@TomMcW not sure but i can look into it later today, if I had to guess, there is probably some push back, but I'll expand on that once I look into it :) (hint: similar to what I said about the early 90's and the ATN coupla weeks back)
@Jai - I saw it when you posted it, for me the paragraph doesn't make sense. the loss of rudder authority is unobjectionable, although it is much more pronounced on a plane like the MD-80. for the sideways force, I tried a theory but it doesn't hold up: asymmetric side-thrust from the reverses, the theory I had wouldn't cause asymmetric thrust, and even if it did, this force close to the CG (again, unlike an MD-80) wouldn't be that big
@Jai I highly recommend you discuss it with the instructor and you can even request a demonstration next time you're in the sim
that being said, if you don't get a reply, offer a bounty to get more attention
@TomMcW - so, the FAQ page says 2018, but this pdf (aug 2016) says mid-2019 for the "design approval", for Europe, full operational capability is 2025, with a couple of the enablers still in the works, so it's not there yet
@abelenky Let him have fun. He is a nervous flyer but still flies a lot. I'm sure that the pilots and flight attendants on flights he is on, are more frustrated than you are.
I think the only way to interpret that question as on-topic for the site is "If you're an airline pilot and a nervous passenger accosts you before the flight, how do you get rid of them?"
@mins aviation.stackexchange.com/a/48196/14897 accidental wiki, or am I free to edit it substantially? or wiki just because it is low effort (not judging, question is low effort)
asking because first answer should be no, not yes, but it will take lots of lines to edit to explain
Well the question could be interesting, but there is nothing to put in perspective, e.g. adding engines is adding drag and weight, and fuel. Without a whole picture and no cost limit, we can do anything I imagine.
@mins it is interesting somewhat, but the issue is I failed to find an example where extra engines were added to shorten the takeoff distance, discounting rocket assisted C-130's. Any additional thrust comes with increased carrying capability and/or bigger airframe. The apparent examples (e.g. 747 variants), didn't add extra engines and they ended up having the same takeoff distance more or less. Anyway, thanks for the wiki gesture :)
I think the engine/wing interaction was an overlooked item by OP, which was worth noting
@ymb1 : "is there a naval manual that confirms it?", if by "it" you mean the friendly hello to a fellow (wo)man, then no. But you probably mean something else, or I may have been unclear. This suggestion is based on usual practices, like a ham would add "73" to the greetings to another ham, emphasizing they are fellows.
@mins I see what you mean now, thanks. the new answer agrees and give context to it too, FWIW, the double actual PTT click is used in the civilian world, when the pilot can't be bothered to reply or the reply will take too much time that needed, for example:
expect late landing clearance when it is apparent, or for example delivery clearance is busy and asked you to stand-by, a double PTT click does it then
The last answer needs so explanation... I don't see how the PTT trick would translate into Charlie-Charlie rather than nto Click-Click. It could to be an unknown use of the C flag actually. I looked online, and didn't find any supporting element. Let see if some comes.
@mins the most I could find in books was charlie charlie for C&C (command and control helicopter) during Vietnam War. I also found it in the context you mention in two ATC transcripts, one of unknown origin, the other was an accident report (?), lastly I checked Flying Magazine, they didn't mention it--I thought they would even for an informal phraseology
nonetheless its origin remains interesting
@mins if you can confirm the pdf source, feel free to add it as an example
by origin I mean whether click click or naval flags, it's got to be one of those
@TomMcW - i need your help with that one (above), brain fart moment, why is the picture on the right, showing a left-ward component for the reverse thrust (!)
@TomMcW but reverse thrust force is forward (to slow things down)
the phenomena might well be there, but I think it's one of those pretty-pictures with no context (like Bernoulli when left on his own) -- but again, I'm having a brain fart moment
@TomMcW yeah, i take it back, it's backward indeed
@ymb1 Oh, the movie makes a big deal about the fact that Kennedy fell back and to the left, insinuating he was shot from the front right. Kevin Costner kept showing the Zapruder film and repeating, "Back and to the left."
@ymb1 yeah, quite -- it does seem particularly severe as far as fume events go, so perhaps some design features on the NEO's engines impacted that? hopefully the NTSB can follow up more thoroughly
The Hangar
The Hangar