Should I trust the manuals?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Max Hamburgers
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should I trust the manuals?
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
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
Yes you can trust the manuals Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?]
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?]
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Moderator
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 ...
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 ...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effective Immediately
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) 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 -
Happy contrails
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) 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 -
Happy contrails
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scottish FIR
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
Perhaps Daniel is an interested youngster ? hard to say as his profile singularly is lacking in detail.
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Max Hamburgers
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
So many thanks for the answers!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: surrey
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"Nato name of the Tu-154 is Careless"
Obviously got a good sense of humour, even if it is adolescent