nomis

You need to read this https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia

Looks like a F+W C3605

The 350-1000 has six wheels per main gear just like the 777 and Qatar will be getting them.

Happiness is a dry fart at V1 out of Mumbai.

Still there this afternoon as I taxied past. Not going anywhere fast Bruce.

Which aircraft types are capable of this pilotless flight that some of you think is the answer. Civil passenger carrying not exotic x series aircraft.

Tell that to to the Italian navy!!

Coming out of Narita this morning.

The 340-300 has a MTOW 45 tonnes heavier than an A330. At very light weights the 340 centre gear sometimes doesn't even touch the ground. You can operate the 340 without the centre gear, it stays retracted, but it reduces the MTOW to about 225 tonnes. The 340-600 was up in the 350T range for take off and 247ish for landing needing the extra bogie with brakes. The standard 340 centre gear has no brakes. Yes the 600 was a step too far in size and was a pain to taxi everywhere.

Have your very own battle. http://www.platinumfighters.com/#!ha-1112-m1l/c12zi

So are we talking acute or chronic fatigue.

They don't work as a backup. Most aircraft use an IRS/ GPS/DME,DME mix to get a point through the FMS. So they use all the equipment together.

On 28 July 2004, a Piper PA-31T Cheyenne, VH-TNP, with one pilot and five passengers, on a private, instrument flight rules flight from Bankstown to Benalla, collided with terrain 34 km south-east of Benalla. All occupants were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and fire. Instrument meteorological conditions existed at the time and the pilot had reported commencing a Global Positioning System (GPS) non-precision approach (NPA) to Benalla. The experienced pilot was familiar with the aircraft and its navigation and autoflight systems. The flight did not follow the usual route to Benalla, but diverted south along the coast before tracking to the northernmost initial approach waypoint BLAED of the Benalla Runway 26L GPS NPA. While tracking to BLAED the aircraft diverged left of track, without the pilot being aware of the error. The air traffic control Route Adherence Monitoring (RAM) system triggered alerts, but controllers believed the aircraft was tracking to a different waypoint and did not question the pilot about the aircraft's position. The destruction of the aircraft navigation and flight control systems did not permit verification of their operational status. The investigation found that instructions to controllers relating to RAM alerts could be ambiguous. Actions were taken by Airservices Australia to enhance alerts and clarify controllers' responses to them. The occurrence drew pilots' attention to the need to pay careful attention to the use of automated flight and navigation systems and also demonstrated the need for effective communication between controllers and pilots to clarify any apparent tracking anomalies. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) final report was released on 7 February 2006. In July 2008, during the subsequent coronial inquest, additional information about the possibility of dead reckoning navigation by the GPS receiver was provided. The ATSB investigation was reopened to examine that possibility and an amended report issued. That investigation found that dead reckoning navigation could not be positively established as there were inconsistencies between dead reckoning principles and the recorded radar data. Neither could it reconcile how a pilot would continue navigation by GPS with the alerts and warnings provided by the GPS receiver and the instrument indications. As a result of the reopened investigation, the ATSB issued a safety advisory notice alerting users of GPS navigation receivers to take appropriate action to ensure familiarity with dead-reckoning operation and any associated receiver-generated warning messages.