The Hangar

ymb1

5:53 AM

@cmp perfectly fine to ask here

here' what happened, ATC said 190, but the pilot it heard it 180, and ended the message with "confirm"

confirm = tell me again to make sure (affirm on the other hand = affirmative = yes)

so if a pilot or ATC say the word "confirm", it is a question, if they say "affirm", it is an answer in the positive

what happened in that video, the ATC confirmed something else entirely, which needed asking again

the pilot could have made it more clear what they'd like confirmation of, here's my transcription:

ATC: DLH730 passing FL 80 direct BEBAS* climb FL 190

730: 730 passing level 8-0 direct BEBAS climb FL180 confirm?

ATC: passing 80 direct bebas ... free speed 730

730: ... confirm FL

ATC: passing 80 free speed inbound BEBAS and climb FL 190

* BEBAS is a waypoint, may not be accurate transcription, one needs to be in the cockpit or have the flight plan to be sure

this is interesting, and I mentioned it in an answer here:

> [Out] of the incorrect read-backs, 30% are simple "say again" requests, and another 30% requests for repetition or confirmation of route information.

in other words, it's very normal to not hear the message correctly the first time, but it's very important to ask for confirmation / say again

also "free speed" is another way of saying "no speed restriction" which means the pilot does not need to maintain the 250 knots below 10,000 feet restriction

see those:

16

Q: Why are speed restrictions imposed for flights flying below 10,000 ft?

I know that restrictions do not always apply and ATC can cancel them or pilots can request for speed restriction being canceled. But why is there such a speed restriction in first place? Are there any reasons other than noise abatement?

9

Q: How did ICAO SARPS come to include the 250 knots speed limit for aircraft below 10,000 feet?

In certain airspace classes, a speed limit of 250 knots IAS is imposed for aircraft flying below FL100/10.000FT, according to the airspace classes defined by ICAO. How did this limit find its way into the ICAO SARPS? The answer to this question gives a good reason why such speed limits were intr...

air-traffic-control aviation-history airspace regulations icao-sarps

ymb1

6:17 AM

most likely the waypoint was BEPAS, on the airspace border of Germany / Czech Rep.: skyvector.com/…

also watching the video again: first F/O read back of 180, the captain shook his head, that's why the FO ended the radio message with confirm; that's why the message format wasn't the best

also the ATC missed the 180 the F/O said, as I said she confirmed something else, the free speed bit

that's why the captain then asked the F/O to "confirm flight level"

so the F/O would ask about that

cmp

2:52 PM

@ymb1 Thank you ever so much, most helpful. Yes, what confused me was after the first confirm from the F/O she didn't mention the FL ... but it's because she missed it that made the captain say 'confirm flight level'.

CGCampbell

@ob318 There is no reason to add verbiage, such as "under FAA regulations" into titles of questions where a tag with the same verbiage is already being used. Per meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19190/… it is simply not needed, even for search engine optimization.

Ginger

6:42 PM

I'm going to ask a question about something But the answer of the question, depending on the answer, will trigger a very similar question. I'm not sure if I should ask them separately or just put them both in one

ymb1

6:52 PM

@Ginger how does x relate to y? may do the trick of 2-in-1

:)

Ginger

I see. I posted the question as one question, but did a little number so that anyone willing to answer the second question I sort-of added in a hidden manner could do so. Basically, I'm asking if I can put a fake gun on an amateur-built aircraft. But the second question (less important because it is more likely to be a hard "No") is if I can put a legit gun on it.

But fake is better. If legit is even legal, it'd need far more paperwork, maintenance, and it could get me into a little trouble if the plane is accused of something violent when I didn't do it. Fake guns would be the best choice, since I'd never even use the legit guns anyways.

Here's the question: Can a person legally mount a fake gun an an amateur-built aircraft?.

ymb1

fake missile here: What is this aircraft seen at Peachtree City, GA?

it would be interesting so see what the regs actually say re "decorations"

very related, or dupe:

22

Q: Is it allowed to mount fake missiles on a civilian aircraft?

In this answer to a question asking to identify an aircraft, we can see a picture of a Aero L-39 Albatros with some missiles hanging from the wings: (flickr.com) N915WE. Supposedly, this is a civilian airplane, and another user pointed out the oddity in a comment. The author of the answer then...

general-aviation security missiles

Ginger

See, the design was inspired from some of my favorite movies, which are completely about airplanes, yet fictional. (But the great part is, the one I'm thinking of is actually realistic. All airplanes shown seem to be flightworthy if made in real life) and We had to put ball turrets on it. Leaving 'em out is like leaving out all the turrets on an Avro Lancaster 683!

ymb1

it doesn't ask about the regs specifically though

Ginger

true, and those are missiles, not guns.

ymb1

7:09 PM

maybe check if any private airworthy warbird has fake guns

might be a starting point

Ginger

Good idea.

But then again, I'd want the up-to-date information with the legit rules in front of me before I just go and fly a beautiful airplane that appears as though it is a very dangerous gunship.

Oh, and I'm not sure how a plane of relative proportions to my plane should be flying, so unfortunately I have no way of comparing if my plane is "slow" for its proportions or not; neither can I compare if my plane has a high flying time or not. It is truly a very unique plane, though.

ymb1

what movie is it from?

so far I can't find anything in 14 CFR, if you don't get an answer, try Law.SE -- maybe it falls under different laws/regs

Ginger

It isn't a direct copy, nor does it share very many similarities, but it is based off of a Macci M.33 but bigger, better, and slower.

ymb1

that's a cool looking plane

Ginger

It is, yes, Mine has one engine in the front and one mounted like the Macci M.33

It's red, too. A nice red. It floats on water but a significant difference is that it is that it also lands on the ground.

ymb1

7:18 PM

one of my fav land/sea planes

I like how the landing gear is integrated into the hull

Ginger

It is only designed for 2 people. One drives, the other is a gunner (form our fictional blueprints) and also operates necessary things like radio communications, etc.

My plane doesn't have tires in the hull though

ymb1

there's also this, fixed landing gear, high engine

Ginger

It also doesn't look as much like a boat. The fuselage itself is more like a normal plane, except it follows the proportions of the Macci M.33, so the fuselage isn't as wide and tall compared to its length, in comparison with other planes like a 737. It floats on floats attached to the wings, and the landing gear comes out of the bottoms of them. Tricky getting the floats to float while storing the landing gear. The rear landing gear is at the back of the fuselage.

It has everything you'd need. Beds, a bathroom, living essentials. Also an enormous fuel tank.

The fuel tank quickly became an issue. Getting the plane to fly as long as it could in our plans was something very difficult to do. The plane does fly, but the problem is that It was supposed to fit an itty-bitty plane inside with folding wings and everything, but that is still a work in progress, because I still need it to be certified airworthy.

ymb1

very interesting design

Ginger

Yes, also very difficult.

Have you ever tried making your own airplane? Man, it sure is difficult.

See, there's a major issue with the plane. If it becomes 100% successful, that would mean that it would have to break a world record for non-refueled flight time. It is supposed to be able to fly for up to 15 days without a refuel, although this is something that hasn't even been tested yet.

Do you think I could really do it? I'm not sure if 15 days is too ambitious. I know that the engines should consume the fuel efficiently enough to last 15 days, and the plane can surely carry enough supplies to last 2 people 15 days, but then again, will the plane really stay in the air for that long?

@ymb1 I just realized, what space station is that? In your profile Picture. I doubt It is Mir, maybe an early ISS?

Transcript for