Bennyboy320

You can't have someone outside the flight deck with a by pass code, it defeats the purpose of looking the door in the first place. As mentioned earlier you can open the door from outside with a delay, it takes one of the pilots to select lock which will deactivate the keypad outside the flight deck for between 5-20 mins depending on the airline requirements. Reference the A320 FCOM eg flight manual.

If an airline pilot wants to crash an a/c to commit suicide unfortunately no one can stop them, e.g. in a Boeing type the half roll & pull through, Silkair B737, a BAe146 in the US in the 1980's/90's, the Airbus would only take two push buttons to turn off the FAC's to allow you to enter alternate law, i.e. no protections e.g. Air Asia a few weeks ago, considering the number of commercial flights the two I mentioned (B737 & BAe146) are the only cases of suicide I can think of on a commercial flight, still two too many. Moving pax isn't going to do anything, the a/c will just trim the stab to counter it.

No difference, just stating that we always have 2 on the flight deck unlike Australian & various EU airlines.

Here in HKG we've had a min requirement of 2 on the flight deck at all times since post 9/11, i.e. that can be a FA or an authorized jump seat pax, seems every government authority has different rules.

Pay them more than a FIFO worker & they will come:plane:

If you get fatigued during a 3 hour Navex reduce it to a 2 hours, start the flight a bit later in the day etc, RAA flying should be for FUN in good weather, KISS.

I'm going to quote a line from my favorite movie The Right Stuff, ......"no bucks, no Buck Rogers" This only applies to flying as a civilian career not flying for FUN....

This would have to be one of best written articles explaining why UAv’s will not replace the manned fighter for a long time. Bennyboy320 (ex-knuck) Found on the net “Defence Issues” written by picard578 Despite all technocrat’s dreams, aerial combat between peer opponents was always visual-ranged. Reasons for that vary; main reasons are inadvisability of using active sensors, low probability of kill for BVR missiles, and IFF problems. All of these problems are far greater against numerically and technologically comparable (or simply numerically superior) opponent than against numerically and technologically inferior opponent. Thus, WVR combat is likely to remain standard for aerial warfare, along with its large accent placed on OODA loop. OODA (Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action) loop is fundamental principle of air combat. Fighter pilot first observes situation; after that, he orients based on previously-avaliable and acquired information (nationality of opponent, cultural considerations likely to affect opponent’s actions in current situation, etc.), then decides on further course of action and acts based on that decision. In the next loop, he observes opponent’s reaction to his own action so far as well as new situation, with rest of loop proceeding as in first one, though “orientation” part takes far less importance unless new information comes into play. In any case, breaking opponent’s OODA loop or going through it faster than opponent is prerequisite for victory. Opponent’s OODA loop can be broken by denying him vital information (done through usage of passive sensors, small visual and IR signature of one’s own aircraft, employment of various forms of jamming and environment-based interference), as well as by going through the loop faster than him – be it through faster observation/orientation/decision or executing action faster than opponent, which requires maneuverable aircraft capable of quick transients from one maneuver to another. OODA loop of UAV operator is always imperfect, and worse than that of fighter pilot. Major problem is a delay from two to five seconds between UAV recording image and image being seen by UAV operator. Total delay between drone’s sensors recording opponent’s action and drone finally reacting to it – delay between „observe“ and „act“ part of the loop – can therefore reach ten seconds. Due to this delay, unmanned vehicles will be completely incapable of being inside human-piloted fighter’s OODA loop, which is a prerequisite for victory in a dogfight. But there are even more shortcomings than that. In particular, each part of OODA loop is in itself imperfect. Observation made solely with information from mechanical sensors is never perfect as we have yet to design sensor as good as human eye. Imperfect observation means that imperfection continues to snowball through latter three parts, ending in action with some measure of disconnection from reality – and that can continue through multiple loops. While drones are much smaller and cheaper than manned fighters, it is only result of their mission. If modern drones are faced with SAMs, MANPADS or enemy fighters, engagement is a foregone conclusion – and one not in drone’s favor. Drone operators cannot detect threats to their aircraft, and if drone was to be designed to be as capable and survivable as manned jet fighter, it would be just as large and costly, if not more, due to the need for advanced computers and communication systems. Even current, relatively simple, drones have much higher operating costs than manned aircraft, and are as much as ten times as prone to crashing – and both shortcomings can only worsen with increased size and complexity required for aerial combat. Gigantic data transfers required to operate drones can easily lead to communication systems being overburdened – single Global Hawk drone uses as much bandwidth as did all US forces in the invasion of Afghanistan. Bandwidth is also a hidden cost of UCAV – while UCAV itself may be cheap, it requires very expensive (on order of hundreds of millions USD) equipment for data transfers, and even with modern UCAVs performing relatively simple tasks, data transfers can take up lion’s share of 250-million-USD satellite’s bandwidth. As such, entire package (UCAV and equipment required to operate it, which is actually part of UCAV despite not being in the airframe) can rival or exceed cost of manned fighter, with latter being a certainty in any UCAV capable of air-to-air combat. Further, increased bandwidth automatically means increased vulnerability to jamming and other forms of electronic countermeasures. Main way datalinks defend against jamming is by reducing data transfer speed in exchange for increased reliability; that, however, may not be an option for data-hungry UCAV. As such, UCAV’s will be incapable of executing missions in heavily jammed environment, unlike manned aircraft, especially since it is far easier to build very powerful spread-spectrum jammer than to create jam-resistant uplinks. Drones are also vulnerable to computer viruses, which could take control of a drone and order it to do anything by simulating incoming traffic from its operator. It is also important to realize that UCAV capable of matching or exceeding the aerodynamic performance, load carrying capability and combat radius of manned fighter would be exactly as large and heavy as fighter in question. This would mean similar production cost to manned fighter (not counting control and data transfer systems), but at far higher maintenance costs, as much as several times higher, which would make it impractical to replace manned fighters with UCAVs on one-for-one basis. Further, having UCAV brings no operating cost savings, since it actually requires more operating and maintenance personnel than manned fighter due to the greater complexity. As a result of everything above, replacing a manned fighter would require a fully-functional AI with almost identical cogniscive capabilities to a human brain – a feat that is, at this point, completely beyond both our knowledge of human brain, as well as beyond our hardware capabilities, and will remain so for some time – interestingly, contrary to MIC technology advocates, computer science experts have a complete disagreement on wether true AI can be achieved by the 2040; in any case, past trends do not give any reasons for optimism in that regard. Even when that is achieved, such complex programs would present serious reliability, maintainability and implementation challenges, possibly to the point of making an AI UCAV basically unflyable. Drones will, however, remain useful in intelligence gathering, a role they have been used in since Vietnam, as drone being shot down does not carry the risk of operator being captured for questioning, and is much more politically acceptable. While these advantages also exist in regards to manned combat aircraft, disadvantages are simply too large.

As long as you can back up a reason to carry the extra fuel there's never a problem, on the other hand if you have to divert & you've carried the flight plan fuel you are also covered, my company has stated that they would rather a few diversions a year than carrying extra fuel on every flight to cover the what if scenario, also most airlines fuel policy will only require a diversion when the destination is affected by wx, so if the wx is ok as long as you don't land with less than 30 mins of fuel no problems, if < 30 mins declare a MAYDAY (fuel emergency). Cant remember what the fuel policy was in Oz.

Every high wing a/c is a Cessna isn't it, he failed to use the modern day reporters main research tool, "google"

My favorite is the C130 landing trials on the USS Forrestal way back 1963. Its beyond my technical ability to post link here so search youtube.

The straps around you legs are called "boyangs" they are there to pull your legs into the seat as you ride up the ejector rail & stop your legs from flailing in the airflow & dislocating/breaking, think snapping a chicken wish bone. As far as downwards ejection seats the original F104 Starfighter was fitted with this type of seat, killed lots of test pilots as the original engine was very unreliable & the engine failure when just airborne was extremely challenging, i.e. you had to roll inverted at low speed & eject, they redesigned it a short time later.

Yes, unreliable airspeed very easy to practice in the sim, at the end of a session if time available I usually give the crews a quick practice, if you follow the memory items very survivable, power plus attitude works. As for the German crew that crashed the A320 in NZ livery, they were not air test qualified, had they done the correct AOA check they would not of attempted the maneuver, also they conducted the test at 3000ft AAL rushing it prior to an approach. Flying can be very unforgiving to mistakes.

My opinion only but "I love the mini bus & have total faith in it," being an air test pilot in my company I get to see everything from hi speed to low speed protections, engine shutdowns & relights in flight & depresurization & over pressurizing the cabin etc, until the Air France accident we even turned off both FAC's & were required to check Vsw (aural stall warning) in both alternate & direct law, yes the Airbus is very computerized & you have to know what you are doing, but at the end of the day its still just an a/c. Waiting for the FDR info to be released.

Grew up on the textile mill at Rutherford which was right next to the aerodrome, was fascinated by the Tiger moth & Cessna's that flew over our house, my friends & I would often hang out at the aero club & day dream, also at that time (1967) there was a tv show called the Aeronauts on the ABC, some of you might rememberer it, about a couple of French Mirage pilots solving crimes etc, great stuff for a 6 year old, but the icing on the cake at that same time was being buzzed in real life by a couple of Mirages from the nearby base at Willytown, the noise & speed was incredible & from that time on becoming a pilot was all I wanted to do. I’ve been very lucky & fortunate to be able to achieve my childhood dream, have flown a wide variety of a/c & enjoyed them all except one (Duchess) been involved with RAA for the last 2 1/2 years & fly the Foxbat which I absolutely love so much that I plan on buying one in the near future, flying around at 85-90 kts with my wife on a nice day gives me more pleasure that droning at FL390 in an airliner on auto pilot. I’m a huge fan of the RAA which has made a/c ownership & flying both affordable & fun.

It was a Mirage A3-29 pilot was FLTLT Garry Cooper of 75 Sqn May66.

You're right, one crashed in Canberra in the late 80's/early 90's killing the former Navy A4 pilot & pax when the control rods burnt through after a tail pipe fire, an ejection seat would of saved their lives.

Having spent many years flying ejection seat a/c, both the old nasty cartridge seats that guaranteed back injuries to the more sedate rocket seats fitted to the Hornet I am a huge fan of the bang seat, however, fitted to a recreational a/c no, most of our members are mature (me too) & the thought of my wife & I ejecting after a major emergency would probably be worse than staying with the a/c, you are going to hit the ground/obstacles with a thud, if you look at the BRS web site the stats mention it can be used as low as 300ft & you remain in the safe confines of your a/c just like the F111 escape module, a much better survival option.

One man raft, looks very similar to the ones fitted in ejection seats, just looked at the BRS web page, 322 lives saved & counting, its definately the first option to be fitted to my Foxbat, when I buy one.

He didn't run out of fuel, he was unable to transfer the fuel from the ferry tank, technical problem not pilot error.

Form memory there was an article in Australian Flying & a fly away price was about $135K, nothing on the web site reference price at all.

If done properly echelon left rejoin in a transport is not a problem from the left seat.

Hmmmm, by the looks of it the captain had no formal formation training at all, bet the quality of the brief was the same as the join up, a complete cluster f***.

Been there, done that. Best fun you can have with your pants on.

The price of avgas compared to avtur & mogas.