative, do double nerds cancel one another out and result in the anti-nerd, instead? What is it you're really trying to tell us?


Thank you for just proving my point.

[Kerosine]

People, people, can't we all just get along?! ;)

Tu154lover, wikipedia is great for light reading but specific figures and facts tend to be disputed and sometimes (!) innaccurate. For any stated 'fact' or statistic there should be a reference in the form of a small number in superscript at the end of the sentence. It's always good to follow this link to see where the information came from.

This, much like Wikipedia, is not a definitive or perfectly accurate reference but may have more reliable figures and other interesting info:

SmartCockpit - Airline training guides, Aviation, Operations, Safety (http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/airbus/A330/)

[capt787]

if you cannot answer this question yourselves then you probably should not fly an A330. in fact, you shouldn't be flying at all...... :ugh:

Of course you should trust your Flight Manual!!! :ugh:

[Robini]

Im not an expert around this area so these are MY OWN SPECULATIONS!
YouTube - PilotsEYE.tv-Nordpol-Airbus A330-200-part#1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8mHmUBlky8)
Follow the brief you will see the fuel required is 81.5 Tonnes.
At this flight it was 300 pax onboard. ( 27.5 T)
Empty weight is 124 T.

So this would give you a TOW of 233T (MTOW).

The actual thrust setting is TOGA.(look at the movie you see)
TOGA is only used when limited, so you see by yourself it's not weight restricted cause of the thrust setting. (For interest V1 156knt VR 156 knt V2 163 knt :E )
Flight was in a morning in early MAY. Maybe low temp outside?
Runway is 3000 m. 100 m from your numbers wich is at standard day
SL +15 C.
So as many said before you should trust them. I know its not easy too be young but you will learn! Continue your homework :ok:

EDIT: Just saw that they using CONFIG 3 wich is based on Air Conditioning OFF

Greets,

Robini

[mutt]

TOGA is only used when limited.... Not correct....

CONFIG 3 wich is based on Air Conditioning OFF..... so you are saying that a CONFIG setting is a Flaps/Slats AND PACKS combination?

Mutt

[Robini]

''...Not correct...''

Yes TOGA can you use whenever you want if you so want too.
Often it has too do with limitations,hot weather,high weight (You can FLEX
at MTOW if runway is longer than ''lowest runway required at MTOW'').
So yes, my previous reply wasn't totally correct but then there still are one question.
Why would you use TOGA when you are NOT limited?...



''On runways less than 2500 m need to use CONF 3 tables
Charts based on air conditioning OFF''

PS. He means that under 2500 m you need to use CONF 3 tables. Thoose
numbers is not at MTOW, but shows the MTOW from a specific runway.

[SNS3Guppy]

Thank you for just proving my point.


You had a point?

[fdcg27]

TU154, take heart.
The conventional approach would be to use the airframe builder's figures as the bible for runway performance. Why so many consider the figures from an aircraft's designer and manufacturer authoritative I can't pretend to know.
OTOH, why not just find a source that makes the aircraft performance match runway available?
Is the glass half empty, as Airbus might have it, or half full, as per Wiki?
Sort of like inductive versus deductive reasoning.
The trees off the departure end are probably not that hard.
I hope I didn't need to add a smiley.

[Lookforshooter]

Gee Whiz guys! How about a straight answer?!The flight manuals are based on extensive aviation research, history and flight testing. Go to them before you believe what somebody says here, the airport or even Wikipedia, the later which is actualy pretty good.When your experienced enough to know the difference you will start to understand when the SOPs manuals, checklists and Flight manuals don't cover what is happening right now in the aircraft or simply can't fix your problem at hand. No book or manual can cover all situations in the future but are typicaly based on thousands of hours of past experiences and the manufacturer's best SOPS for keeping you out of trouble, most of the time. Pilot judgement takes care of the rest, and we are alwyas learning...well most of us...

[SNS3Guppy]

No book or manual can cover all situations


No, but they certainly cover all the takeoff performance applicable to a given airplane, all the time.

As opposed to wikipedia...:rolleyes:

[Lookforshooter]

And that's a comment that supports Guppy's idealistic assertion that all planes fly after V1 on takeoff...no matter what...broken wings, flocks of birds in the engines, flaps coming off, bad fuel(skydivers/Ca), O2 Cannister Fire(valuejet), EFIS Fire(Nova Scotia), tire/fuel fire(Concord) and why some airline pilots just keep flying to the scene of the accident, because the book said the plane would fly.

[Bradda G]

Just wanna add my $0.02...

Tu154lover (http://www.pprune.org/members/255414-tu154lover) asked a question. Based on the question, he/she seems like one who is new to the game. This person may just be a kid who is trying to learn the ropes and become a student of our industry [As I am...]

That being said, there are some folks here who seem to surf around thinking that they are the 'Almighty' when it comes to this industry. Well, they seem to forget that at one point in time they too were toddlers in this industry [no one is born knowing everything!]

Try not to be so harsh on people. Especially when they are seeking knowledge and understanding.

EVOLUTION TAKES TIME!!!! Who knows, maybe Tu154lover (http://www.pprune.org/members/255414-tu154lover) will be the test pilot for the next super sonic passenger plane.

Tu154lover (http://www.pprune.org/members/255414-tu154lover) , keep asking questions. That's how we learn and grow as individuals and pilots too. If necessary, go to another forum to avoid some of these bullies!!!!

NUFF SAID!

[mutt]

Bradda G,

Your advice is good, maybe he should join airliners.net which is more suited to non-professionals, or at least if he remains on PPrune, questions should be asked in the appropriate forums.

Mutt