Should I trust the manuals?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Amazing it took until post #19 by Clandestino for somebody to understand the context of Tu154lover's simple question,
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
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
Like is it a Flight simmers question?
A wannabe pilot
a Real transport pilot
or perrish the thought a wind up
A wannabe pilot
a Real transport pilot
or perrish the thought a wind up
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Derby
Age: 42
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Although, thanks for reminding me why getting out of aerospace will benefit me 10-fold! Full of annoying, nerdish, uptight nerds.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TU-154
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although, thanks for reminding me why getting out of aerospace will benefit me 10-fold! Full of annoying, nerdish, uptight nerds.
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?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Derby
Age: 42
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Honkie
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you cannot answer this question yourselves then you probably should not fly an A330. in fact, you shouldn't be flying at all...... 
Of course you should trust your Flight Manual!!!
Of course you should trust your Flight Manual!!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In OY-VKH
Age: 31
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not an expert around this area so these are MY OWN SPECULATIONS!
YouTube - PilotsEYE.tv-Nordpol-Airbus A330-200-part#1
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
)
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
EDIT: Just saw that they using CONFIG 3 wich is based on Air Conditioning OFF
Greets,
Robini
YouTube - PilotsEYE.tv-Nordpol-Airbus A330-200-part#1
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
)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
EDIT: Just saw that they using CONFIG 3 wich is based on Air Conditioning OFF
Greets,
Robini
Last edited by Robini; 30th Aug 2008 at 20:47.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOGA is only used when limited
CONFIG 3 wich is based on Air Conditioning OFF
Mutt
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In OY-VKH
Age: 31
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''...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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manuals?
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.