source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Four people excluded from the kill list of Dark Young of Shub-Niggurath In Overlord Season 3 Episode 12 , Ainz decides to use the baby goats ( Dark Young of Shub-Niggurath ) to show his power to the other countries. Begin pursuit, my adorable baby goats! That's right. There are three... No, four people that you must not kill. Do not hurt those select four! Who are these people? And why are they excluded from the killing list? <Q> I only know of 3. <S> Not 100% certain, but based on speculation and supporting evidence. <S> First: As evidenced by Ainz propositioning Gazef to join him as his subordinate, it can be assumed that he is 1 of the 4 people because he wants Gazef to join him. <S> Second: <S> This one is based on speculation, but presumably the second person is King Ramposa III. <S> The goal is to annex the Re-Estize Kingdom. <S> The country would fall into ruin and chaos if the king were to die at Katze Plains, especially with the disappearance (death) of Prince Barbro, and would hinder Nazarick's ability to take over the country. <S> Third: <S> Spoiler Alert <S> At this point in the story, Princess Renner is already in contact and working with Demiurge and Nazarick. <S> She has asked them not to kill Climb. <S> Fourth Possibilities: Uncertain. <S> Anybody is free to comment who they think the fourth person is. <S> Brain: He has met Shalltear and Sebas. <S> While Shalltear didn't even recognize him, maybe Sebas mentioned him to Ainz after the events with the Eight Fingers. <S> Seems unlikely Ainz would see any value in Brain's life as of this moment, but possible. <S> Marquis Raeven: <S> A high ranking noble who currently supports Prince Zanac's claim to the throne. <S> Spoiler Alert. <S> As we know, Princess Renner is working with Demiurge and Nazarick, and she is currently working with Prince Zanac, though more likely she is manipulating him, so that he can <S> wed Renner to Climb once he claims the throne. <S> Possible, but seems unlikely given that after the events at Katze Plains, Raeven was so traumatized that he abandoned his post and returned to private territory. <A> I think the other one is Climb... <S> I don't know why <S> but I think he was the man prohibited to kill according to Jaldabaoth(Demiurge), because when Shalltear was about to catch up with Brain she saw Climb and the other one, and didn't pursue to catch Brain anymore. <A> Lord Ains mentions the four people at several different settings of the story. <S> One included is at carne village during the prince’s raid vs. the goblin army. <S> He reminds Lupisregina that a certain four must not die. <S> I’m quite positive that Nphirea Balear is one of the four. <S> Nphirea is working on his potion, which Lord Ains has made clear in the past is very important to him.
|
As one of Zanac's most powerful supporters, perhaps Renner asked Ainz to also not kill him, so not to reduce Prince Zanac's influence in the kingdom.
|
Would Naruto awaken the Rinnegan if he takes the Sharingan from Sasuke? The reason I ask this is because I think the only important things to awaken Rinnegan is to have Indra and Ashura's chakra. Someone will say that the requirement is Uchiha and Senju's chakra. However, Obito had both of them, but he didn't awaken the Rinnegan. Why didn't Obito awaken Rinnegan? Would Naruto awaken the Rinnegan if he takes the Sharingan from Sasuke? <Q> Let's start with the requirements for awakening the Rinnegan. <S> From the Naruto Wikia, the Sharingan can be evolved into Rinnegan through combination with Hashirama's DNA. <S> In the history of the Naruto anime, the only 2 people who have been able to pull such a feat are Madara and Sasuke. <S> What those 2 have in common is the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan which they awakened from taking their brothers Mangekyous. <S> Obito on the other hand had a normal Mangekyou Sharingan and that explains why he was unable to evolve his sharingan to the Rinnegan despite having both bloodlines. <S> So my deduction is: the highest point of the Sharingan (aka the Eternal Mangekyou) plus Hashirama's cell/chakra (or Otsutsuki bloodline which can be gotten from mixing both Senju and Uchiha genes) = <S> The Rinnegan. <S> Now to the question, in my opinion, if Naruto took Sasuke's Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan and implanted them into his eyes, then he would manifest the Rinnegan. <S> This is because he would meet the requirement for the evolution, which are: <S> Eternal Mangekyou sharingan <S> Otsutsuki bloodline (or a mixture of both Senju and Uchiha chakra). <S> But then again let's be realistic, Naruto would never do that. <A> The existing answers are incorrect. <S> Only those that have Ashura/Indra's chakra or Hagoromo's chakra can awaken the Rinnegan. <S> That's why Obito didn't awaken his Rinnegan, simply because he isn't a reincarnate of Indra even though he had Ashura's DNA and didn't have Hagoromo's chakra. <S> Another example is Danzo; he had Senju (Ashura's) chakra <S> but he didn't possess Indra's chakra even though he had the Sharingan. <A> I think the explanation for obito is not enough time had passed. <S> It took Madara decades to awaken his. <S> So if it’s just Senju+Uchiha to get rinnegan, it takes decades for it to work.
|
It is explained that for one to awaken the Rinnegan they have to replicate Hagoromo's chakra, so that means that not just any Uchiha or Senju can awaken the Rinnegan.
|
Is Ashura the actual creator of the "Rasengan"? So as you can see in the fillers, that when Ashura is helping out the other villagers, he is using a jutsu just like the Rasengan. Is this the Rasengan we know and love, or is this a different jutsu for say a wind release? If it is indeed the Rasengan, then does this mean that Ashura is the original creator, and not Minato Namikaze? If the second one is true, this could mean that Minato has some relations with the Ōtsutsuki? <Q> It depends on what you consider canon. <S> Almost all of the Ashura and Indra and even Kaguya backstory stuff was anime only filler. <S> The manga has almost none of that. <S> Indra's eyes barely resembled a sharingan, and Hagoromo was never known to not have the Rinnegan. <S> So in that regard, Ashura isn't the creator, its just anime only filler. <S> They likely chose things like the Rasengan and Sasuke's Mangekyou and put them on the two brothers to try and make it all seem more like destiny or something, symbolism that things are repeating themselves. <S> Its pretty low quality story and a plot hole because Madara doesn't have the same pattern even though he was also an Indra trans-migrant. <S> The story wasn't about destiny, but instead about how Naruto used the power he was given to change things, when the world finally was ready for it. <S> If you consider anime filler canon, then indeed he is the original creator, but like another answer here points out, he didn't pass it on. <S> Minato most definitely developed the Rasengan on his own. <S> In that regard, they both are the creators, Minato just rediscovered it. <A> Nobody even knew who Indra and Ashura were before Hagoromo told his story. <S> Indra are Ashura are ancient history. <S> Not even Hashirama/Madara knew about them. <S> In fact,he had already created an advanced version of it-multiple Rasengans. <S> Howeved his jutsu was probably not passed down to the next generation,it was forgotten. <S> Minato re-discovered the Rasengan and essentially,became <S> it's present creator. <S> Rasengan is actually a ball of chakra-you could add a Wind Release to it and make it Wind Style and stronger as well. <S> The reason why it's so powerful is because it's pure chakra,unlike other jutsus where you have to convert your chakra to the desired "style",like the Fire ball jutsu. <S> Clearly,Minato has no relations with the Otsutsuki clan. <A> You're already answered it yourself. <S> It's a filler. <S> Aside from that, I don't think that counted as Rasengan, since it wasn't really a perfect compressed sphere, but a round unstable mass of wind release chakra. <S> So you could say in this filler, Asura used a proto/pseudo/imperfect Wind Release: Rasengan. <S> Also, the Rasengan was explicitly stated to be based off of the Tailed Beast Ball, which automatically makes it structurally and functionally different from whatever Wind Release technique Asura was using in this episode. <S> It looks like a Rasengan, but it's not. <S> Just like Chidori and Raikiri are similar to whatever technique the 3rd Raikage used. <S> There is no relation between Minato and the Ōtsutsuki Clan. <A> ... <S> Ashura created the Rasengan <S> it was never passed down because nobody had the skill at the time to recreate it since the concept of chakra was new to the world <S> Indra had his sharigan during his battle with Ashura... <S> I’m pretty sure that story was Canon <S> it explained things in the main story line unlike side missions used for filler
|
Yes,Ashura was the creator of Rasengan. Thus, in the manga, there was no mention of Ashura ever using Rasengan, or pretty much any specific jutsu for that matter.
|
In Black Clover, how is Nero able to find the magic stones? I have been watching Black Clover from the start and was interested in the bird (which later became his pet name Nero) from the start and followed him on his head from the time he joined the Black Bulls squad. I knew they said in the start of episodes that these type of birds stick to a person having low mana. The bird Nero, seems to be able to point important things to Asta, like finding him the magic stone in an underwater temple and mostly helping him point to something important. My hypothesis is that he could have some sort of mystical powers to maybe. How is the bird (Nero) able to point out important things to Asta? <Q> Your hypothesis is in the right direction, though the powers don't seem to be very mystical, just unusual in his species. <S> Nero is of the species known as Anti-Birds which the wikia describes as: <S> Anti-birds are small birds that have black feathers on their back, wings, and around their face. <S> Their faces have red feathers while their undersides have white feathers. <S> Their beaks are black and they have a pair of feather that are shaped like downturned horns. <S> The Anti-birds are capable of sensing mana and will peck at those with low or no mana. <S> Anti-birds will not approach anyone with high levels of mana and will become frightened when they get close to those with powerful mana <S> (emphasis mine) <S> The wikia entry for Nero lists this mana sensory ability as what allows him to detect magical items and and help them navigate toward a source of mana. <S> This utilization of the mana detection seems to be unique to him, as the wikia also mentions the following ways in which Nero differs from usual anti-birds: <S> Nero is the only Anti-bird that has upturned horns and two tail feathers shaped like arrows <S> Currently only Nero is shown to be able to detect magic stones and Anti Magic weapons As you can see, there's no clear confirmation or reason <S> why Nero is different than the others, but we do know that he is the only one who can do this. <A> Nero is a complete mystery. <S> I believe he appeared in the second chapter hidden among all the anti-mana birds. <S> He sometimes disappears so you need to keep an eye on him and where he heads to, its a mini game I'd like to call "Find Nero". <S> In the previous arc he found Noelle who was stalking Asta and stayed with her at Rebecca's house, so he was never seen by Licht who might have known his secrets or his past. <S> I'm pretty confident that Nero has a connection to Asta's grimoire and Licht's master here <S> is my theory/speculation or what ever you'd like to call it. <S> Nero is defiantly not a normal bird and he seems like he knows the secrets of the stones. <S> I think he is supposed to be a swallow <S> so I searched swallows and found two interesting points. <S> According to a site about tattoos in Greek and Roman mythology gods were able to change their form into a swallow and in Japan swallows represent unfaithfulness. <S> I don't know if any of this is true or even relevant <S> but it could support the idea of Nero being Licht's master. <S> The people that were loved by mana were compared to gods and assuming Licht's master is just like Licht one of them, then we could also assume that he has a grudge against Clover for murdering his people so he could be Asta's enemy. <S> Even though it would be a cool twist I don't believe Tabata would be allowed to make the story's mascot the possible end game villain. <S> I think Nero is Licht's master's maybe magical pet <S> and I think he'll be Asta's pet until the end. <S> In Asta's earliest design you could see Nero with him and Asta's hair is designed as a nest for Nero. <S> I think other than the possible importance of his past Nero's role other than be an extremely badass f*cking bird is transportation. <S> Asta has 0 mana <S> so he can't use a broom <S> and he can't always depend on Finral's portal forever, so <S> what if Nero's size could be changed or be controlled not only will he be a sick flying mount <S> but he'll also be able to repay Asta for all the free rides <S> he's been nicking. <S> Source - https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackClover/comments/4o0rip/so_whats_up_with_the_bird/ <A> Actually Nero's real name is Secre. <S> She was the servant of Lumiere. <S> Lumiere was the first wizard king. <S> Secre sealed Lumiere in stone on top that demon's head. <S> I forgot why she sealed Lumiere though. <A> If you have seen the latest episode 103, you will notice Nero sitting a top of the church <S> UNTIL Asta gets Licht's sword. <S> Then he lands on his head. <S> I think Nero is his spirit. <S> I also think that Nero will be apart of him in more ways than one. <S> I think he will be a ride, a fighting support and something totally different in the end. <S> I have so many theories in my head now, I do know which direction to go. <A> Well, In the latest episode we learn that Nero is 500 years old.. <S> That's around the time of the first wizard king and the fall of the elves.. <S> I believe that Nero played a part in hiding the magic stones after what happened with the elves, just in case something like that happened again! <S> I tried my best not to spoil anything, you find out everything that happened in the past in episode 181! <A>
|
Nero is a bird who senses magic but is also a human sealed away possibly has part of all the magic stones mana within her but nit to be told from where I stand.
|
Is Naruto still a Genin after becoming Hokage? While watching "funny Boruto moments" on YouTube, I came across a scene where Naruto tells Iwabe and his team, that he is still a Genin, but he is a Hokage. In the starting episodes of Naruto, it is shown that Hokage is a rank above Jonin, so I want some clarification on why he could skip all the ranks and land at Hokage. <Q> He is still a Genin. <S> It was stated by him. <S> (Episode 48) <S> What people most of the time overlook is, that the scene with Kakashi and Naruto isn't actual canon though, it should still be noted that these are the requirements. <S> But we're talking about Naruto here he doesn't do things the normal way, which is important later on with the Kishimoto bit. <S> If we look into the databook book specifically for The Last <S> : Naruto the Movie that plays 2 years after the 4th war, Naruto is still a Genin. <S> 下忍 <S> = Genin. <S> Sakura and Shikamaru on the other hand are already Jōnin. <S> 上忍 = <S> Jōnin. <S> And the rest are Chūnin. <S> 中忍 <S> = Chūnin. <S> Kishimoto specifically let Naruto stay a Genin. <S> And yes, TheLast is canon. <S> He did the character designs and was chief story supervisor. <S> It was also the first time for him that he'd completely written everything from the start, including the lines in a movie production. <S> That came up during the Interview that is linked. <S> He confirmed that Naruto went from Genin to Hokage. <S> Q：ナルトといえば火影（忍者の里で一番偉い立場）の夢をかなえましたが、上忍（階級が一番上の忍者） の試験はいつ受けたのでしょうか <S> ？ <S> A: <S> ナルトは上忍になっていないんです。下忍（一番下の忍者）のまま火影になりました。サスケも上忍でも中忍でもないし、むしろ里を出ちゃっているから、抜け忍ですよね。あいつら、もうなんなんでしょうね（笑）。でも下忍のままでいきなり火影になった方が、ナルトらしくて面白いかなと思いました <S> 。 <S> Translated: <S> Q: <S> Speaking of Naruto, his dream of being Hokage came true, but when did he take the exam to become a jounin? <S> Kishimoto: Naruto didn’t become a jounin. <S> He became Hokage as a genin. <S> Sasuke is not a jounin or chuunin either, but rather, since he left the village, he is a nukenin. <S> That’s enough for them (laughs). <S> But I thought that having him suddenly go from genin to Hokage would be amusing and Naruto-like. <S> - <S> > <S> To the original Interview (Japanese) ->To the Translation Even if he never achieved the Jōnin rank he should be as smart and as capable of Chūnin and Jōnin. <S> People can't just become Hokage, not even Naruto. <S> But I don't think he needed to, I mean everyone (at least the Shinobi part of the Village) saw him during the 4th war and his prowess/abilities. <S> The only thing that was missing was the educational part. <S> That should answer it. <A> Naruto had a Jounin title before he took up the Hokage title. <S> What a lot of people get wrong is the Hokage title. <S> It is not only a rank, but also the title given to the leader of Konoha. <S> Each Hidden Village will have a ruling Kage, but also have predecessor Kage (retired). <S> A person could be classified as Kage level, but it is not a rank. <S> It is the scale of power that Shinobi has. <S> Every Hokage, after Tobirama, before taking up the mantle was a Jounin. <S> It is the custom and tradition of Konoha to appoint a leader who is not only powerful, but wise and collected. <S> He should have a great deal of knowledge regarding major governing factors of the village. <S> This was the reason Kakashi, after the Great War, offered Naruto the Jounin rank. <S> Of course, with conditions. <S> That would include more studying. <S> Naruto comically declines, but Iruka sensei helps him out ( <S> Naruto: Shippūden episode 479). <A> Anh Pham: <S> No, Naruto was a Genin in ranking, but not CONSIDERED to be one. <S> Strength wise, he was already Kage level. <S> Kakashi, who was powerful enough to become a Kage, admitted himself that Naruto now was much stronger than him. <S> But, being a Chunin/Jonin is not only about power. <S> A hidden village is basically a nation’s army, in which chunin/jonin act as military captains, so you have to know how to lead a squad. <S> Naruto was powerful, but he always fought by himself. <S> Leading a team was never his style. <S> And, a rule is a rule. <S> One can not simply jump straight to Jonin rank without taking the examination. <S> And if you watched the fillers, there was an episode about the Chunin exam which happened soon after Pain’s attack. <S> Naruto violated the rules by inadvertently activating Sage mode, and was declared lost to Konohamaru (lol). <S> Besides, why bother about rank? <S> As far as I remember, Jiraiya never became a Jonin either. <S> Yet he would have become the 4th or 5th Hokage if he accepted that position. <S> In the first Chunin exam, he also said “I don’t mind if I am stuck to being a Genin. <S> I am still gonna become Hokage” and I think Kishimoto wanted to make that statement a reality. <S> Naruto DID jump straight from being Genin to Hokage position. <S> After all, the series was all about the notion that with determination, there is nothing you can’t do
|
Well, according to Kishimoto, Naruto became the Hokage as a Genin. He must have still learned everything that needs to be learned for the Hokage position but just didn't get the chance to actual showcase this in the exams.
|
Is Dragon Ball Heroes Goku Ultra Instinct way stronger than Dragon Ball Super Goku Ultra Instinct? In the preview for episode 6 of Dragon Ball Heroes we see Goku UI handling Super Saiyan 3 Cumber. This is the same Goku who fused with Vegeta fought Cumber before. When Goku was fused with Vegeta, they used kaioken times 50 IIRC. And they were fighting Cumber in base form, which is 50x2x4 = 400 times weaker. This means Cumber SSJ3 is (400x50) 20000 times stronger than Vegito Super Saiyan Blue. And this Cumber SSJ3 was being handled by an unfused Goku Ultra Instinct. Now according to Wiss, fusion multiplies the power of the warriors "tens of times". That's at the very least a times 20 multiplier. Assuming this lower bound for the sake of the math, that makes Super Saiyan Blue Goku to be at the very least 20x20000 = 400000 times weaker than Cumber SSJ3. But then Goku Ultra Instinct was handling Cumber SSJ3, so the multiplier from Super Saiyan Blue to Ultra Instinct in Dragon Ball Heroes has to be at the very least 400,000. And it could be much more. If the fusion multiplies by 50, it would be 1,000,000 . If the fusion multiplies by 100, it would be 2,000,000 . Now, this doesnt look at all as the power boost Goku got in Dragon Ball Super from Super Saiyan Blue to Ultra Instinct. Then my question is, is Dragon Ball Heroes Goku Ultra Instinct way stronger than Dragon Ball Super Goku Ultra Instinct? <Q> I think you're reading too much into this. <S> First, consider that Dragon Ball Heroes is a non-canon promotional anime . <S> The scenarios within aren't necessarily supposed to be consistent, they're just supposed to be cool and promote the game, Dragon Ball Heroes. <S> Because of this, it makes the most sense for Goku to go through all of his forms before gaining the upper hand on Cumber. <S> This includes all of his Super Saiyan forms, as well as Vegito and Ultra Instinct. <S> As well, consider that Akira Toriyama has never been totally consistent with the exact strength that the Super Saiyan transformations grant to their users, and he has been inconsistent in general with how strong characters are throughout the series. <S> For example, back when DBZ: Battle of Gods was released, Akira Toriyama stated that in terms of power, Super Saiyan God Goku was a 6 , Beerus was a 10 , and Whis a 15 ( source ). <S> If this were still true, SSJ Blue Kaioken x20 Goku should absolutely destroy both Beerus and Whis at the same time. <S> Clearly, this was just a rough idea he had, and it was retconned as Dragon Ball Super continued. <S> To answer your specific question, I would say that it's impossible to judge the strength of Dragon Ball Heroes Goku relative to Dragon Ball Super Goku . <S> Dragon Ball Heroes is not concerned with coherence and consistency as much as it is cool scenarios, and thus, characters will be as strong or weak as the plot needs them to be. <A> Firstly, the answer to your question is a definite <S> Yes. <S> Secondly, The Dragon Ball Heroes Power levels are completely inconsistent and Broken . <S> The strength of the characters are completely adjusted solely for the sake of plot, so I suggest you don't take anything seriously. <S> The reason I say this is for example <S> recently We first see SSJB <S> Goku fight SSJ4 Xen Goku. <S> In the manga, SSJB Goku ends up victorious making him the stronger off the two. <S> We see Base Cumber holding his own against SSJB+Kaioken Vegito(Which is technically 2 SSJB Vegito's). <S> Then we see Goku turning SSJG and attemption to fight Cumber and actually trades a few blows with him which makes no sense. <S> Then we see, SSJ4 Xeno Vegito being strong enough to overpower SSJ3 Cuber who is 400 times stronger than Base Cumber SSJ4 Xeno Vegito should be weaker than SSJB Vegito and SSJB +Kaioken Vegito should be way stronger <A> In Episode 9 when Goku returns he does not use mastered UI, he fully "Masters" Omen UI apparently and could use that form at will. <S> And when he was attacking it was like he uses the power of MUI when he attacks for a brief second. <S> So that yea SDBH UI is stronger
|
Dragon ball Heroes Characters are multiple times stronger than characters from any of the canon series.
|
Why are Fairy Tail and Fairy Tail: 100 Years Quest separate series? Someone please explain why Mashima continued Fairy Tail under another title. Why is this under a different name when the 100 Years Quest could also be included in the first Fairy Tail as a different arc? <Q> From storyline point of view, the whole Fairy Tail story was about the dragon slayers, the magic dragon Acnologia and the black mage Zeref. <S> It has already been completed in the main story. <S> Zeref was defeated by Natsu, so is Acnologia. <S> The 100 years quest has pretty much a whole different story that has nothing to do with Zeref and Acnologia. <S> Thus, adding it to the main story as a new arc would be awkward because the bridging between the new arc and the previous arc will be very narrow. <A> Most likely because he wanted to begin a new manga but planned to return to Fairy Tail after. <S> This probably changed due to the fact that he found someone to continue it for him while simultaneously working on Edens Zero (the new manga). <A> It’s because 100 Year Quest isn’t just one arc. <S> It’s multiple arcs that are all part of the quest the new series is named after. <S> For example, there’s the Water God Dragon Arc, and now the Wood God Dragon Arc. <S> This one quest is divided into multiple arcs because there are several objectives and enemies they have to fight such as the White Mage and the Dragon Eaters. <S> The first arc involved fighting the Dragon Eaters, and the second involves fighting the minions of the White Mage(though <S> the White Mage was also involved in the first arc despite not being present.
|
Despite the title, the series could continue beyond just this quest as in the new manga, new continents, characters, etc., are introduced and the title may have simply been the title he had in mind or simply liked for the sequel.
|
Which was the power level of Broly when he was a kid, 10,000 or 920? So there is an unofficial summary of the Dragon Ball Super Broly movie from apparently someone who watched it in Japan in an exclusive event, and there it claims Broly when he was a kid had a power level of 920 (stated in the movie). But in the Dragon Ball wikia, they state the new Broly (the Broly from the new movie) had a power level of 10,000 when he was born (as stated by the old non canon movie IIRC). Which was the power level of Broly when he was a kid, 10,000 or 920? <Q> I have not watched the new movie, but if in the new movie they have stated that his power is 920 when he was a kid, then that is his "true" power level. <S> The old DBZ movies were never considered "canon", since we can not fit them anywhere in the storyline. <S> The Broly movie was not even directed by Toriyama as you can see here , so it is kind of a "spin off" series, events that happened here had no impact on the DBZ storyline. <S> Regarding Super, things are a different. <S> The first two movies "Battle of Gods" and "Resurrection of Freiza" were showed in the anime itself, although there were some differences between the anime and the movie. <S> The Broly movie is direct continuation to the anime story line, since it picks up after the conclusion of The Tournament of Power. <S> Furthermore the movie is written by Toriyama which kind of establishes it as part of the canon now . <S> So to answer the question, his power level is 920. <S> The Broly in the new movie is a new character (which is based on the popularity of the old one) that is part of the canon storyline. <A> However, there is supposedly a scene in the movie where a Saiyan Personnel's on attempting to scan Broly's power level <S> receives abnormal readings and one of the scouter even breaks due to his fluctuating power level. <S> You can read about it in the plot summary here . <A> The New Broly movie states his power level as over 100,000 as an adult. <S> That doesn't mean it's 100,000. <S> It just means its more than 100,000. <S> In comparison to his father, which was 4,200 (4,200 was supposedly impressive to Chirai).
|
When Paragus scans Broly's power level, it is shown to be 920. You should completely disregard all information with regard to Broly from any of the previous series while watching the new movie as Broly has been written as a completely different character and this character is canon to the original series.
|
Why Goku and Vegeta didnt use Super Saiyan Blue Kaioken and Super Saiyan Blue Evolution to defeat Broly? So in the new Dragon Ball Super Broly movie, Goku and Vegeta try to defeat Broly by fighting together in Super Saiyan Blue, but they dont use Super Saiyan Blue Kaioken and Super Saiyan Blue Evolution like they did to try to defeat Jiren Why Goku and Vegeta didnt use Super Saiyan Blue Kaioken and Super Saiyan Blue Evolution to defeat Broly? <Q> as far as, we were aware. <S> we have seen nothing indicating that we will see blue evolution in the movie that's does not mean we won't see it because it's unlikely TOI have released all the information regarding the movie and not shown anything regarding super safe through evolution. <S> so, we'll taking about whether or not reprise this transformation in the future dragon ball or be aiming for something else entirely to compete with those whose potential ultra instinct transformation <S> we all know <S> at some point you will get back but <S> before we begin a quick in past fight of dragon ball super. <S> Goku fought with Jiren in super Saiyan blue and kaiken but all in vain and finally he used ultra instinct with this he was nearer/definitely to Jiren defeat. <S> in all the series and movies the new villain is stronger than previuos one. <S> I know you all are thinking ,Jiren is not a enemy but he is main thread to universe 7. <S> this shows broly is much stronger there will no need of SSB or SSB kioken <A> The SSJB + Kaioken Transformation and the SSBE transformation were introduced by Toei and not Toriyama. <S> Although the movie is being produced by Toei, they probably have less influence on the movie unlike the show. <S> Secondly(Note <S> : This is a personal opinion), the movie is mainly focused around SSJB Gogeta defeating Broly. <S> Hence, having Goku/ Vegeta use SSJB +Kaioken and SSBE would in a way disturb the flow of the movie. <S> In the sense, it has been revealed that Gogeta is slowly going to ascend from transformation to transformation and fight Broly. <S> Having the two additional transformations would disrupt this flow and at the same time might overscale Broly a little too high. <S> Plus, if you look back at Goku/ Vegeta vs Merged Zamasu, Goku doesn't really go Kaioken at all in the Goku Black arc(Despite being overpowered)(Except the 1 time to break out of Merged Zamasu's hold). <S> Then we see Vegito Blue in action. <A> That's why you see red flames and a dark blue aura around both Goku and Vegeta and even Gogeta, so since they mastered that form there's no need for Kaioken to be added, just like when Goku mastered Super Saiyan he didn't need to use Kaioken to boost his power level with his mastery of that form <S> he's stronger now than with Kaioken added.
|
The reason for Kaioken not being used is because both Goku and Vegeta mastered SSB.
|
Does Asuna speak English? In episode 5 of the English sub of Sword Art Online: Alicization, Asuna infiltrates the Ocean Turtle facility disguised as Mayumi Reynolds. When she arrives at the facility, she says "nice to meet you" to the guard who greets her in English. Further in, when another guard asks her to remove her sunglasses and confirm her identity, she replies "sure" in English. Does Asuna have any significant English speaking ability? Or did she simply learn a few words in order to solidify her disguise? <Q> Yuuki Asuna went to an all girls private school before the events of SAO. <S> So I'm pretty sure she would have learned it at her school during that time. <S> Most Japanese schools teach English as a curriculum . <S> But sadly a lot of Japanese people still don't have "fluent English conversation abilities". <S> Considering how serious she was about clearing the game, I would guess that she probably also took her school work very seriously. <S> And hence most definitely picked up the lot of the English phrases which she then used in SAO. <A> If nothing else she learned on the helicopter ride to Rath, I’m sure she and Rinko has a plan, as she was studying in California <S> I’m sure two quick sentences were discussed as it was a huge ruse to get Asuna back to the love of her life <A> In the novel, there was a scene where her mother was angry with her and ban her from playing games so that she can study more (although she is not lagging behind in her study). <S> Because of this, I'm sure that Asuna is fluent in English. <S> By that I mean her English would possibly still have a heavy Japanese accent.
|
To add to Rumplestiltskin's answer, Asuna was raised in a strict environment by her parents, particularly, her mother. At least for a Japanese she is fluent.
|
Why Goku's Ultra Instinct wasn't awakened in his battle with Broly? In the tournament of power, Goku was pushed to his limits several times, and he awakened Ultra Instinct Omen, and Mastered Ultra Instinct. But in the battle with Broly (in which I would assume he was pushed to his limits too, since not even with Vegeta was he able to defeat Broly in Super Saiyan Blue He couldn't awaken Ultra Instinct, not even Omen Ultra Instinct, and in the new manga arc we see he was "Ultra Instinct-less" for several years. Why wasn't Goku's Ultra Instinct awakened in his battle with Broly? <Q> Ultra Instinct Goku is the strongest iteration of Goku in the history of Dragon Ball. <S> Goku with that power was capable of easily overwhelming a fighter who rivaled the power of a God of Destruction. <S> Secondly, this skill is something which is so difficult to master that not even Beerus, who is one of the strongest God of Destruction across the Multiverse has been able to master and Beerus has lived for thousands of years. <S> The movie obviously wanted to make Gogeta canon for the sake of pushing merchandise and to cater to fans and they decided to use the fusion route. <S> Even from the Movie's perspective, Goku isn't pushed to the same extent he is against Jiren. <S> While Broly does defeat SSJB Goku, Both, Vegeta and Goku instant transmission out of there and then spend time fusing and go back. <S> When Goku had to fight Jiren, despite getting beaten up multiple times, he had to still get up and keep fighting and <S> a lot more was at stake(Considering his entire universe <S> was at stake), compared to the fight with Broly. <S> So Goku wasn't technically pushed to the same extent as he was in the tournament. <S> Having Goku achieve Ultra Instinct would result in them having to bring out characters stronger than Ultra Instinct which is something the series doesn't want to yet. <S> During the T.O.P, it was more or less implied Goku surpassed the Gods with his mastered UI while he went toe to toe with Jiren. <S> It was stated in the narrative of the DBS Broly movie that while Goku was almost as strong as a God, Vegeta is trying to catch up. <S> Hence, they brought an enemy comparable to a God of Destruction. <S> It seems very likely that the series might resume and if it does, it is very possible that we might see Goku possibly attaining this transformation eventually while going up against a very powerful enemy in the series. <A> I think the reason Goku failed to become ultra instinct was because he tried to force it to awaken. <S> In all the Dragon Ball episodes when he awakened ultra instinct he did not force it. <S> In the Broly movie he was super sayain god and for a second tried to force ultra instinct <S> and he failed and was forced to turn to super sayain blue his 2nd most powerful form besides unmastered ultra instinct. <A> Goku didn't go MUI due to the story of Broly Character. <S> It wouldn't make sense for a mastered powerful and strongest form to go toe to toe with a character that has remarkable power. <S> Also rumors say that Goku and Broly will meet again. <S> Broly will have new forms. <S> Goku is going to learn how to tap into the Sayian monkey form like SS4 and power witch Broly has in the movie. <S> Only after Goku masters that form we will see MUI play out again. <S> DBZ/DBS/DBGT are going to have due a lot more tying all the story's into one. <S> DBZ HERO's will appear to have a lot more of crazy new characters and fighting though.
|
From the movie's perspective there are many reasons why Goku doesn't tap into UI, While Broly is undoubtedly strong, he definitely doesn't rival the might of Ultra Instinct Goku and having Goku use UI against Broly would be a bit ridiculous considering the fact that Ultra Instinct has been regarded as such a complex skill and having Broly go toe to toe with it wouldn't make sense. Ultra instinct was like an "end game" transformation because he is always beat-up the point that he can barely stand before he can activate ultra instinct.
|
Why Raikage didn't consider Minato using Body Flicker in their fight? In his fight against Raikage, Minato spread his marked Kunai to many locations. It seemed like the Raikage was very sure that Minato would only appear at the marked area/kunai. My question is, can Minato appear at unmarked location using Body Flicker? I think he obviously can. If so, then why Raikage didn't consider this in their fight? <Q> Minato's Flying Thunder God Techniqie allows him to teleport to any location which he has previously marked with a hand seal (either on a kunai or with his hand). <S> The jutsu, which was Originally created by the The 2nd Hokage (Tobirama Senju) was perfected by Minato to the point where the "hand-marked" seal never disappeared from whoever Minato marked. <S> Both Tobirama and Minato were famed as the fastest shinobi during their lifetimes. <S> While both were very fast on their own, the Flying Thunder God also contributed to their fame. <S> The rumors about Minato would have spread tales about how he could teleport to whatever Kunai he threw around but apparently Minato also had "some extra's up his sleeve" which only a few people knew about. <S> Minato was actually very fast in normal speed. <S> To be able to react to Raikage A's top speed on lightning chakra mode and even counter attack. <S> Before the Flying Thunder God Technique can be performed, users must first mark a target with their "technique formula" Minato did not "just magically appear" at the back of Killer bee during Their Fight , what actually happened was that Minato used his hand to mark Bee a split second after dodging and cutting his tail. <S> Raikage was trying to figure out which of the kunais that Minato would flicker to, little did he know Minato had already teleported to the mark he placed on Bee. <A> Minato is fast. <S> His teleportation is instant and his reaction time and speed is enough to be able to teleport to dodge almost anything. <S> But there in lies his flaw, its his reaction speed that is his own. <S> His physical speed is great, but it is not the reason why he is truly fast. <S> The Raikage on the other hand is all physical speed and he has mastered Body Flicker. <S> He uses his Lighting style to enhance it to incredible proportions, resulting in him being one of the fastest Shinobi. <S> He is one of the few people specifically mentioned on the Body Flicker Wiki page for his increadible skill with it. <S> It is those 2 different techniques that explain why Minato did not use Body Flicker. <S> Minato is physically slower than the Raikage. <S> He has top tier reaction speed, and his teleportation is instant, but his running speed is not. <S> To use Body Flicker against the Raikage would be like an average runner trying to outrun an Olympic Sprinter. <S> He would most likely loose every time and get caught, resulting in him teleporting anyway for a waste of stamina and chakra. <S> The Raikage knew this. <S> TL;DR Minato using Body Flicker would always loose to the Raikage and his top tier mastery of Body Flicker that has been enhanced by lighting style to be even faster. <S> Minato could only outrun him by using teleportation. <S> Any attempt to use Body Flicker would result in him loosing the footrace. <A> Minato's body flicker is on par with A's. <S> Minato during the war was able to place markers in 5 locations <S> b4 the other kage even got there. <S> 4 for the barrier without being noticed. <S> It's a translation problem. <S> When sasuke used body flicker to blitz naruto and to blitz tobi and deidara tobi called it teleportation. <S> Minato was using body flicker to set those markers. <S> Cleary tobirama and minato and the other kage didnt teleport to the battlefield bcuz <S> they had no marker to do so. <S> It's not that minato couldnt use the body flicker to appear some where else in the field against A. <S> I think it's just strategy. <S> All the kunai makes it hard to predict his next move. <S> And since there speed Is comparable A could probably follow. <S> I dont think minato is slower in raw speed. <S> The ftg is faster and leaves no trace. <S> His reaction speed, body flicker, and ftg all contributed to his nickname. <S> He has reaction speed and ftg over <S> A. He surpasses the 2nd in all three. <S> Altoutgh the 2nd only has ftg over A.
|
The reason why Raikage A did not anticipate Minato's offense was because he did not know enough about Minato's Flying Raijin Jutsu.
|
Why was Kisame surprised when he saw Obito (Tobi/fake Madara) without the mask the second time they've met in person? So, Kisame first met Obito (Tobi) when he introduced himself as the guy who controlls the Mizukage. Then, he tells Kisame about his Eye of the Moon Plan (Tsuki no Me) and recruits him to Akatsuki. So that's like 4 people who knew the true identity of Tobi as 'Madara' (later Obito, but they didn't know that): Konan, Nagato, Itachi, Kisame. But if Kisame also knew him as the leader of Akatsuki, then why was he surprised when Tobi showed his face to him the second time, after Itachi died? I thought he already knew that Tobi mas Madara since he was the one who recruited him. It made sense for him to continue with Akatsuki after Nagato died, since Kisame didn't really care about who the leader was, as long as Kisame got the job done, but the only thing that bothers me is: why was he surprised when Tobi showed his face to Kisame the second time ? He should've already known it was Madara/Obito. Is this a plot hole? <Q> I dont believe this is a plothole, because the first time Kisame met the "Madara", it was actually Obito disguised as Madara Uchiha , Although we never got to see the actual person that Kisame was talking to, based of the way the persons hair from the Shadow was, it looked exactly like Madara Uchihas hair, and we all know that Obito's hair looks very different and isn't spiky long. <S> (I would guess that Obito probably used substitution Jutsu in order to resemble the real Madara.) <S> However, the second time, he saw Obitos real face and that probably caught him by surprise since he was not expecting those scars. <A> In Chapter 507 , the first time Kisame met Obito, he called himself Uchiha Madara and from what we can see, he was not wearing any mask and unlike the real Obito, he has long, spiky hair like Madara. <S> From this, it might be said that Obito was disguised as Madara when he revealed himself to Kisame. <S> However, remember that during this time, Obito was already calling himself 'Madara'. <S> With long hair like those, with those eyes and the fact that few people has ever seen Madara's face, he could easily pass as one even with the scars on his face. <S> In Chapter 404 , after Itachi's death and when Obito finally removed the mask to reveal himself to Kisame, Kisame was surprised. <S> Why? <S> Because the 'Madara' that Kisame knew was not wearing any mask nor did he call himself 'Tobi' . <S> When Tobi 'joined' the Akatsuki, he did not announce himself as 'Madara' but as Tobi, who Kisame was fond of. <S> After Tobi presumably died, Kisame remarked that he was sorry to hear his death, especially since he (Tobi) lightens up the mood of the organization. <S> To conclude, we can say that the first time they met, Obito did reveal himself to Kisame (scars in the face and all) but under the name 'Madara'. <S> The second time they met, it was as 'Tobi' and with a mask <S> so Kisame did not know who was the man underneath the mask. <S> 'Madara' did not tell him that he would be disguised as Tobi while in the Akatsuki , hence the surprise. <S> It could not have been that he was surprised of the scars because he immediately recognized him and he made no comment on them either so we can assume he's already seen his scarred face before . <A> Obito used two types of masks in the series, repeatedly switching between the two. <S> When he first meets nagato, konan and yahiko, he wears his "Tobi" mask. <S> Later when he infiltrates the village, and also when he helps itachi in annihilating the uchiha, he wears the "Madara" mask. <S> When he meets kisame for the first time, he's either wearing the Madara mask (in which case he revealed his face later) or no mask. <S> His hair at that time was also different from when he encountered kisame in the akatsuki. <S> He also may have used zetsu's or pain's abilities somehow to remain mysterious. <S> Even when he earlier met kisame, Obito didn't mention akatsuki or implied any connection to it. <S> Thus, kisame had no idea that Tobi was Obito or as he knew him, Madara.
|
When Tobi revealed himself, Kisame was surprised because he did not expect that it was 'Madara' . And so he was surprised to see him. It might have something to do with the masks.
|
Who was Levi's host? Spoiler alert! Do no proceed unless you are up to date with the manga or you don't mind being spoiled. In Chapter 112 of Shingeki no Kyojin, according to Eren, the Ackerman are able to unleash their power when their host are in danger and they will often have headaches as their inner self fights against the instinct of the Ackerman blood. He then told Mikasa that her tagging along wherever Eren goes is just from her Ackerman blood as Eren is her host. Levi is also an Ackerman and as seen multiple times, he is capable of nearly inhumane feats such as slaughtering a horde of Titans all by himself. My questions is, who was Levi's host? Was it Erwin? If so, do we have proofs that it was him? <Q> For Levi, that person is Erwin. <S> He has acknowledged Erwin as an existence who he looks up to. <S> It’s part of the Ackerman bloodline, or an instinctive part of them, you could say. <S> source: Hajime Isayama, book of answers <A> I think the answer is pretty obviously Erwin Smith. <S> Erwin was one of the only people Levi respected unconditionally, and from whom obeyed every command showing Levi's immense trust in Erwin. <S> Additionally, right before the Return to Shiganshina Levi threatened to break Erwin's legs to make sure he couldn't go into battle to make sure Erwin wouldn't die. <S> That being said, Levi's connection to Erwin disproves Eren's belief that the Ackerman's (Mikasa) are slaves/cattle with no free will. <S> Because despite the fact that Erwin was seemingly "Levi's" host, when having to choose between Armin and Erwin to save Levi still chose Armin meaning that Ackerman's despite imprinting onto someone like Uri for Kenny, Erwin for Levi, and Eren for Mikasa are still able to make choices of their own free-will that could endanger or even kill their "host" like Levi did of Erwin <A> There is no proof that this connection Ackerman-host does actually exist. <S> Furthermore in the latest (118) chapter: Armin speculates that Eren made that entire thing up in order to convince everyone that he is siding with Zeke. <S> SPOILERS!!
|
So yeah, it seems that Erwin was Levi's "host."
|
How did Trafalgar Law get to and leave Marineford? My question is two-fold: How did Trafalgar Law and the other "Worst Generation" pirates get to Marineford? I thought you had to go through the tri-currents? Or is that the tri-currents are just a faster way but you can come any other way since Marineford is not in the calm belt? How did Trafalgar Law leave the tri-currents? This especially puzzled me. I am thinking now that it might be because of their submarine. My assumption is that it can move freely, does not depend on currents, but I am not sure. I would appreciate answers that are based on more than just speculation. <Q> So, to add a bit of clarification to all the answers. <S> The Tri-current (Tarai Current) are a natural whirlpool at the intersection of the Calm Belt and Red Line. <S> The WG build three facilities around the current ( Impel Down - MarineFord - Enies Lobby ), making use of the current power to fast travel between the three. <S> The currents work also underwater as per natural ocean currents, but probably have different speeds and power at different underwater levels. <S> Here's a pictures depicting the wihrlpool: <S> The Gates of Justice are 3 such gates placed at the "corners" of the current from where you can enter or access it. <S> This is the only way for normal ships (floating ships) to get inside the current. <S> The whole phenomenon doesn't quite follow natural physics so one shouldn't try to find natural ways of how to enter/ <S> exit it. <S> Also, you can't get in from the outside without using the gates as the outside currents will push you away from the whirlpool and vice-versa from the inside where the whirlpool will keep pushing you into a circle. <S> Now on how Law & others managed to get there. <S> One possibility is that they entered the current by going underwater through the Gates of Justice while they were openend . <S> After the gates close, the outside currents will keep you from entering, even underwater. <S> That is why Bepo said to hurry as the gates are closing, so they could catch the overflowing current to the outside, while submerged. <S> The same applies to WB's ship who was also underwater. <S> Another possibility for WB's ship to enter is if he used the Gura Gura no Mi 's powers to temporarily divert the currents and enter from any side of the whirlpool. <S> Law still had to enter from the gates nontheless. <S> And even another posibility could be that they entered MarineFord by bypassing the big current, from Sabaody Arch. <S> for exemple, and managed to get around the marines defence of those waters. <S> They probably left through the Gate of Justice to make for a quick escape rather then going back and risking to get captured. <S> More on <S> One Piece fandom about the Tarai Current. <A> Ya <S> they took the current because they wouldn't have made it in time otherwise <S> , there's no indication that you can't get there any other way. <S> Considering white beard's entire fleet got there <S> underwater <S> I assume that you're able to maneuver freely. <A> Tri Currents has nothing to do with getting to and leaving Marine Ford. <S> It only helps if you are trying to go to and fro from Ennis Lobby, Impel Down or Marine Ford. <S> It does not mean that this is the only way to get to Marine Ford. <S> It is just one of the way. <S> Tri currents is a marine exclusive current between Impel Down, Ennis Lobby and Marine Ford. <S> Using this way will increase the speed of travel between these places. <S> You can get to Marine Ford from Sabaody archipelago in half an hour without using the currents. <S> Marines and Celestial Dragons travel regularly between the two. <S> Only problems for Pirates and other criminals to use this way would be the heavy patrols. <S> But they can get past these patrols by doing what WB, Law did and come underwater. <S> Or by doing what Luffy did(when <S> he rang the Ox Bell) by hijacking a marine ship, you can get there. <S> Since Law never entered the currents, he never had to leave it. <S> On a side note, Luffy, Jinbei, Crocodile, and Co would have been trapped the Tri Currents if not for Black Beard, when they escaped Impel Down through the Tri Currents. <A> The Heart Pirates (Law’s crew) travel by submarine, rather than normal ship. <S> They left the same way, staying a fair distance from the actual island and fighting. <S> Kizaru attempted to stop them, firing beams into the ocean as they dove, but the sub made it out of the area (we can assume they left the same way they entered).
|
Using their sub, they were either able to pass below the Gates of Justice (this is my presumption) or travel under/around the currents normally blocking passage to Marineford.
|
What's Goku's and Vegeta's green aura in Dragon Ball Super Broly? In Dragon Ball Super Broly, both Goku and Vegeta displayed a green aura for a couple of seconds. Vegeta did it when he switched from super saiyan to super saiyan god, and Goku did it when he switched from super saiyan god to super saiyan blue (Goku also displayed a white mastered ultra instinct aura for a couple of seconds too). What does this mean? What's Goku's and Vegeta's green aura in Dragon Ball Super Broly? <Q> There are a lot of fan theories claiming that Vegeta's green hair transformation was possibly foreshadowing a new form as we also see Goku display a transformation similar to Mastered Ultra Instinct while transforming to Super Saiyan Blue. <S> However, there aren't any statements or actual facts from the writers, Toriyama or anyone related to the movie. <S> Hence, I think it is fair to assume that these are just animation choices from the animators to simply make the transformation sequences more dramatic. <S> Evidence to support this is Goku's transformation to Super Saiyan Blue. <S> We have seen Goku effortlessly tap into the form so many times. <S> However, he has a very dramatic transformation sequence when he taps into Super Saiyan Blue to fight Broly. <S> Note: This is my personal opinion and it might not necessarily be true. <S> I believe the animations were done on purpose to indicate some form of similarity in the Super Saiyan transformations between Goku/ Vegeta and Broly, mainly for the new fans who are unaware of the franchise. <A> I believe based on what I seen from the movie. <S> While Goku was in super saiyan god, and fighting with Broly <S> his eyes blanked out ( turning white) same as broly’s final form. <S> So that would bring a new transformation for both Vegeta and Goku. <S> The only differences will be Goku transformation will be stronger for the simple fact of his base form and his power-ups, they’ll mostly be similar transformations. <A> Vegeta’s hair could have been a color choice by the people behind the movie. <S> Regarding Mastered Ultra Instinct, I think we actually saw it. <S> Goku May have triggered it in complete accident, due to the fact he was almost just beat to death and was desperately trying to reach Super Saiyan Blue. <S> He may have broke his shell like in the TOP and tapped into Ultra Instinct for a few moments. <S> Hope this helps. <A> I think that that just how Broly has a state in which his aura his eyes became green. <S> Although he does not goes to ssj. <S> His father had said that he had reached the state in which he uses the power of Ozaru even in his normal form. <S> Goku and Vegeta may had reached the state for few seconds while fighting Broly. <S> This is only a theory which is not mine, a Youtuber named Negus Sayain uploaded a video in which he said this theory. <A> Just an animation choice, a call back the original Broly film where there were scenes where character had different hair color. <S> Don't read to much into it.
|
I believe it was the choice of color for some of the scenes, such as Goku’s transformation into Super Saiyan Blue, some of the colors may have mixed to make green.
|
In Fate, can a Master summon an Extra Class Servant during a Holy Grail War, or under any circumstances? In Fate, can a Master summon an Extra Class Servant during a Holy Grail War, or under any circumstances? For example, one Master summons Jeanne of the Ruler Class, and another Master summons Edmond Dantes of the Avenger Class. Can that happen? <Q> If I remember correctly, in the Fate/Zero and Fate <S> /Stay Night universes <S> , Avenger Angra Mainyu was summoned by the Einzbern in the third Holy Grail War instead of a Berserker. <S> This would imply that it is technically possible to summon an Extra Class Servant during a standard Holy Grail War following the Fuyuki formula. <A> No, it was stated that the Einzbern's were only able to summon those extra class servants (avenger Angra or ruler Amakusa) because they were one of the families to create the holy grail war system, so they were able to interfere with the system to allow the ruler and avenger class to be summoned, but only by them who knew how to and had the authority over the system to do so. <S> Therefore if any other master attempted to summon an extra class servant they would not be able to because of the rules of the holy grail. <S> So no, in a holy grail war, a master can not just summon those extra class servants. <A> For the first part of your question the answer for most Masters would be a no. <S> The Fuyuki Holy Grail Wars were built to have one Servant each of the seven standard classes be summoned but since the Einzberns were part of it's creation they can to an extent go "fwahahahha <S> I am the rules" and were able to summon an Avenger/Ruler class instead while Medea's skill at magecraft and older mages generally being far superior to modern ones <S> was able to bend the rules enough to add Sasaki Kojirou albeit by having to bind him to specific location. <S> The Great Holy Grail War is an extension of this system with two of each standard class being summoned by Masters. <S> but if achieved would not be bound by class restrictions as demonstrated by the Faker class Servant summoned by Doctor Heartless in Lord El-Melloi II Case Files using an imitation of the Holy Grail. <S> Fate/Grand Order also demonstrates this as both the Chaldea summoning system and the Grails found within singularities are capable of summoning Extra class Servants just as easily as any other.
|
Outside of a Holy Grail War summoning a Servant is nigh on impossible
|
In what episode did Karin meet Orochimaru? There is an episode in Naruto series when Orochimaru protected Karin against some guy. Which episode is it? <Q> It's from Naruto Shippuuden Episode 431: To See That Smile, Just One More Time . <S> Notably, unlike the previous episodes in this set of fillers (mainly just fairly lighthearted happenings inside the Infinite Tsukuyomi dream of various characters), Karin's episode here is basically a rather sombre flashback to her past. <S> (This was a sad episode. <S> Poor Karin...) <A> It's from Naruto Shippuden Episode 408: <S> The Cursed Puppet . <S> Sakura is having chakra issues, then it has a segue about before Team Taka formed, then that segues again at 15:28 about some scum that found Karin as a child and was going to sell her as a remnant of a clan from the Hidden Eddy. <A> What I did find is a reference to the Third Databook (pages 66 and 67) where it explains how the two met, After the village was burned down and everyone was killed, Karin was approached by Orochimaru, who asked her how she survived, leading him to bring her back to Otogakure. <S> I'm guessing at this point that there was maybe a small flashback in one episode somewhere, but if there is, I can't find a clip anywhere.
|
This one is from the run of Infinite Tsukuyomi fillers that aired during the Fourth Shinobi World War arc. I'm not having any luck finding the specific episode that you're talking about (if it even exists).
|
What is the meaning of the title of "Perfect Blue"? What is the meaning of the title of Perfect Blue ? Most of Satoshi Kon's (Director) work has a deeper meaning behind them, so I was wondering if there is a meaning behind the name. <Q> As for the movie, there is no meaning. <S> Most of answers given on various forums (i.e. reddit , MAL ) are only speculative and theories at best. <S> From an interview with Kon Satoshi himself: <S> Andrew Osmond: <S> What is the significance of the title Perfect Blue? <S> Satoshi Kon: <S> That’s a frequently asked question and, at the same time, one I find very difficult to answer. <S> To be honest, I used it because it was the title of the original novel [Perfect Blue: Total Pervert by Yoshikazu Takeuchi, published in 1991]. <S> I presume the words had some significance, but as I changed the story and probably the subject as well, I guess the meaning was lost. <S> I can only guess because I didn’t read the novel. <S> I simply read through the rough plot, which was described as “close to the original story” in the project plan delivered to me. <S> We discussed changing the title, but I like it, it sounds significant and mysterious. <S> It would appear then the meaning was lost to the source material. <S> Seeing that the original is in Japanese book and my Japanese lacking, I will leave it for someone else well versed in Comp. <S> Lit. <S> to interpret the title as used in the book. <A> IIRC Blue is a colour associated with happiness in Japan, in the same way that White is associated with evil. <S> So the films name could be taken to mean perfect happiness. <S> Isn't the protagonists final line "A perfect blue day." or some such? <A> As such, blue also represents calmness and stability. <S> Additionally, blue is considered a feminine color, and so, in combination with the association with purity and cleanliness, blue is often the color young women wear to show their purity. <S> As a traditional Japanese color, shades of blue are used on kimonos to represent the seasons and fashion expressions.
|
According to another website, blue is a color which represents purity and cleanliness in traditional Japanese culture, largely because of the vast stretches of blue water that surrounds the Japanese islands.
|
Can the Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan affect people without direct eye contact? I was in a discussion today with a friend of mine about the strength of the Mangekyo Sharingan, and the question of "can the Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan affect people without direct eye contact?". We weren't certain, and lacked the materials to get an accurate result. Could someone help answer this question? <Q> I am going by the assumption that you mean, techniques that required eye contact previously, but after obtaining the EMS (eternal mangekyou sharingan) <S> no longer do. <S> In which case, the answer would be no . <S> The EMS allows users to tap into more techniques at less chakra cost. <S> And more importantly, without the side effect of turning blind. <S> But does not, for example, allow the Amaterasu to burn people without making eye contact. <S> All though <S> It does not have to be direct eye contact . <A> I assume you referring to use Genjutsu with Sharingan, because of physical ninjutsu did not require eye contact with the enemy to use it, like Amaterasu, Kamui, or etc. <S> Of course, it can. <S> Even without using Eternal Mangenkyou Sharingan or ordinary Mangenkyou Sharingan Itachi can still use his Genjutsu through his finger ( https://naruto.fandom.com/wiki/Ephemeral ). <S> Danzo can also use the Genjutsu from the Shishui's Sharingan eye that he stole to manipulate people even though the Sharingan eye always under his headband. <A> I'm assuming you're referring to genjutsu, since Amaterasu can burn a person even if they aren't making eye contact, and Susano'o can smash a person even if they aren't making eye contact. <S> The fight between Kabuto and Sasuke and Itachi in chapter 586 suggests that eye contact is needed to cast genjutsu , even if it's using an Eternal Mangekyou. <S> During this fight, Sasuke had an Eternal Mangekyou, and Kabuto didn't seem terribly concerned. <S> Kabuto: "Since I shut off my vision, genjutsu won't work on me. <S> I tell you again, you two have no chance of winning." <S> However, Izanami can be cast on a person even without direct eye contact. <S> This is explained in chapter 587: <S> Sasuke: <S> "So how? <S> How can ocular jutsu work without eyesight?" <S> Itachi: " <S> The Izanami is an ocular jutsu... <S> that works with the physical senses of yourself and your opponents." <S> Izanami is very special though, so this probably isn't the norm. <S> After all, Izanami is an incredibly powerful jutsu that blinds the Sharingan that is used to cast it. <S> Though note also that Itachi can cast genjutsu from his finger . <S> So even without Mangekyou, it doesn't need to be direct eye contact. <A> Eternal Mangekyo simply means that the backlash caused to eyesight by use of Sharingan and Mangekyo Sharingan is not experienced by the user. <S> It doesn't affect the technique to such a degree that if visual contact was required earlier, it won't be later on. <S> However, a lot of techniques of mangekyo don't require eye contact. <S> They will remain as it is, however as user won't feel the side effects, it gives a bit of a power boost to the technique
|
The general expectation seems to be that ocular jutsu requires eye contact, regardless of whether the Sharingan is regular, Mangekyou, or Eternal Mangekyou.
|
Why did Hisoka want to kill Panthom Troupe's members? I am not quite understand why Hisoka tried to kill all Phantom Troupe member after he was lost from its leader, Chrolo Lucifer. That fight, Chrollo vs Hisoka i think is reasonable because Hisoka always intended to beat a person that more powerful than himself, but in the end he was lost and also confirmed death by Shalnark. From the very first Phantom Troupe's Arc, Hisoka seems didn't have that kind of urge to kill all Phantom troupe's member. After his rebirth from that battle between Chrollo Lucifer, he suddenly have urge to kill all Phatom Troupes' member, this is just escalated quickly mood from Hisoka. His first Victim from the group were Shalnark and Kortopi, in chapter 357 What's his motive to kill all Phantom Troupe's member ? <Q> The thing is, it's quite hard to interpret or understand Hisoka's motives. <S> So, as to the reason behind Hisoka's seemingly abrupt decision to kill or hunt down all Phantom Troupe members, we don't know yet as of now unless it will be revealed in upcoming chapters . <S> Chapter 357 also surprised me as his decision was so sudden. <S> What we do know, either from reading the manga or watching the anime, is that Hisoka is someone who gets off or is 'turned on' when fighting someone who is strong , either stronger than him like Chrollo or someone with potential like Gon. <S> This could probably mean that he either has Agonophilia <S> or he's an adrenaline junkie . <S> He probably wants to fight all of the Troupe members, believing it would give him great arousal or excitement since he probably realized they could be worthy opponents after his fight with Chrollo . <S> But again, this is just a possibility based on his actions. <S> We can't be sure unless Togashi explicitly shows this in the future. <S> It would be, however, hasty to immediately conclude that he did it 'just because' with no reason or plan. <S> He's not like that <S> and he plans all his moves, as can be seen, for example, in his fights during the Heavens Arena arc . <S> As to his exact plans for antagonizing all of the members of the Troupe, it also has yet to be revealed . <A> removes the ability from chrollo's book. <A> probably hisoka realized that lying in wait made him become rusty. <S> Evidence is that when he fought chrollo, the latter showed off his offensive strategies, while the former observed in amazement. <S> After his rebirth, hisoka considers he might have caused his own loss and swears to become a new person entirely.
|
It's because hisoka fought chrollo and chrollo used the phantom troupes powers to aid him in the fight, so he's going to kill them all in order to have a fair fight with chrollo.because killing the user
|
Why Does Ichigo look different after he gets his soul reaper powers back? Why in the fullbring arc he looks different when his powers are restored I mean his Zanpaktuou looks slightly different but his robe in normal and bankai state are different why is that? Also is Zangetsu still within him because Ichigo still has all the same abilities even after regaining his powers. <Q> But I'm not really sure it is the only reason actually. <A> It never really says why, but i'm guessing it's because Kisuke had made him back into a soul reaper, and in doing so, nearly made Ichigo into a complete hollow. <S> And, yes, Zangetsu is still within him. <A> Gaining fullbring powers affected the form of his soul, so even though they were taken away, when he regained his soul reaper powers, the effects manifested in his bankai and his sword also changed.
|
I assume that it's because he retrieved his powers with the help of a lot of Shinigami who gave a part of their powers to create the sword Rukia used to reawaken him. And yes, Zangetsu is still within him, just keep forward into the manga, there is a lot to see about that subject.
|
Do Metal Bat and Tatsumaki get any closer to Saitama at any point of the story? In the opening of season 2 of One Punch Man, there is a shot where you see Saitama with his friends (Genos, King, Bang , Fubuki) and also Metal Bat and Tatsumaki. Is there any obvious reason why Metal Bat and Tatsumaki are there? Do Metal Bat and Tatsumaki get any closer to Saitama at any point of the story in the manga? <Q> For Metal Bat, they don't have any significant interactions <S> so I doubt they'd get closer. <S> For Tatsumaki, I'm not sure if this can be called getting closer <S> but they fought during the Psychic Sisters Arc <S> (this is canon as the webcomic is where the manga is based from). <S> Afterwards, Saitama displayed concern and interest toward Tatsumaki , as he ran after her to see if she would be alright flying home with her injuries... <S> Saitama then asked her why she became a hero if she's trying to cut relationships with people. <S> At this point, Tatsumaki almost revealed her past to Saitama but didn't. <S> Instead a flashback was shown when she first met Blast, which, to me, reveals Blast's true identity. <S> To quote from the wiki , She witnessed a man defeating a giant multi-eyed monster. <S> His name is Blast. <S> His appearance has a strong resemblance to Saitama . <S> In fact, Blast said to Tatsumaki that he is a hero for fun, echoing Saitama's words . <S> Blast ends his conversation by telling Tatsumaki that she has to be strong, because not everyone can save her. <S> This motivated Tatsumaki to become a hero, and this is also a reason why she wants to be alone and cut relationships with people. <A> He meets Tatsumaki at the S-class heroes meet in S01E11 of the anime, but beyond that I don't recall any interactions. <S> I think he hasn't even met Metal Bat till now, since he was absent from the meet. <A> Metal bat, unlikely. <S> The guy barely appears for the next two arcs and has never interacted with Saitama. <S> Tatsumaki, absolutely. <S> Not gonna spoil much, but something happened and she and Saitama left on good terms. <S> Not exactly friends yet, but close acquaintance.
|
As of now in the manga, neither Metal Bat nor Tatsumaki are closer to Saitama than before.
|
What were the two siblings referencing in episode 5 of No Game No Life? In episode 5 of No Game No Life , when the two siblings saw the home of the Flugle, they said something and their clothes changed. I'm pretty sure it was a reference to something, but I can't figure it out. What were the two siblings referencing? <Q> Judging by how they said "Laputa is real" as soon as they see it, I googled 'Laputa', and it seems to refer to Laputa: <S> Castle in the Sky , which is a Studio Ghibli film. <S> The poster on the Wikipedia page has the main characters who seem to match the attire that Sora and Shiro change into. <S> As for the partly censored word they say later, when trying to figure out how to get up to Avant Heim, I am not sure if it is linked to the movie since I haven't seen it. <S> However, considering they comment that "the servers here are better", it seemed like they were using an abusive/offensive word to see if something would glitch. <S> MMORPG games usually kick out players who use such speech, and while I can't recall exactly which game / instance this might be referring to, I have heard similar references before. <A> I also agree about @TheGamer007's theory that they were testing to see if using an offensive word would get them 'kicked'. <S> However, it would be also possible that it is a direct reference to a much earlier literary work , specifically Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, written in 1726. <S> Laputa is a flying island in the story. <S> Castle in the Sky's Laputa was also derived from Jonathan Swift's story so it's possible that it's the same for Avant Heim . <A> Laputa is the floating sky castle in Castle in the Sky <S> Balse <S> / Balus is the "spell of destruction <S> " the two main characters say to destroy the castle at the end of the film. <S> That's why Sora and Shiro remark that "it's not falling" and "it'll take more than magic words." <S> Also, their clothes are changing to match that of the protagonists in Castle in the Sky.
|
The previous answer is possibly correct and it may be likely that it is referencing to the Studio Ghibli film .
|
Is anything known about Saitama's family? I've watched season 1 and 2 of the anime, read part of the manga, read part of the webcomic and watched at least some OVAs (not sure they were all of them). I dont remember anything said or shown about Saitama's family. Is anything known about them? Also , aside of those sources, I know there are audiobooks, that there is an official encyclopedia, and that sometimes the author and the artist answer questions from the fans in an "official" way. Is anything known about Saitama's family? <Q> To this date, we have no info on Saitama's family. <S> Not even in the webcomic. <S> However, there is a big controversy/theory about this and that is: Spoiler from manga <S> /webcomic: Blast, number 1 hero, <S> being a relative of Saitama. <S> However as I said, this is a fan theory. <A> No there is no information about the family of your beloved one punch man. <S> Even in the manga no information of such kind has been disclosed up until now. <S> But i really hope in the upcoming chapter there will be some disclosure about his family background. <A> The webcomic did not mentioned a thing about his family and is probably something the fans must be quite curious about till this day. <S> The only thing we could do now is to wait and see how the author is going to progress with the story line.
|
So far there is still no information regarding about Saitama's family.
|
What is the point of using the kunai? The kunai just seems very pointless. With the power of characters in the Naruto and Boruto series people can easily stop them. They barely ever do damage to people and there are so many different fighting techniques/abilities to use during a fight. The kunai just seems very pointless. Why do the characters use the kunai in battle? <Q> Why bring a knife to a gun fight? <S> Well, it’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. <S> While it may seem like a useless weapon at first glance, there have been instances in the series in which the use of a kunai have been proven quite useful. <S> Close Range <S> If I remember correctly, Kunais are used a lot during close range combat. <S> While up close, it would be easier to thrust a kunai than to attempt to perform a justu. <S> During the Kakashi vs Zabuza fight on the bridge, Kakashi used kunais to stab and incapacitate Zabuza’s arms to prevent him from performing hand seals. <S> Long Range Kunais have also been shown to used as long range weapons. <S> A common tactic is to attach a paper bomb and throw it into a crown of enemies. <S> You can hinder with enemy without the cost of chakra. <S> While performing stealth missions, it’s better to take out enemies with a small dagger than a giant fireball. <S> Minato was also known for throwing kunais that had his seal to allow him to perform his teleportation justu. <A> Kunai were historical tools/weapons used by ninja in Japan, though their uses have been expanded/fictionalized in Naruto. <S> I think in Naruto, they function as versatile long-distance and close-range weapons that can be used even if someone is low on chakra or trying not to attract attention. <S> One thing to also keep in mind is that Naruto and Sasuke (and the like) are the kind of absurd extremes in the Naruto universe. <S> The show focuses mostly on the really powerful people because they make for entertaining TV, but a lot of the shinobi are a lot les powerful and a lot less inclined towards crazy displays, and so good basic weapons are a necessity. <S> In the series, kunai are also thrown with explosive tags to them (creating projectile explosives), used to cut through wood or stone when powered with chakra, and even used by Minato for his hiraishin. <A> They can be used in close quarters, make good traps and distractions, and they can also be used to cut most things when infused with chakra. <S> On their own kunai are multi-purpose tools.
|
Kunais are one of the many tools shinobi have at their disposal.
|
Do Bang, Bomb and Genos know who killed Elder Centipede? I'm assuming that the Hero Association thought it was King and not Saitama who killed Elder Centipede, otherwise they would have likely promoted him. But how about Bang, Bomb and Genos who were there? Do they know who killed Elder Centipede or couldn't they tell as Elder Centipede was charging against King and in a flash Saitama killed him? <Q> The credit for defeating Elder Centipede Centichoro probably went to king like how he usually gets it for the monsters defeated by Saitama. <S> But in the matter of Genos, Bang and Bomb knowing who actually defeated Centichoro, Genos knew it was Saitama. <S> Because as soon as the centipede disintegrated, Genos asked Saitama what is he lacking again? <S> Genos asked. <S> "What is it that master (Saitama) has <S> and I don't?". <S> And Saitama reply. <S> "Power I guess" <S> This means that Genos knew Saitama was the one and wanted to know how is he able to defeat these monsters so easily. <S> As for Bang and Bomb, they are quite exceptional martial artists. <S> Their sense of everything is extraordinary. <S> So I doubt that they didn't realize it was Saitama who finished off the Elder Centipede. <S> Moreover, Bang already has an idea of Saitama's strength because of the meteor incident and also, from the time Bang and Saitama were competing over some games at the dojo. <A> On the show Bang, Bomb, and Genos are only standing a short distance away and were all staring at Saitama who was still in a punch pose after destroying Elder C. <S> They would definitely have known Saitama killed it-though no doubt King/Genos/Bang/Bomb would all get more credit for the actual kill with Saitama getting supporting credit. <A> I mean if you seen the current episode then it should be really clear that it showed Genos shocked again seeing Saitama in the place, so i guess that implicates that he saw him killing the centipede because he also asked saitama what he lacked andI think Bang must have also known that it could only he Saitama who could have destroyed the monster as he is well aware of his extraordinary powers <A> I think they all heard King scream for Saitama. <S> Then, when the Elder Centipede is killed, Saitama is standing in a post punch stance and King is cowering on the ground. <S> I doubt Saitama will take full credit. <S> He's known all season King is getting credit for his kills and doesn't do anything to correct it. <S> And, since King is the only one to beat him, even if only in video games, he's not going to blow King's cover. <S> I think he considers King a friend and someone he respects. <S> Genos is going to do as Saitama says. <S> They will respect Saitama's wishes. <S> I think the Hero Association will promote Saitama because he was the only non-S-Class hero left standing, but he won't be moved to the #1 spot.
|
Bang already knew and likely told Bomb.
|
How could Armored Gorilla beat Marshall Gorilla? https://onepunchman.fandom.com/wiki/Armored_Gorilla We all remember this gorilla in season 1, who seems really weak and lost against Genos . In season 2, we see him beating Marshall Gorilla in one punch. It sounded very weird to me. The previous episodes showed the monsters of Orochi very strong, and need S-Class Heroes to beat them. Marshall Gorilla is the same kind as the Supersado girl . But Fubuki needed Tatsumaki help to beat her. He was followed by Zombieman, an S-Class Hero, who was worried about that Marshall Gorilla, so it means that he's as strong as a S-Class Hero... So if this Gorilla is so strong, how can that weak Armored Gorilla beat him? <Q> Armored Gorilla looked very weak despite claiming to be extremely strong. <S> This is because he was very quickly and easily beaten by Genos. <S> Also, Genos looks weak compared to the other human there... <S> Saitama. <S> However, Genos soon after became an S class hero and clearly deserves that ranking based on his skill level. <S> So Genos is S class level. <S> Genos and Saitama are absurdly strong and are ridiculous standards to compare to. <S> You argue that Marshall Gorilla needed someone on the level of an S class hero to beat them. <S> I would argue that they need an A class hero or similar to beat them but that doesn't matter. <S> This episode establishes that Marshall Gorilla should be strong enough to at least defeat most A class heroes. <S> His easy defeat just shows that Armored Gorilla actually was very strong... <S> he looked weak only because of how amazingly strong Genos and (by extension) Saitama are. <S> Retrospectively, we should know that he was that strong as Genos's defeat of that laboratory alone was enough to skyrocket him up to S rank immediately. <S> While you may want to attribute that strength to Saitama as Saitama beat Kabuto, the hero association was probably not aware of Kabuto <S> so did not include him in their calculations. <A> Armored Gorilla is stronger than Marshal Gorilla <S> If we are going to base on threat level alone, Armored Gorilla is Demon level while Marshall Gorilla is Tiger level <S> But of course we can't just use the threat level alone. <S> So let's look how the battle goes on between the two: <S> The attack didn't even budged Armored Gorilla and the knife was broken, from this we can completely see the power difference between the two <S> and we can say the Armored Gorilla is really stronger that Marshall Gorilla. <S> Zombieman is not worried about Marshall Gorilla , he is following him for a different reason: <S> Zombieman want to know their location that's why he is following him <A> It's all about match ups. <S> Nothing to do with power. <S> Although power can make a huge difference if they are as strong as tatsumaki. <S> But you have to realize that fubuki and her gang doesn't even match up to most heroes on A levels. <S> Fubuki although being B class could be considered A since she is top 1 and could do well. <S> Genos is also a pretty strong character but his main role is to make saitama look stronger by making him lose to the enemies that saitama could beat. <S> He didn't get S by just being a tactician. <S> His physical levels are off the charts. <S> Remember deep sea King? <S> He took out 2 S class heroes and made sonic retreat but he is only a demon level threat. <S> Same level with armored gorilla. <S> But like I said, it's all about match ups too. <S> Deep sea King is physically strong and even stronger and faster in the rain. <S> Some heroes could be advantageous against certain monsters. <S> Like VS Boros. <S> I'm pretty sure most of the S class heroes won't hold up to him unless they teamed up. <S> The only one I think would have a chance would be tatsumaki.
|
Marshall Gorilla uses his Banana Slash to Armored Gorilla, the same technique he use to defeat the A-rank hero Heavy Kong.
|
If Tobi could use the izanagi, which requires both Senju and Uchiha DNA, then why wasn’t he able to awaken the Rinnegan on his own? It was stated by Tobi during his fight with Konan that Izanagi can only be used by those with both the DNA of Senju and Uchiha. We also know this is how the rinnegan is awakened, so why didn’t this happen? <Q> Tobi was not able to awaken the Rinnegan despite having both Uchiha and Senju DNA because he was missing a certain step in the evolution, and that is, the Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan. <S> (I slightly explained obito's case in one of my previous answers ) <S> The evolution of the Sharingan involves firstly awakening the Mangekyo, then after a combination with another family members Mangekyo, it evolves to an Eternal mangekyo sharingan, after which adding Senju DNA to the mix awakens the Rinnegan. <A> This was done by Madara combining the chakra of the Sage's Sons Indra and Ashura who had been reincarnated into himself and Hashirama respectively. <S> Of course the only people who awakened the Rinnegan (aside from the Sage) were Madara and Sasuke (who got his Six Paths Chakra directly from the Sage) who were both Uchiha with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan <S> so it isn't known if the Sharingan or any of it's stronger forms is required for the process. <S> In the filler episodes that show the Sages Past, he awakened the Rinnegan immediately after unlocking the Mangekyou stage <S> [There were no other Uchiha-Eyes to steal back then] <S> but as it's filler it probably cannot be considered canon. <S> Tobi may have had some of Hashirama's Cells implanted through his prosthetic white side which likely contained some amount of Ashura's Chakra <S> but he lacked Indra's Half of the Sages Chakra. <S> Additionally, it took Madara decades for his EMS and the eye which he sacrificed for Izanagi to transform into the Rinnegan <S> so Tobi would perhaps not have had the time even if he somehow possessed Indra's Chakra. <A> Technically Izanagi doesn't require both the DNA for activation as mentioned here but to maintain it for a long time both the DNA are necessary. <S> According to me Obito doesn't have any direct intake of Hashirama's DNA. <S> All he is able to do is sort of wear the Black Zetsu which doesn't lead to mixing of DNA. <A> Izanagi does not require Uchiha and Senju DNA. <S> As long as you have sharingan you can use Izanagi if you know how to activate it.
|
At first, it was believed that the mixing of Senju and Uchiha DNA resulted in the Rinnegan but it was later in the series it was clarified that it's not necessarily the DNA of both that is needed but the chakra of the Sage of the Six Paths that awakens the Rinnegan. Tobi's Sharingan never reached the EMS and so thats why even tho he had combined both Uchiha and Senju DNA, he still was not able to awaken the Rinnegan.
|
Did Kakashi use genjutsu before the end of the Fourth Shinobi War? When you have the Sharingan, you can perform a genjutsu on a person for example, every Uchiha can use this ability. But what about Kakashi? He is not an Uchiha but can he perform genjutsu? If yes, please list it down. Note: I'm not referring to after the Fourth Shinobi World War, since we know that after the war, Kakashi doesn't have the Sharingan. <Q> I think you want instances of Kakashi using his Genjutsu, here is one- <S> During the Bell Test for Team 10 <S> he tricked Sakura by putting her in a Genjutsu <A> First of all you don't need to be an Uchiha to use genjutsu, look at Kurenai <S> she is a genjutsu expert and not an Uchiha. <S> Against Sakura like @StackUpPhysics said. <S> (During the Bell Test for Team 10 <S> he tricked Sakura by putting her in a Genjutsu.) <S> Against Zabuza <S> (At 0:33 Minutes) . <S> Against 2 Anbu Ninjas (At 2:41 Minutes) <S> Another Instance of Kakashi Using Genjutsu in the Manga: <A> Can Kakashi perform genjutsu? <S> Yes. <S> According to the wiki , With the Sharingan, Kakashi can accurately reproduce any movement he sees (his own physical skill permitting), take in a heightened amount of visual information, and perform the Sharingan's broad category of genjutsu.
|
But for your question, Kakashi uses 3 times genjutsu in the series.
|
Why is Nezuko stronger than regular demons? In manga #83 it is mentioned that Nezuko's regeneration speed matches that of an upper moon, and later it's mentioned that it surpasses the regeneration speed of one of the upper moons Also, Nezuko has shown to be stronger than an average demon before, when she kicked those strong demon balls for example. Why is Nezuko stronger than regular demons, considering she neither has martial art skills, nor consume humans to get stronger? <Q> It was referenced by several demons (starting with three-horned demon with clones), that she seems to be strong due to amount and quality of demon blood she was injected with to be turned into a demon. <S> Other possible reasons were not specified so far. <A> @lentinant already mentioned one of the reasons why Nesuko is stronger than other demons because she is able to survive after taking a lot of blood from Muzan Kibutsuji. <S> One of the episode <S> we say Muzan Kibutsuji frighten of Nesuko father when he found the same ring and scar on the face of Tanjiro apart from that <S> , I will say her father was a demon slayer too <S> maybe he was researching to protect human from becoming a demon. <S> he able to create a vaccine with which a human can control his will after becoming a demon too. <S> he injected his family with the vaccine because he knew Muzan Kibutsuji will come after him & his family in future. <S> there may be some limitations on a vaccine like it should be injected before becoming a demon. <A> maybe because she sleeps a lot and she conquered muzan's blood. <S> according to Urokodaki that nezuko regain her strength by sleeping. <S> other demons gain there strength by eating humans. <S> so as long that she sleeps she gaining more and more power. <S> especially now that nezuko conquered the sun :)
|
Muzan Kibutsuji may be tried to kill by exploding her after injecting a lot of his blood into her veins but maybe somehow she able to survive with that much of the blood that makes her powerful demon.
|
How was the Black Bull squad ranked at the beginning of the Black Clover anime? At the begining of the anime, it is stated that Golden Dawn and Silver Eagle are the best squads. However, in the wikia, It is shown that Black Bull is the second squad with more stars This makes me conclude they progressed as the story advanced. How was the Black Bull squad ranked at the begining of the anime among of the other squads? <Q> The fist time they talked about how many stars the black bull have is after Asta and Noelle's first mission. <S> The Black Bull have -31 stars while Golden Dawn have 70 stars at that time. <S> Asta and Noelle earned a star for their first mission making it -30 stars for the Black Bull <S> The first time we see the full ranking of the nine magic knights squads is they are at the bottom though this is the last year's ranking. <S> Based on what Yami said, Black Bull is always last in the rankings of previous years. <S> Yami: <S> Man.. <S> What a pain in the butt. <S> Were always last anyway. <S> Sources: <S> Black Clover: Chapter 10 and Chapter 102 for pictures respectively <A> https://blackclover.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Bull <A> Among the other squads, they were last place. <S> Every year, they would get behind and stay behind. <S> I think they were even in the negatives with their star count. <S> It wasn’t until Asta joined and inspired the team to try harder did that change. <S> If you mean strength among squad members, Yami was the strongest, probably followed by Henry (unknown at the time though), maybe Luck then Zora or Zora then Luck, Charmy, Magna, Gordon, Gauche, Vanessa, Grey, Noelle, and Finral before Asta joined. <A> Black bulls especially known as Worst of the worst. <S> This term also came as they were always last in the tournament. <S> They only started getting points after the entry of Asta and Noelle. <S> But they are more known for the bond of friendship that they all so cherish. <S> Truly they never really cared about the damn trophies.
|
The Black Bull is last in ranking in terms of the number of stars they have gathered The Black Bulls had gathered -31 stars due to destructive behaviour that caused their performance to be more harmful than the threat of the missions themselves. They’re now sitting in 2nd place behind Yuno’s squad, the Golden Dawn.
|
How come when Dio stops time Jotaro can move but Dio can't when Jotaro stops time? In JoJo's Bizarre Adventure , Jotaro seems able to move even while Dio stops the time. On the other hand, Dio can't when Jotaro stops the time. Why? <Q> Jotaro planned to stop when the limit of Dio stop time was finishing. <S> This happened when Jotaro did finished blow after he survived from the road roller attack. <S> And when Dio stop time, Jotaro don't use ability but can feel the situation in time stop world, so, Jotara can trigger the ability while he is in Dio stop time by use his time limit between the Dio stop time is triggering. <A> I assume Dio would actually be able to move in Jotaro's stopped time if he didn't already use up all his stopped time during the Road Roller attack before, but since that's the only time Jotaro uses his stopped time during the battle against Dio we can just assume that he would be able to move in that case. <A> Actually, you don't need to think so hard to understand it. <S> Just consider Jotaro fighting Dio at the start, where Dio throwed knives at Jotaro. <S> Jotaro uses his time_limit(Capacity in seconds to stop time) and can't move after it, until time resumes again. <S> This same applies to Dio, he can't stop time again until time resumes.
|
I think Dio can't move in Jotaro's stopped time after the Road Roller attack because he already used up his stopped time.
|
Can humans be cut out of all Titans? This question is in regards to the anime. I've watched all of the episodes that are available, so I do not mind spoilers. Since humans who can turn to Titans at will (I think they're called shifters) can be cut out of the Titan body, can the humans inside other "normal" titans (like the ones who became titans via injection of spinal fluid) be also cut out and saved? <Q> No, it is not possible. <S> During Hange's experiments with Sonny and Bean [chapter number required], she mentioned slicing open the necks of titans in prior experiments. <S> She was never able to find anything inside (in the anime an empty cavity was seen). <A> The titan shifters are able to do this, but in regular titans there is no intact human body in the nape. <A> well in seaon 3 hanji's experiments when eren lost control and ate the tower, then when his butt was hanging out and had no muscle below the waist. <S> When it was time to cut him out it was hard because he was partially absorbed into the titan(Mikasa had to cut him out after hanji wanted mbilt to sketch it) <S> this is what happens to regular titans the humans in them get absorbed except the spinal cord.
|
Considering the currently available information, the answer is No.
|
Why Kinro and Ginro are guardians of the entrance of the village if in the world they leave no other humans are supposed to be alive? Kinro and Ginro are guardians of the entrance of the village "the kingdom of science" now. When people from Tsukasa empire came to attack, they were the ones supposedly in charge of letting them in. But before they already were guards of the village, when they live in the world where supposedly no other human is alive. Why Kinro and Ginro are guardians of the entrance of the village if in the world they leave no other humans are supposed to be alive? <Q> While there may not have been (m)any people around, the guards were surely useful for keeping dangerous wild animals out of the area. <S> After all, we know that there are lions in the region from early on in the series . <A> When Senku first arrives at the village, they say that outsiders are banned because the only ones out there are people who have been exiled from the village. <A> Manga Spoilers: <S> We eventually learn that the village is not the only human settlement left. <S> Many centuries ago, their village was founded by a breakaway group that sailed to japan from the astronaut's original landing site. <S> Soyuz also washed ashore on a boat as a baby. <S> So, the villagers are vaguely aware that other humans might exist.
|
Which suggests that there are at least a few people who have been kicked out at some point, although it's not clear who they are, when they were exiled, or if they (or their descendants) are still out there somewhere.
|
Is there a reason for not training Nezuko in breathing? I understand that Nezuko gets stronger from just sleeping but the entire time Tanjiro is training to master his breathing alongside Zenitsu and Inosuke she just sleeps. Would it not have made more sense to train her to breathe as well and she could sleep during travel and daytime and do breathing training at night? Or is this not done due to just plot, not constraints? Are demons even able to learn breathing techinques? <Q> She slept through Tanjiro's training year, while (probably, not shown really) he tried to wake her up. <S> From the slayers' point of view, they most likely have no idea how to train demons because they have a different physiology. <S> (Upper Moon One seem to have mastered the moon breath before becoming a demon.) <S> Also, pillars still may think it is not safe. <A> In my opinion, demons can't train and get stronger the way humans do. <S> Tanjiro needs to train to get stronger; she doesn't. <S> Also when she sleeps it's not a normal "let's sleep at night" kind of sleep, but more of a <S> "I'm going into a long coma" kind of sleep. <S> She can't train at day and sleep at night; that's not how her recovery process works. <A> I don't know why Nezuko didn't train herself to use breathing techniques or because of her bamboo piece in her mouth( Just kidding! ). <S> But Yes, demons can learn breathing techniques. <S> Just like Upper Moon One "Kokushibo". <S> He can use Breath of the Moon. <S> Link: <S> https://kimetsu-no-yaiba.fandom.com/wiki/Kokushibo <A> It's not known yet in anime that whether demons can develop breathing techniques. <S> But it seems like that cannot develop breathing techniques because demons don't feel the way like humans do. <S> Tanjiro as a protagonist in the series keeps on training and improving his breathing technique to save and bring Nezuko back to her old form. <S> On the other side, Nezuko, being a hybrid type (not completely human nor a demon) recovers from injuries by sleeping and the same technique goes when she is asleep. <S> In order to protect her sister he keeps getting stronger to bring nezuko back to her old self.
|
Nezuko sleeps not because she has nothing else to do but because in such a way she restores her strength instead of eating flesh.
|
Why didn’t the heroes try to use Eri to rewind Nighteye to prevent him from dying? Nighteye was about to die and they had a girl who can rewind someone to their former state, make them younger or repair their injuries. Why didn’t the heroes try to use Eri to rewind Nighteye to prevent him from dying? <Q> There are multiple reasons behind this: Quirk . <S> As @Kerkhof & @ConMan said, she can't control her powers and could do more harm then good. <S> We still don't know the extent of her quirk so she could turn in into a baby in 3 seconds if she loses control maybe. <S> Eri's state . <S> After the fight with Chisaki, she is seen in a deep sleep/"coma" like state and they could do nothing to wake her up <S> so she could'nt help even if she wanted to. <S> Time . <S> We see in chapter 161 that Night-Eye dies moments after they are all rushed to the nearest hospital so even if Eri was conscious and healthy and <S> even if they were able to find a way to use Eri's powers to help Night-Eye, it would've been a race against time and there were no assurances that they could do it. <S> Trauma : Everyone in knew how much Eri suffered. <S> And how she blamed herself for everything. <S> Seeing this people decided not to tell Eri about Night-Eye's Death. <S> Because she is too small to understand/process all this. <S> She might have even started hating herself or go berserk.(context: <S> Anime) <A> As Eraserhead says when he's escorting Deku to Nighteye's room, Eri's Quirk is not under control and is likely to destroy someone rather than heal them, which is why he says "We cannot depend on her Quirk" - specifically, they can't make use of it to save Nighteye. <A> I believe this is because they put her in quarantine.
|
With the reason being that she can’t control her power, which could result in restoring him to nothing.
|
Is naming things a fantasy in Japan? In a lot of isekai manga, the main character comes across someone or something ( e.g. a slime monster) that has no name, and must give a name to him/her/it. Every time, the one who is given a name accepts it, is happy, etc. For example: In Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken , Rimuru names all his villagers In Tondemo Skill de Isekai Hourou Meshi , ch. 10, the main character has to give a name to a newly tamed slime In The New Gate , Shin (ch. 10) and Schnee (ch. 26) give names to newly tamed beasts Since isekai manga kind of aim to make true all the dreams/fantasies of the reader ( e.g. the main character is super strong and has successful romance), why is there such a focus on giving names? <Q> I think you meant to say "fetish" rather than "fantasy"? <S> Catholics does this, for example, when they receive their baptized name ; as well as Buddhists, when they receive their dharma name . <S> Many monarchies have a tradition of the monarchs taking on a new regnal name when the new monarch ascended to the throne. <S> It's also common trope for feudal servants/subordinates serving a new master to take a new name, it's a sign of throwing away their past and therefore subservience to the new master. <S> Another common trope is a new pet being drawn to feel happy when they're first named. <S> Often the trope goes that the pet feels unhappy/angry/uncomfortable while the owner scrolled through a few names that then got rejected before they ended with the one that the pet seems to respond well to (IRL, this is likely just reflection of the owner being happy for having finally picked a name, because chances are the pet doesn't care or understand). <S> This is definitely not unique to Isekai genre. <A> I suspect that this is, rather than a fetish or a power fantasy, a reference to one of the core things isekai <S> stories are based on -- JRPG video games. <S> As soon as there was memory on the cartridge to do so, these games have made it so <S> when you meet a new party member, or capture a monster, or anything of that nature, you (the player) are given an opportunity to name them. <S> You're often given a default, or a set of options, but the names are in the end up to you. <S> (Pokemon nicknames are probably the most well-known example of this to Western audiences, and there have been a few -- <S> I think early Dragon Quest games among them? <S> -- that don't provide default names at all, so fan discussion of the characters can get a little tricky when it's just "that one cleric" or whatever.) <A> I think it all comes done to hegemonic masculinity in the end. <S> It's something that a lots of artworks tends to go for, not only in Japan. <S> It's been like this for decades. <S> One of them is the conqueror man. <S> Finding new lands, discovering the unknown, is seen as something valuable for a man.
|
Not that I'm aware of, but in many cultures, naming is of great significance, there are often attitudes that being given a name or title is perceived as a great honour. There are lots of values attached to this concept.
|
Did Minoru die because of the Death Notes' new rule or because Ryuk wrote his name in a Death Note? There is a one-shot manga for Death Note that was published on Mangaplus, on February 3th, 2020 (you can read the manga officially here . In the final scene of this one-shot manga, Minoru Tanaka, the new owner of Death Notes, was selling the Death Note through an auction online and it sold for 1 Quadrilion Yen. The person who bought it was the President of the US at that time. The money will be transferred to the account of every person in Japan that has an account registered with Yotsuba Bank of Japan, 1 billion Yen in each account. When Minoru gave the Death Note back to Ryuk, Ryuk got yelled at by the King of Shinigami, who said it's forbidden to sell Death Notes to humans. So for the first time, the King of Shinigami added a new rule for Death Note usage: A Human who buys or sells the Death Note in the human world will die. The seller will die when they receive the money and the buyer will die when they receive the Death Note. This canceled the transaction, but the money was already transferred to every person in Japan that had an account with Yotsuba Bank of Japan. But at the end, Minoru still died when he withdrew the money one month later after he gave up the Death Note's ownership because Ryuk wrote his name in the notebook below Light Yagami's name. What makes me confused is does Minoru Tanaka die because he withdrew the money since the new rule said "...The seller will die when they receive the money..." or does Minoru Tanaka die because Ryuk wrote his name in his Death Note just like when Light Yagami died? If so, why does Ryuk have to wait for one month and start to write Minoru Tanaka’s name in the Death Note? <Q> Minoru died because of Ryuk, similar to how Yagami Light did. <S> Through the original Death Note Series Ryuk mentions that when the owners life would come to an end, he would write down the name instead. <S> However, Ryuk has also shown that he is impatient in that sense. <S> As Minoru has broken the new rule, and obtained his payment Ryuk wrote down his name, as Minoru was set to die anyway. <S> The One Shot however does not cover whether this new rule would actually kill Minoru off even without a Shinigami writing his name down. <S> However, knowing how Shinigami themselves have also died from breaking the rules set upon them, there is a high likelihood this would have happened non the less. <S> Where I would speculate that the Shinigami King himself would be the one to pass down the punishment for breaking the rules. <S> You have lost, Light. <S> Didn't I say in the beginning… when you die, the one who'll write your name down in a notebook will be me. <S> That is… the deal between the Shinigami… and the first human to get their hands on the note in the human world. <S> Once you enter the prison, I don't know when you'll die. <S> It's annoying to wait… <S> Your life is already over. <S> You'll die here. <S> Well, it was good while it lasted… <S> We killed some boredom, didn't we? <S> We did some various and interesting things…” - episode 37 <A> "The seller will die when they receive the money " Minoru mentioned that he has to wait a month before getting the money all at once, because the bank put up a daily limit for withdrawing money. <S> So Minoru waited a month before getting any money. <S> Therefore he received the money a month after the auction and died. <A> Minoru died because he was never aware of the new rule of the Death Note. <S> The moment he got any type of payment, he was domed to die. <S> Ryuk was not able to warn him about the rule since, Minoru told him to not appear and never show his face after the sell. <S> Also, he lost all memories of the Death Note the moment he sold the Death Note and told Ryuk to never show his face. <S> I fell that Ryuk would have warn him if Minoru would not have been such a smart ass, as telling him to never bother him. <S> Minoru studied the rules and calculated everything, but the new rule added at the last moment was unexpected and his downfall.
|
Ryuk was just obligated to write his name, as his time had come by breaking a Death Note rule.
|
Can wearing sunglasses prevent sharingan? If one is wearing dark black sunglasses, then how will eye contact work? Sharingan user won't be able to tell when he has eye contact? I haven't finished shippuden yet, so may be answer lies ahead but I am curious. <Q> The only known way to avoid the effects of the Sharingan have been to avert or completely cover one's eyes, or at least be able to block out the vision/chakra reach of the technique. <S> However, it's not necessarily the case that just doing that alone will help. <S> Given that the Sharingan 's main strength are powerful genjutsu (illusion tactics), it's well within the realm of experienced/expert Sharingan users to be able to control more senses than just vision, and thus, averting eyes alone isn't quite enough to protect from the illusions. <S> I don't think sunglasses would help - you can still see through them, after all, so you would be able to have your vision compromised just as if you weren't wearing any. <S> Since you're still getting through the series, I won't spoil anything for you, but the fact that averting eyes isn't enough to avoid the powerful genjutsu produced by it plays a pivotal role towards the end of the series. <A> No, wearing sunglasses does not prevent falling to a visual genjutsu, as seen in (spoilers below) <S> chapter 413 of the manga when Sasuke managed to catch Killer Bee in a genjutsu. <A> The abilities provided by Sharingan are not just limited to the eye-contact between user and the opponent. <S> Although one of the formidable abilities provided by Sharingan( Genjutsu ) is shown in the manga/anime to happen through eye-contact, there are still many other ways to cast Genjutsu. <S> In fact a skilled Genjutsu user can use different body parts or things to cast Genjutsu. <S> Spoiler <S> Ahead !! <S> 1. <S> Itachi Uchiha can cast Genjutsu just by using his fingers - [Naruto Chapter - 259] 2. <S> Jiraya uses frog’s croak to trap Pain in Genjutsu - [Naruto Chapter - 379 ] <S> So answering your question by slightly reframing it, Can wearing sunglasses prevent the victim from Genjutsu? <S> Conditions: 1. <S> Genjutsu is based on eye-contact: <S> 2. <S> Genjutsu is not based on eye-contact <S> No, this time, since the medium of Genjutsu is not through eye-contact, the opponent can't prevent himself from falling in Genjutsu just by avoiding eye-contact.
|
Yes, if the opponent restrains himself or somehow blocks the Genjutsu caster from having the eye-contact, he can protect himself from being caught in Genjutsu.
|
Why heroes are physically stronger than average humans In the world of My Hero Academia, the human society acquired Quirks. So basically instead of having regular humans, we have humans with abilities. With the exception of Power-Up quirks (like one for all...etc), why do humans/heroes/villains seem physically stronger? I mean, they can go through walls and be smashed on the ground and still stand, with minor injuries, training can't make a human sustain such things.. In One Piece for example we know the world is filled with abnormally strong humans, but that's not the case in My Hero Academia, is it?? Bakugo standing up after Deku's power-up punch, even with 8% it can make holes in walls, why didn't it kill bakugo? <Q> In a lot of anime, humans just have more durability than real-life humans. <S> Not sure how I'm supposed to provide sources for this, but in, for example, One Punch Man , Saitama was repeatedly beaten down by Crablante before gaining any powers and survived. <S> In JoJo Battle Tendency , Mark gets half of his head sheared off and is still able to talk for a while after. <S> I wouldn't pay much attention to this. <A> Given that Bakugo creates explosion from his body perhaps his body has adapted to deal with it. <S> As such, other heros bodies have stengthened in order to deal with their quirks. <S> Otherwise all heros would be impacted by their own quirks (eg Hizashi Yamada would be deaf by now). <S> We see this with (naturally quirkless) Deku when he needs to train his body to get used to his gifted quirk. <S> tba - will add references when I can find a transcript. <A> Humans have the ability to physically train themselves to do things beyond their normal capacity. <S> Anime, shounen anime in particular, is known for over-exaggerating this well beyond what is possible in reality. <S> In just about any shounen anime, a completely normal person can physically train themselves to the point where they can throw cars, survive a car being thrown at them, and other similar things that are well beyond what even a pheomenally trained human is capable of. <S> In the MHA world, heroes undergo intense physical training to be able to perform these feats. <S> As such, they are capable of what you describe.
|
It's just a common thing in many anime that humans have higher-tier durability than their real life counterparts.
|
Why didn’t Levi inject both Armin and Erwin? Levi decided to inject Armin with the Titan serum to have transform the almost dead Armin into a Titan so he can consume Bertholdt to gain his Colossal Titan Abilties Why doesn’t Levi just inject both Armin and Erwin with half of the serum each so both survive? <Q> I cant remember if anyone, Levi included, actualy saw when he tasted the serum, did they? <S> And either way, there was one guarantee to get one of them into action, or a chance to get both, but if it didnt work for any reason, everyone would get ripped apart or eaten alive. <S> I watched the show, so could have missed some info from the manga, but sounds like good reasoning to me. <A> A question that we should also think upon: Would Erwin have wanted Levi to turn him into a mindless Titan just so he could 'live'? <S> Remember that the Titan injection turned Armin into a Normal Titan, not a Titan shifter . <S> He still needed to eat Bertolt afterwards. <S> If both turned into Normal Titans, only one would still be able to inherit the Colossal Titan. <S> Besides, as seen in Chapter 84 and to quote from the wiki, Levi himself did not want to bring back Erwin, even if there was a way: Levi notes that Erwin became a demon just as they had wished, and that he deserves to rest, rather than be brought back into their hellish world . <S> So, no, only one would still survive. <A> 1) iirc, Levi didn't know if they needed to have the whole serum injected or just a part, so risking it would potentially kill them both.2) <S> Levi knew Erwin wished to die.
|
There has been no precedence in the manga nor a mention of an event where two people inherited the same Titan powers but a person may acquire multiple Titan shifter abilities .
|
Is Naruto's most proficient move still Shadow Clones? After becoming Hokage, and so much more in ''Boruto'', it is safe to say that Naruto has learned a great deal more than when he was just a kid, and originally learned to use the Shadow Clone jutsu. He has been using it frequently since then, using it whilst fighting to pull off his Rasengan or to multi-task in his daily life. Obviously it is not his most destructive jutsu, but talking sheer mastery with it, I doubt he would be better at another jutsu. But with how many jutsus and techniques Naruto has by now, is his Shadow Clone jutsu still the one he's the most proficient at? If not, then what is his most proficient jutsu, and when did it become his most proficient? <Q> I think his strongest justu is Sage Art: <S> Super Tailed Beast Rasenshuriken, but his most PROFICIENT jutsu would be multi shadow clone justu simply because it is an extension of his shadow clone jutsu, which is one of the first jutsu he mastered and he has been using it since he was 12 or however old he was when he defended Iruka. <A> On a battlefield Rasengan and Rasenshuriken variations is problably the most proficient, we can realize that looking to how often it was used on battle and its damage, since Kakuzu's battle against Naruto , he was looking forward to improve that technique <S> On a more general porpuse problably Shadow Clone jutsu wich he uses to initiate battle's as to accomplish dayly stuff <S> In my opinion, Shadow Clone Jutsu is the most proficient one in general, it allows naruto buy time to think and is pretty amazing all the ways that he combine more destructive jutsus to it <A> He is constantly maintaining kage bunshin. <S> Therefore with so much usage, it will be his most proficient. <S> This is also shown by the fact that he can maintain a large number of them for a long period of time. <S> However, in a battle situation, this is not very useful. <S> So he will use his next most proficient (almost equally proficient) Rasengan and varients of it. <S> For example, in the fight with Delta, he used a multitude of Rasengans and a lot less clones. <S> He usually hit anyone with a rasengan if he can get close enough. <S> He almost uses it as much as he uses plain punches.
|
I believe it is still his most proficient jutsu as he is using it all the time even at the village so as to keep up with the workload and help many.
|
Should you wait to switch to the ground frequency until after crossing a runway? I've never had the opportunity to fly into a controlled airport with parallel runways, so I've never actually faced the situation. But, in the interest of being ahead of it, when would it be prudent to switch to ground frequency with this clearance (assume I just landed)? N12345, right on E, cross 27 R, contact ground .9 Should I call ground (or switch frequency, so I no longer hear the tower) before or after crossing 27 R? My by-the-book assumption would be immediately, as there's no "then" or "after crossing" or similar, but somehow that feels wrong. I suppose normally it doesn't really matter, but in the case of someone (which includes me, everyone makes mistakes) doing something wrong, where would they call me as I'm about to cross 27 R? The reason I ask is that I saw exactly this case in a YouTube video quite a while ago (can't find it anymore though), where exactly this happened. The pilot was narrating for the video and stated he'd switch frequencies "now that he'd crossed the runway", at which point I started thinking about it. Considering the situation, I would probably rather wait since there's an inherent delay when switching frequencies anyway, I might as well wait a bit longer, but knowing myself, if I hadn't thought about it ahead of time I'd probably switch right away. The only reason I can think of for saying it this way is if 27 R is not an active runway, but then again, reality does not always match what's in the book. <Q> Remember that active runways are always the jurisdiction of the local (tower) controller. <S> Even if a ground controller tells you to cross a runway, they have to clear it with the local controller next to them. <S> So generally you switch frequencies when you have finished crossing the runway unless told otherwise. <S> I can tell you this is exactly how it works in Boise, Idaho where there are the parallels 10/28 L/R. <S> However, if you are unsure of any instructions a controller gives you, the basic rule is: ask. <S> The tower controller won't mind, and will typically appreciate the clarification. <S> Just read back the crossing instruction as normal, then ask. <S> Right on E, cross 27 R, contact ground .9, N12345, and should I contact ground on the other side of 27R or immediately? <A> N12345, right on E, cross 27 R, contact ground .9 <S> Do it in exactly the order they tell you. <S> Right turn on E, cross the next runway, then stop and contact ground. <S> Have an airport diagram handy <S> if you can, it will make a world of difference. <S> ETA <S> : If they want you to switch to ground before crossing 27R, they'll probably just say this: N12345, right on E, contact ground .9 <S> In which case, you turn right on E, cross the hold position lines, stop, and switch to ground. <S> The ground controllers will direct you the rest of the way, coordinating with tower controllers where crossing runways is required. <S> In fact, in this case, they'll probably give you very explicit instructions not to cross any more runways until told to do so. <A> Different airports will have different procedures. <S> In some instances, exiting a runway and joining a taxiway upon landing means you should immediately contact GC. <S> In others, ATL for example, you shouldn’t ever change frequencies until instructed to do so. <S> Reason for that is that in ATL local control owns jurisdiction over certain taxiways - B, N and to a lesser extent R and points south. <S> Jumping frequencies here without instruction will lead to lost comms, and is a common issue among pilots not familiar. <S> As to the you-should-never-cross-an-active-on-ground point made earlier - not accurate. <S> We routinely coordinate among each other to cross runways if an advantage can be gained by doing so. <S> I probably cross 30 aircraft a week on ground control frequency. <A> You have been cleared by the tower to cross a runway so you should stay with the tower frequency until you've crossed it. <S> The reason being that ground control is not authorized to issue clearances for runway crossings. <S> In theory , you should never cross a runway when on ground frequency because the tower is in charge of that. <A> Why? <S> If Tower needs to cancel or amend your clearance, they will first try to reach you on the same frequency. <S> If it's an emergency, the several seconds it takes to realize you're not there and then several more seconds to have someone else call you on another frequency could mean the difference between you living and dying. <S> Imagine, for instance, that tower told you to cross the right runway, and then they realized the aircraft behind you was (incorrectly) lined up on the right instead of the left. <S> They're going to tell them to GO AROUND, of course, but they're also going to tell you to either STOP IMMEDIATELY or NO <S> DELAY (i.e. full power), depending on exactly where you are. <S> You really don't want to miss that instruction, especially since someone who's dumb enough to line up with the wrong runway is probably also dumb enough to miss (or mess up) the go-around.
|
When you're given a clearance related to a runway, you need to stay with whoever gave you that clearance until you're clear of that runway--and only then do you follow an instruction to change frequency.
|
Why would a Cessna 182T not enter a stall? When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS. This "mushing" went on for what seemed ages before I eventually applied power and pushed the nose down to gain airspeed again. We tried it again after that and the same thing happened. I had an instructor with me who has thousands of hours in a C172 and he had never experienced something like this before. The odd thing is that this only happened during that flight. During later flights this didn't occur anymore. There was a passenger in the back seat, fuel tanks only half full so the CG was more aft than usual, but well within limits Ever since that flight I've wondered: What could cause this to happen? (My guess is it is CG related) And most importantly: If I would have continued this "mushing" flight, would it be possible to have entered a flat spin or a simple "drop out of the sky" like the infamous Air France 447? <Q> I think this is more common than you might think in a C182. <S> The 182 is much more nose-heavy than a 172 (which is particularly noticeable in the flare) and this seems to limit the amount of upward pitch authority the elevator has at low speeds. <S> The only stalls I've done in a 182 are much as you described - you can hold full back-elevator and you just sort of sit there sinking. <S> Spinning could be an issue if it becomes uncoordinated, but a 182 is a very stable airplane and unlikely to enter a flat spin unless the CG is beyond the aft limit or severely uncoordinated. <S> Perhaps someone else can weigh in further on that possibility, though. <A> Some aircraft don't have enough elevator authority to enter a real stall if the have a nose heavy CG. <S> The wing fails to achieve the required angle of attack, and the plane mushes. <S> The solution for these kids of planes is not to enter the stall from MCA, as is typically taught. <S> Rather, enter from straight and level flight at Vx, and break into a full stall by sharply moving the yoke to its full aft position. <S> This should result in a significant nose-up attitude and exceed the critical angle of attack, and you will see and feel a sharp break. <S> Remain coordinated throughout the maneuver, and recover by releasing back pressure, and don't let the nose get too low. <S> This method can also be adopted for aircraft that don't have enough elevator authority to do a turning stall. <S> If you're doing this in a power plane (rather than a glider), you'll probably wind up adding power in the recovery. <A> A stall occurs based on angle of attack, not speed. <S> If the plane tends to nose over near stall speed, the angle of attack may not increase enough for a full stall, even though the plane is losing altitude. <S> If you want to perform a low speed stall in the plane, keep pulling the stick back to maintain altitude or climb slightly as the power is eased off. <S> Use the rudder to keep the wings level to reduce the likelihood of a spin. <A> There are some very good answers here, I enjoyed reading this post. <S> I would just like to add in a lot of aircraft, if you are aggressive on the rudder (in order to keep in balance at all costs, i.e. every time a wing moves slightly down you step on the sky) <S> , it is very difficult to enter a spin. <S> The opposite is also true, if you are flying along in mushing flight and give the rudder a good kick a spin is often the result. <S> Different aircraft will handle differently in this mode, in some like the 182 it will be relatively easy to stay there, others could end up in a spin if the smallest of mistakes were made. <S> Alan Bramson used to call the aeroplane a "tin parachute" when in this mode <S> and I believe in the olden days it was used to descend rapidly through holes in clouds <S> (!) <S> without building up too much speed. <S> Although its not really a parachute because if you hit the ground in this mode the sink rate would usually be so high (in excess of 500 feet per minute), the ground would obliterate you. <S> To fully answer the other half of this question I think its most probably CG related and that being a new aircraft its easier than normal to keep in balance being very clean etc. <A> My last flight involved some stall training in a PiperSport LSA, and it actually did take considerable conscious input to make the plane move past that "mushy" stage and depart completely (it would nose down quite handily when you did though). <S> I concur with other answers; there is a difference between a "stall" (exceeding critical angle of attack and thus losing lift and/or full attitude control) and a "departure" (losing most or all attitude control). <S> If pulling back on the stick or yoke won't continue to pitch the nose up, you've stalled, but you haven't departed completely until you can't push the nose back down (or it noses down even with full nose-up elevator applied). <S> This also makes intentional maneuvering near the edges of the flight envelope more difficult, as the plane will want to settle back into a stable configuration rather than let the pilot potentially push further into departure.
|
Many small planes with "normal" or "utility" category ratings (or "limited" light-sports) are designed with a large amount of "departure resistance"; their aerodynamic design and mass distribution makes it hard to fully depart the aircraft and enter a nose-down stall (or a spin, spiral dive etc).
|
I just flew into class B airspace without a clearance, what should I do now? Hypothetical: Let's say (for whatever reason) a pilot became distracted or disorientated, and found themselves in class B airspace . What steps should they take immediately and after landing to be safe and avoid any backlash from authorities? <Q> After landing, you may get the dreaded phone number from a controller (probably tower or ground) which you're supposed to call and speak with someone from the FAA. <S> You should not volunteer any information about the incident during this call without talking to a lawyer or AOPA legal services first. <S> Then, most importantly , fill out a report in the Aviation Safety Reporting System . <S> Any information you submit will not be used against you in an enforcement action by the FAA, and in many cases, people who volunteer information through the system receive much softer treatment, and sometimes forgo enforcement all together. <S> The reason the FAA incentivizes this self-reporting is so they can better collect information about accidents which inevitably happen. <S> If they know why you accidentally strayed into the bravo, maybe they can improve procedures or charts to help keep other pilots from making the same mistakes. <A> I've done it three times in 1200 hours of flying, I must admit. <S> First time, my plane was performing better than usual (conditions were just right) <S> and I nicked the SFO airspace on climb-out. <S> About 20 minutes later, they called me with a phone number to call when I landed. <S> Spent the rest of the flight shitting bricks. <S> When I got to my destination, I was chewed out by the controller for about fifteen minutes. <S> I was so rattled I didn't leave my home airport again until I'd gone up with an instructor for a refresher. <S> Second time was in Boston. <S> I flew through an airspace extension that wasn't on the map. <S> Spent a few minutes on the radio arguing with the controller about it. <S> "It's not on my map". <S> "Well, we have a letter of agreement with the local airports." <S> "But it's not on my map, how was I supposed to know?". <S> Nothing else ever came of it. <S> Lesson learned: the space between the top of a class D and the bottom of the overlying class B airspace might be considered part of the class B, so just avoid them unless you're under ATC control. <S> Third time, I was in contact with ATC, skirting outside the lowest layer of their class B. <S> I turned left to avoid a cloud when I should have turned right, and got chewed out by the controller and told to make an immediate right. <S> Anyway, the bottom line is that if you didn't actually endanger anybody, and just nicked the corner of the airspace (which is what I did in all three cases), you'll probably just get away with a stern talking-to. <S> But blunder through the path of an incoming airliner, and you're probably looking at a 4-month suspension of your license. <S> Filing <S> an ASRS report <S> is probably a very good idea if it ever happens to you. <A> Since this question doesn't specify whether the pilot is operating as VFR or IFR or if the pilot has had previous communications with ATC, my best recommendation is to directly exit the airspace and then contact ATC for clearance. <S> If you are on an IFR flight plan and following a previous clearance, I would continue on your last assigned clearance and contact ATC as soon as possible. <S> I would not recommend landing inside Class-B airspace without clearance unless you have a communications failure. <S> Even with a failure, it might be more practical/safe to land to the nearest destination outside of Class B. Upon landing, fill out an ASRS report and, depending on the infraction, seek legal advice in some form like AOPA Pilot Protection Services .
|
While still in the airspace, you should contact the controller if you can, since it may be important to safety.
|
Are there benefits to opening a flight plan if I'm flying over populated areas? Here in Idaho we have a lot of mountains and desert areas where if I had to make an emergency landing or crashed it may take a very long time to find me. In that case I can see the benefit to opening a flight plan. But in areas where I'm flying over most or all populated areas, someone would see the crash well before they would start looking for me. In that case, are there other reasons to file and open a flight plan? <Q> According to the AIM section 5-1-4 , the main reason is search and rescue: <S> b. <S> So the question becomes, does search and rescue have value in populated areas? <S> You might be flying at night, or no one may be looking in the right direction, or they may assume you're landing at a private strip or doing cropdusting or whatever. <S> And even when an aircraft is known to be down in a specific area, it's often very hard to find it - especially if you land in trees - <S> so anything you can do to narrow down the search area is important. <S> An AOPA safety video (I forget which one) mentioned an incident where a helicopter went down less than a mile from a runway threshold at a class B airport and it still took 24 hours to locate it (the details may be different, but you get the idea). <A> The biggest thing that comes to mind is that even if somebody saw your aircraft crash (or land off airport), they may not know to respond, or who to contact. <S> A flight plan has aircraft and pilot info attached, including emergency contact. <S> I'm not sure that the assumption that somebody will see the crash is quite right, but it's certainly more likely than in the backcountry! <A> Another reason or benefit to filIng a VFR flight plan when flying over a populated area is if IMC is remotely possible. <S> Depending on where you live and when you fly, possible might develop to probable, then advance to definitely, rather quickly. <S> If you have a VFR flight plan filed, you will already be in the FSS system. <S> It is then easier to convert that VFR flight plan into a pop-up IFR flight plan in order to affect an instrument approach to landing. <S> Think of situations when IMC moves in to your area underneath you’re flight altitude. <S> Or, the times when you are flying VFR-over-the-top expecting it to be VMC at your destination.
|
It is strongly recommended that a flight plan (for a VFR flight) be filed with an FAA FSS. This will ensure that you receive VFR Search and Rescue Protection. I would say that - excluding large cities - populated areas are actually not very densely populated at all (relatively speaking), and there is a very good chance that no one will see your aircraft come down or even react if they do.
|
Is a rotary wing craft capable of supersonic flight? Just what the title states. Since the Wright brothers, aviation technology for fixed-wing craft has advanced by an order or more. Rotary wing craft on the other hand (I know little about aviation; please correct me!) have advanced significantly by way of lift capacity, and maneuverability. Yet velocity has achieved nothing like the kind of advance seen in case of fixed-wing craft. Is a rotary wing craft capable of supersonic flight? How is it limited by contemporary technology? <Q> Currently there is no rotary wing craft capable of supersonic flight. <S> Combined with the forward motion through the air, the rotating blades attack the air on one side and retreat backwards on the other. <S> As the aircraft moves faster this poses 2 problems: <S> The retreating blade has a point of zero air speed, starting from the axis at hover and moving to the tip with forward speed, an effect known as P-factor . <S> Eventually a large portion of the blade has negative airflow (backwards to what it had when hovering) causing loss of lift control on that side <S> (there may still be lift, but the pitch of the blade has little influence). <S> The craft will roll (and I believe gyro forces will bring the pitch up, and the craft will recover) <S> The advancing blade will go supersonic, starting from the tip. <S> Aerodynamics change. <S> There are ideas of new blade actuators that can change the blade for 1) reverse airspeed and 2) supersonic aerodynamics. <S> As you have noticed, nothing has panned out so far... <A> The Republic XF-84H "Thunderscreech" was a USAF jet fighter modified with a turboshaft engine and a propeller designed to operate at supersonic blade speeds. <S> It first flew in 1955, and the result was a noise that was literally deafening . <S> During ground engine runs, "the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away." <S> Whereas there may be some advantages of a supersonic propeller, <S> the side effects (the noise) prohibit the use of a supersonic propeller even for military applications, let alone civilian ones. <S> The question proposes a helicopter with supersonic blades, at least on the blade advancing side of the helicopter. <S> There is no research that I know of that would indicate a supersonic blade on the main rotor of a helicopter will act differently than the supersonic blade on a propeller on an airplane. <S> The assumption is therefore that the blades would experience a very significant increase in drag, and would also produce a very significant amount of noise. <A> Since the question seems about aircraft theory, I'll answer with theory. <S> The short answer is that anything can, and will fly given enough time and effort. <S> When a rotary blade is inline with the path of travel, it has to withstand significant compression forces along its long axis from the shock. <S> There are three solutions for a conventional configuration - bigger & stronger blade (heavier) new materials, or shorter blades (less lift). <S> If you don't mind deviating from conventional design, then introducing a shroud around the blades will allow you to remove these forces from consideration by allowing your shroud to absorb the forces of the created shock. <S> You could probably reduce the weight of each individual blade by bracing it against the shroud, (think - beam braced at one end vs both ends) Since the air between a shock wave and expansion waves is sub-sonic. <S> If you're lucky, and physics doesn't hate you, then you may get expansion waves behind the shroud, so your rotor blades will be in a sub-sonic medium. <S> By pumping air from above the shrouded rotor to the underside, you cause lower pressure on top, higher pressure on the bottom, causing a pressure gradient and generating lift. <S> This is all speculation based on my limited aerodynamics knowledge. <S> In real life physics usually hates you, and you'll get some really messed up expansion waves and shock waves along the inside of the shroud, coupled with some fugly shocks being formed by the rotor blades themselves. <S> Since prototyping has become super expensive, and wind tunnels seem to be a dying race nowadays, this would have to be simulated with CFD, and as far as I know, CFD isn't that fast and accurate yet, which could explain why this hasn't been tried yet. <A> A rotor on an aircraft/rotorcraft is basically an airfoil section twisted along its length. <S> This twist is also known as the pitch, and in most cases it is variable. <S> On approaching Mach 1 or the speed of sound, shock waves begin to form on an aircraft (eg. <S> on the wings) <S> and there is a sharp rise in drag (known as wave drag). <S> This is due to the fact that at high speeds, the airflow can no longer be treated as incompressible flow. <S> The rotors face the same compressibility effects that an aircraft wing faces near the speed of sound, hence it isn't able to overcome this drag.
|
One of the biggest limitations for making a conventional configuration rotary aircraft fly at supersonic speeds is materials.
|
When are winds given with respect to true vs. magnetic north? Wind information can be reported by various sources (ATIS, METAR, TAF, spoken on the radio, etc). I was taught that officially some of these sources are relative to magnetic north and others to true north (although practically this isn't always followed). Which sources are supposed to use which reference system? <Q> The general rule is: If you read it, it's true. <S> If you hear it, it's magnetic. <S> All charts and textual sources (METAR, TAF, winds aloft, surface analysis charts, etc) use true north as the reference. <S> ATIS/AWOS/ASOS broadcasts, or any information a controller gives you over the radio, is magnetic. <S> AIM Section 7-1-11 (page 7-1-26 in the 5/26/16 edition) <S> One exception to the "if you hear it" rule is that a FSS briefer will read you the winds referenced to true north, since they're just reading you the charts/textual information. <S> (This is at least true in the United States... <S> other countries may vary in some instances) <A> In the United States, the principal guide to weather products is AC 00-45G "Aviation Weather Services". <S> As of this writing it appears Change 1 is current, published July 2010. <S> Citations given here are to that revision. <S> The Airman's information manual has information on AWOS and ASOS. <S> Here are some examples: <S> METAR: <S> True 3.1.3.5 AWOS & ASOS: <S> True AIM 7-1-11 Figure 7-1-5 <S> TAF: <S> True 7.2.2.5 <S> WA (Winds Aloft): <S> True 7.4.2 UA (Pilot Reports): <S> Magnetic 3.2.1.9 <S> (I'd suppose you get whatever the pilot reports.) <S> Surface Analysis Chart: <S> True 5.1.2.3.5 <S> When calling flight service, the briefer will have available the same information products that you can reach on aviationweather.gov. <S> I expect they will know the direction reference for the information they are giving you. <A> The way I remember it is that if it relates to an aerodrome its magnetic, because runway numbers are in magnetic and the pilot needs to know how the wind relates to the runway in use <S> so the amount of headwind / crosswind can be assessed. <S> If it relates to en-route then its in true, because flight planning is done in true (with conversions to the correct magnetic heading to set on the compass at each step).
|
Wind direction broadcast over FAA radios is in reference to magnetic north.
|
Are task cards still used in aircraft maintenance? I used to work for a company making maintenance software for the shipping industry. Each component, from a cylinder in an engine to the furnace has to be inspected after (e.g.) 10,000 running hours, or every 2 years, etc. My question is: Are task cards like the one below still used in aviation, or is there a more up-to-date way of working nowadays? (The PDF I got this from is 10,000 pages long) What must airlines do to ensure their planes are maintained according to schedule? <Q> I just watched Engineering Giants - Jumbo Jet Strip-Down , following a British Airways 747 on its D-Check in 2012. <S> At least for BA, it would seem that paper task/job cards are still heavily used. <S> Apparently there are over 12,000 individual jobs. <S> I've taken a short (7 secs) clip from the episode, showing walls full of task cards: <A> I'm not sure about for "general maintenance", but the AMT Handbook chapter on inspections has some language that piqued my interest while I was trying to sniff out an answer. <S> It says that: The appropriate checklist or checklists must be utilized to ensure that no items will be forgotten or overlooked during the inspection. <S> The FAA feels so strongly about this <S> they even go on to say: <S> Always use a checklist when performing an inspection. <S> The checklist may be of your own design, one provided by the manufacturer of the equipment being inspected, or one obtained from some other source. <S> Task cards are basically a checklist (or I guess more accurately a "check book" - <S> you go through and reference/fill out each card as you perform the task indicated, and the FAA wants mechanics to use <S> checklists (at least on inspections, and with the standard implied OR ELSE hanging out there) <S> , so I'd imagine they're still in use in some form (though the paper / PDF product may have been replaced by something fancy and electronic). <S> I imagine there are some pretty slick electronic checklist/task card systems out there by now ( AvPro Software seems to offer one that I stumbled on with a quick Google search , no comments on quality), but I'm just the dumb slob what flies these things <S> and I don't know much about the maintenance end - just enough to know I know enough to be dangerous if left alone with a screwdriver :-) <A> I know this is an old question but wanted to share my experience with you. <S> True, information technology has come along in leaps and bounds. <S> Many airlines have leveraged technology in how they produce their task cards, but ultimately, most still rely on paper. <S> The primary reason for this is that each task needs to be signed off by an appropriately licensed engineer, and the task card then becomes a legal document. <S> Since airlines are increasingly outsourcing their maintenance all over the world, until digital sign-offs are widely accepted in the industry, it doesn't make sense for the airline alone to go fully digital. <S> It is changing, but due to the highly regulated nature of the industry, innovation can take time to trickle down.
|
The short answer to your first question is: yes, airlines still use task cards in maintenance.
|
Why would ASOS have a caution for Low Density Altitude? I did my initial training in a high altitude area, where it got pretty hot in the summer, so I'm not at all surprised when I hear an ASOS announce: Caution: Density Altitude (a few thousand above field elev.) But recently, I was flying in SE. Kansas when it was extremely cold outside. The ASOS announced: Caution: Density Altitude minus 1800 ft I understand that cold winter air can make the air extremely dense, leading to a negative density altitude. But I don't understand the caution part of it. As far as I'm aware, low density altitudes mean your engine generates more power, and your wings generate more lift. Everything is better with low density altitudes, right? What is the caution for? What should I be looking out for? <Q> Low density altitudes mean your engine generates more power, and your wings generate more lift. <S> Everything is better with low density altitudes, right? <S> Even without exceeding the maximum rated RPM and manifold pressure, you can exceed the rated power of an engine under low density altitude conditions. <S> At low temperatures the air becomes denser. <S> At standard sea level conditions air has a temperature of 15 degrees Celcius and a density of 1.225 kg per cubic meter. <S> When the temperature is -30 degrees Celcius, the density increases to 1.452 kg per cubic meter. <S> The equivalent altitude where this density is found under standard atmosphere conditions would be about -5900 ft. <S> This is called the density altitude. <S> When air with these properties enters the combustion chamber of your engine and is combusted to the normal exhaust temperature it expands (increases in pressure) far more that air normally would, resulting in excessive power. <S> This FAA paper on Winter Flying Tips says the following about the risks associated with low density altitudes: Do not overboost supercharged engines. <S> This is easy to do because at very low density altitude, the engine "thinks" it is operating as much as 8,000 feet below sea level in certain situations. <S> Care should be exercised in operating normally aspirated engines. <S> Power output increases at about 1% for each ten degrees of temperature below that of standard air. <S> At -40 degree F, an engine will develop 10 percent more than rated power even though RPM and MP limits are not exceeded. <A> You're correct that lower DA will improve performance, and an FAAsafety.gov document on density altitude (PDF) doesn't discuss low DA at all. <A> In addition to what DeltaLima answered, also remember that denser air means the isobars are closer together and that in turn means that if your altimeter reads correctly on the ground, the same baro-altitude gives you less clearance from terrain. <S> Some instrument procedures have minimal temperature for this reason.
|
The potential danger in low density altitudes is that your engine generates more power than it can handle. The caution is probably the default prefix for a nonstandard DA notice, not anything particular to the fact that it's negative.
|
How is drone (UAS) traffic regulated in the US? Does the FAA regulate drones at this time? Maybe they regulate only a certain class / size of UAV / UAS? Is drone regulation to the level that traffic is managed through ATC? <Q> Regulations regarding UAVs are very restrictive in controlled airspace. <S> Whenever a company wants to test out a UAS, they have to request a block of airspace from the FAA (or local ATC body). <S> This block is restricted to UAS traffic. <S> No manned aircraft are allowed in that area for the duration of the test. <S> Currently companies are working with the FAA to integrate UAVs into the regular airspace system. <S> Recently, the FAA designated 6 states as test sites for the FAA to test UAVs. <A> As of yet, I cannot tell if drone traffic is regulated , but I do find that the FAA has created a committee to design the appropriate architecture and guidelines. <A> According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as (1) <S> the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower…with prior notice of the operation; and (6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator. <S> http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/ <S> FAA has released a set of "Dos" & "Don'ts" related to flying UAVs(drones): http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/assets/media/model-aircraft-infographic.pdf
|
The Regulations and Policies pertaining to the use of UAVs(Drones) in US airspace is available on the FAA website http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/
|
What's a quick way to determine which runway to use? Let's say I call up Wx and have the wind direction and I know the runway headings from my charts and the pattern is empty. I can do the math, but it's tedious and slow and even worse when there are multiple runways. This is what I usually do: Runways are 13 and 31 Wind is 253° which rounds to 25 $25-13=12$ $31-25=6$ I'm going to use Runway 31 Is there a trick to determine best runway quickly without doing the math? <Q> This might take a few seconds longer, but it's math-free: <S> On your kneeboard, draw a quadrant (like this: +). <S> Draw a line through it for your runway(s). <S> Draw an arrow to represent the wind. <S> The answer will be apparent. <S> Do it enough times, and you'll be able to visualize the drawing without actually doing it. <S> It's also a great technique for calculating holds. <A> Is there a trick to determine best runway quickly without doing the math? <S> Aside from "Asking the other pilots in the pattern / UNICOM", none I'm aware of. <S> The closest thing to a "trick" I can offer you if you're going in to a completely unattended field are the following suggestions: <S> If your directional gyro (DG) has a heading bug, set the heading bug to the wind direction. <S> Now find the runway alignment closest to the bug. <S> That's the runway you want. <S> (If your DG doesn't have a heading bug you may still be able to do this visually easier than doing math - of course this relies on you flying in a plane with a DG or a vertical card compass...). <S> Break out your E6B , dial in the wind direction, and find the closest runway heading. <S> Same logic as (1), but for when you're stuck in a Piper Cub with only the wet compass. <S> One drawback - it only works with mechanical flight computers... <S> If you have your sectional out, lay your pen or ruler on it to show the wind direction. <S> See which runway alignment is closest to the ruler. <S> That's the runway you want. <S> Count on your fingers. <S> (Seriously, this is what I do most of the time. <S> I'm an engineer, I can't add and subtract!) <A> In uncontrolled airports I've avoided problems simply by asking on CTAF which runway is in use when 10-7SM out. <S> This has worked out well because often times there are aircraft in the pattern on the wrong runway (from the perspective of crosswind) because conditions changed and traffic has been busy, or someone is just doing their own thing. <S> I've even had a unicom station respond with a recommendation when nobody in the air responded. <S> It doesn't hurt to ask and if you get no response a quick glance at the heading indicator can save you the math by just visualizing the runways over the indicator and choosing the one that's closest to the wind. <A> When I arrive at an uncontrolled airport, and there's nobody there to tell me what everybody else is doing, I overfly the airport to get the lay of the land and to look at the wind sock. <S> This should be SOP for everybody. <S> One glance at the wind sock will tell you which runway the winds favor. <S> No math or diagrams required. <S> You should also be looking for a tetrahedron . <S> This will also give you information about the pattern. <S> Nominally, this is the authoritative answer about landing direction, but I've known airports where the tetrahedron was inoperative. <S> If the wind is strong and the wind sock contradicts the tetrahedron, consider trusting the wind sock instead. <S> Or better yet, consult the locals. <A> The only way you can avoid doing the math is if someone else has already done it for you <S> and you have the results of their work available. <S> Towered airports, of course, will control the runway direction from the ground, and will handle any lighting systems. <S> At non-towered but fairly busy airports there will be an accepted pattern in use, and when anyone notices the windsock is pointing the other way the pilots can coordinate to "turn the airport around" <S> (I'm actually curious how that happens; for strips that always have a left-hand or right-hand pattern, the answer is simply to not turn to final and instead just circle to the other end, but for airstrips where, for instance, powered planes must always stay to one side of the airport to avoid a residential neighborhood, you can't circle that way, and must instead make a 180 away from the airport to reverse the pattern direction). <S> However, your question infers that no radio chatter or other traffic is available to follow, and you have to determine it for yourself. <S> You can still get some help in these cases. <S> Non-towered airports can still be lit; end lights and the LDI tetrahedron can be controlled from a simple automated weather station, and activated on request (to save energy) by pilots tuning to a station and clicking the mike. <S> If the pattern is truly empty, you can maneuver around the strip, look for the windsock, and approach in the direction closest to its tail. <S> Use a compass card; any will do, you have several in your cockpit, or you could even have a literal "compass card", a rose drawn on an index card on your clipboard or the inside cover of your notebook (whatever you're using for quick reference or shorthand notes on your flight). <S> You know wind is from 225* and your options for runways are 13(0) or 31(0). <S> A quick look at the dial will show you which runway choice is closer to the wind. <S> Just remember not to get confused by the numbers on the rose; to land on runway 31, you have to go around to the southeast end, <S> even though 310* is marked on the northwest quadrant of the compass rose; runways are labelled according to the heading you'll be on while using them. <A> 13-9=4 and 13+9=22. <S> If the wind is 040-220 use 13, otherwise use 31. <S> I have an HSI <S> so I set the bug to the wind heading and the CDI to the runway, then press vectors-to-final to get an extended centerline. <S> Both easy peasy
|
Rather than calculating off the wind direction, start with the runway headings.
|
What are the different steps to certify a new aircraft in Europe? I know that to be allowed to fly an aircraft has to be certified by an agency and that this one is not the same for European or American (for instance) aircraft. What are the different steps that an aircraft designed to fly in Europe has to go through in order to be certified? Proof on the paper of some features? Ground tests (which one)? Flight tests (which one)? <Q> The EASA certification requirements are all publicly available online. <S> Actually proving that an aircraft meets those criteria will certainly include all the steps you mentioned although exactly what happens probably depends a lot on the specific aircraft and manufacturer. <A> It does really depend on where the aircraft is being designed and manufactured. <S> If that country happens to be outside of the EU, EASA will identify what extra proof of compliance will be required to fulfil the European certification requirements. <A> For the most part, the EASA guidelines (as issued, for example, in Certification Memoranda, and the FAA guidelines (as issued in Advisory Circulars and in guidance to those acting for the certification authority, such as 8110.105) are pretty much harmonized. <S> (and that goes for the JAA as well.) <S> There are some minor spots <S> whre EASA is either ahead of or behind the FAA guidelines; For example, there is a paragraph of EASA CM SWE?? <S> - 001 [don't remember the exact number] (dated 2014) that deals with a small class of LRU issues and that is not yet in any FAA guidelines that I could find. <S> Even though the fundanentals are closely aligned, you still have to demonstrate compliance to the FAA authority after having been certified under EASA, and vice-versa. <S> However, since the process of obtaining certification pretty much demands attention to keeping your paperwork in order, your testing comprehensive and well-organized, and your certification artifacts available, once you have passed in one context the remaining work to be certified in the other is at least 90-95% in place.
|
The initial type certification is done with the authorities in the State of Design / Manufacture.
|
What are the main differences piloting Boeing vs. Airbus aircraft? What are the main differences in flying a Boeing vs an Airbus aircraft? Ignoring cosmetics, e.g. nose/window shape (see How can I tell apart an Airbus from a Boeing? ) <Q> On a pilot-vs-FBW system perspective, as mentioned in the comments to the question, the most notable difference is the authority priority: <S> Boeing trusts more the pilots: they can supersede the Fly-by-wire automatic commands by exerting enough force on the controls <S> Airbus trusts more the FBW system: if the system is fully functional ("Normal law") it will always have priority over the pilots to protect the aircraft and keep it in the envelope, but they still have room for "non-standard" maneuvers, e.g. commanding bank angles between 33° and 60°. <S> The autopilot can be activated and de-activated at will by the pilots, and it sits on top of the FBW envelope protection. <S> One of the most famous examples where this comparison emerges (and the subsequent debate about which approach is better) is the China Airlines 006 accident. <S> I won't go into detail, there is the accident report that will provide much more information that I can remember, but suffice to say that this 747 was recovered from a quite unusual attitude As mentioned in the wiki article, the report states that the passengers were subject up to 5 gs during the maneuver and the stress on the horizontal tail surface has been so great that as a result it was damaged: <S> The usual argumentation goes along the lines that, would this had been an Airbus, the pilots would not have been able to save the aircraft. <S> See for example <S> this PhD thesis at page 184 of the pdf <S> , section 6.2.3 "Pilot Authority at the Boundary": <S> It is likely that if the aircraft had prevented the crew from initiating control commands that would lead to aircraft damage, the aircraft (and passengers) would have been lost. <S> The problem with such a comparison? <S> It focuses on the recovery after the unusual attitude was achieved and totally forgets about the sequence of events that lead to it or, to the very least, assumes that an Airbus would have responded in the same way to the preceding events (then why make a comparison at all?) <S> An honest comparison would take into account this and acknowledge that an Airbus in Normal Law would not enter a spiral dive in the first place, even with an engine out, as bank protection/attitude-hold would prevent it. <A> In contrast, Airbus aircraft use a "fly-by-wire" system via a joystick which transmits electrical signals to control the plane: Airbus aircraft limit pilots' capabilities in situations that require extreme action to be taken; the computer may prevent the pilot from pushing the plane past its safe ranges, which could be necessary in case of an emergency. <S> Boeing aircraft leave ultimate control mostly to the pilot. <A> Big difference is on Boeing with a yoke, it is like two linked steering wheels in a car. <S> The pilot not flying can easily see what the other pilot is doing with his controls, as the yoke in front of him moves along with the other pilot's inputs. <S> On the airbus models with a side stick, the pilot not flying cannot see what the other pilot is asking of the controls. <S> This contributed to the situation where Air France stalled and fell into the sea without the pilot in the left seat realizing that the pilot in the right seat had his controls calling for full pitch up. <S> (The opposite of what would get them out of a stall.) <A> Airbus (A320+; A300 and A310 have traditional controls) uses flight control laws . <S> In flight, the side-stick input does not indicate desired position of control surfaces, but desired wing loading and roll rate. <S> The flight computer takes care of trimming the aircraft for straight flight at current speed and balance. <S> Boeing uses traditional controls, where the position of control column corresponds to position of control surfaces and force on the control column corresponds to force on the control surfaces. <S> This means that the pilot has to adjust the trim manually when not using autopilot. <S> The Airbus system is more convenient, but it has its disadvantages. <S> The neutral stability means that the aircraft won't tend to maintain speed by changing pitch, so the pilots have to monitor speed more carefully. <S> It really needs the flight envelope protections to be considered safe. <S> Boeing has flight envelope protections since 777, so that's not a difference any more. <S> I don't think they are adding them to new versions of 737 though. <A> My 2 cents: <S> There are a few things mentioned here . <S> The Airbus technology and quiet cruise was great; the Boeing's tactile feel and crosswind capabilities were very good. <S> There is a difference in the length of the fuselage, making taxiing different. <S> The handling characteristics in flight are very similar.
|
Boeing aircraft primarily feature a traditional "yoke" system, which allows pilots to directly control the plane: The sidestick and autothrust systems of the Airbus are different than the conventional yoke and autothrottle system on the Boeing.
|
What does the term "trimming" most commonly mean in aviation? Why does an airplane need trim, and what does it do during the flight? Does an autopilot adjust the trim automatically? <Q> In short: trimming neutralizes the force required to keep control surfaces in a specific position. <S> Most (if not all) aircraft have some sort of elevator trim control. <S> For example, when the pilot has to keep pulling back on the yoke/stick during a climb, trimming "nose-up" will neutralize that force. <S> The elevator will then remain in the same position without any force required on the part of the pilot. <S> Trimming is usually done by means of a Trim tab on the control surface and is controlled by a trim wheel. <S> Elevator trimming is used: During climbs: to maintain a constant air speed and rate of climb During descents: to maintain a constant air speed and glide path During level flight: to maintain altitude and speed <S> Although elevator trim is the most common, trimming can also be done on rudder (quite common) and ailerons (only on larger aircraft). <S> Rudder trim is used to maintain coordinated flight without rudder input by the pilot. <S> Many single engine planes with powerful engines require rudder trim to offset the "left-turning tendency" caused by <S> P-factor and propellor wash hitting the rudder. <S> Aircraft without adjustable rudder trim will usually have a fixed trim tab on the rudder. <S> Most autopilots will control the elevator trim wheel because the servos controlling the elevator could easily be overpowered by the required force. <S> It's important to note that in most cases (especially on small airplanes) trimming doesn't actually move the control surfaces. <S> It changes the force required to deflect the control surfaces. <S> Although there are many types of trimming devices, the common trim tab <S> makes the airflow do all the work. <S> The trim tab causes the airflow to push the control surface in a specific position. <S> On larger aircraft with hydraulically operated control surfaces, trim tabs are less common (see also this answer to another question ) <A> The purpose of trimming is to free the pilot from having to exert a constant pressure on the controls. <S> This is often used to maintain straight and level flight, however trimming can also be used at any phase of flight - for example to maintain a constant rate of climb or descent. <S> The most basic form, as found on most light aircraft is elevator trim. <S> Usually operated by a wheel, it moves the elevator up or down by a small amount in the same sense as the yoke (back to go up, forward to go down). <S> This can be used to settle the aircraft into straight flight. <S> Another form of trim is rudder trim. <S> Often found in larger light aircraft and twin-engined aircraft it can be used to adjust for a crosswind to keep the aircraft flying straight. <S> On multi-engine aircraft it can also be used to trim out the differential thrust caused by one engine failing. <A> Trimming is changing the stability of an aircraft in such a way that when no control inputs are given, the aircraft maintains its attitude and speed. <S> It allows the pilot to release the control input without the aircraft deviating from the intended path. <S> There are various ways in which an aircraft can be trimmed. <S> Trimming most commonly refers to elevator trim. <S> This involves changing the angle of incidence of a trim tab on the elevator in such a way that when the control column is released the aircraft does not pitch up or down by itself. <S> In large aircraft, the angle of whole horizontal stabilizer can be changed to trim the pitch tendency of the aircraft. <S> Aircraft that have a fuel tank in the tail can move the centre of gravity by transferring fuel between forward and aft fuel tanks. <S> Use of CG trim not only affects the pitch tendency of the aircraft but also reduces the fuel burn since less aerodynamic forces are needed to balance the aircraft, thereby reducing the drag. <S> Other forms of trim are aileron trim and rudder trim. <S> These are used to nullify any asymmetric characteristics of the aircraft. <S> These characteristics can be caused for example due effects of propeller wash, mechanical deformation of the aircraft (or poor manufacturing tolerances) or engine out situations. <S> On most larger aircraft the autopilot uses elevator trim or horizontal stabilizer trim to control the aircraft in pitch in addition to elevator control. <S> For turning, ailerons and rudder are used, the asymmetric trim is not used by the autopilot. <A> Autopilot theoretically could not care about the trim but if you disconnected it and plane was out of trim in could depart flight path rapidly.
|
In general the aircraft is trimmed for straight and level flight, but it can also be trimmed for descent or even for turns.
|
If I have a float plane, can I land on any body of water? What are the rules with regards to landing a float plane on a body of water? Can I land anywhere (non-emergency, obviously) that would also accommodate the take-off? If not, how do I determine which bodies of water would allow it and which would not? <Q> It really depends on the state, though you can't land in National Parks (the National Park Service regulates that, not the FAA). <S> The FAA doesn't care where you land it, though if you ball it up due to poor choice of landing area then they'll have something to say. <S> Some states don't really care where you land (like Oregon) <S> , others don't let you land anywhere (like New Jersey). <S> You should contact your state and get the regulations from them. <A> While sea plane "bases" are marked on the sectional, this only means that the location has been registered with the FAA. <S> The air space over the water is handled federally. <S> The water itself is handled locally. <S> When the aircraft is on the water, it is generally considered a boat under the law, except where a jurisdiction has chosen to single out sea planes. <S> Unfortunately many jurisdictions have done just that. <S> Any little mud puddle can potentially be banned for sea plane operations by the local community. <S> There is an association of sea plane pilots who involve themselves in advocacy to keep waters available. <S> They publish some useful materials on this subject. <S> If you plan on going for your sea plane endorsement, your instructor will give you the pertinent details. <S> If you would like to fly locally, you will need to check out your local codes. <S> If operations have not yet been banned, it would be sensible to join the association, and take an active role in keeping local waters open to sea planes in your area. <A> States with coastlines often manage this through a "port authority" association, like Massachuesetts. <S> Sometimes it is a joint association, like in the case of the PA-NY-NJ Port Authority . <A> According to my research. <S> It comes down to the owner of the body of water. <S> Please read this link as it will explain everything in detail. <S> When it comes to landing a plane and a body of water <S> the FAA has Little to no say. <S> There are some inspections that have to be performed. <S> You have to consider the zoning, other traffic, possible hazards, neighborhoods and flightpath, <S> The amount of traffic and whether or not there is a viable airport within 5 miles. <S> Of course it also depends on the state. <S> https://www.seaplanepilotsassociation.org/resources/faq/facilities-landing-areas/ <A> Drawing on some personal observations, many float-plane sites around Seattle are marked on maps. <S> Kenmore Lake Union <S> Rosario <S> But I've also observed float planes taking off and landing at sites that are not appropriately marked on the map. <S> I cannot cite regulations, but my eyeballs suggest that any safe place may be legally okay.
|
This is handled on jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.
|
How dangerous is flying in a single-engine plane? Some people consider flying small planes very dangerous. Just how dangerous is it to fly in a light single-engine plane? For example, how does the fatality rate compare to driving a car, riding a motorcycle, etc.? <Q> I get this question a lot from people who are apprehensive about flying with a private pilot. <S> I'm afraid I won't be reducing these fears in any way. <S> Let's review some general statistics during 2008. <S> Note - these stats aren't specific to light or single engine aircraft: <S> NTSB reported there were 1.21 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours for private aircraft (Part 91 operators). <S> NHTSA reported there were 1.26 fatalities per 100 million miles travelled by automobile <S> We can equate that to about 2 million hours (estimating an average speed of 50mph). <S> This gives us 0.063 fatalities per 100,000 driving hours. <S> Private aircraft have a fatality rate about 19 times greater than driving. <S> It is also true that a majority of the accidents that occur are pilot error (71%) and could have been prevented. <S> There are risks involved when taking to the sky as a private pilot and understanding these risks is part of the continual learning process. <S> The key to safety is performing careful planning, keeping current and proficient, knowing when to cancel flights or turn around and not to exceed your capabilities or the capabilities of your aircraft. <A> Since Geoff took the devil's advocate position, I'll play cheerleader. <S> Or to put it another way I'm 6 times more likely to get in a car accident driving to the airport as I am doing an equivalent number of miles puttering around in the pattern <S> (my drive isn't that far - it's only worth a few laps around the pattern). <S> So now I've gone and left you with two essentially contradictory answers, both based on statistics from the same source, and both equally valid from a cold, unfeeling, numerical standpoint. <S> But the answer isn't important. <S> Geoff and I are both really making the same point: Each flight is as safe as the pilot wants to make it. <S> The pilot comes up with a plan for the flight, gathers as much information as they can about the weather, the aircraft, the route, etc., and then assess the situation. <S> They weigh the risks and determine whether or not the level of risk in making that flight is acceptable . <S> The statistics are useful. <S> Most pilots I know spend a lot of time thinking about them <S> (mainly why they're so lousy, and how we can make them better), but as a passenger remember they lump in the professionals with the students, and the conscientious pilot doing a thorough preflight with the one who haphazardly kicks the tire as he's climbing in for a 500 mile trip as his first flight in 6 months. <S> Which kind of pilot are you flying with? <A> Because I'm both a single engine pilot and motorcycle rider, the way I explain risk to new passengers is as follows: Daytime flight over non-mountainous terrain: Like riding a motorcycle with full gear. <S> Daytime flight in instrument conditions or over mountainous terrain in clear air: Like riding a motorcycle with only a helmet. <S> Night flight over non-mountainous terrain: Like riding a motorcycle with a helmet but no headlight. <S> Night flight in instrument conditions over non-mountainous terrain: Like riding a motorcycle at night with a headlight but no helmet. <S> Night flight in instrument conditions over mountainous terrain: Like riding a motorcycle at night with no helmet, in the rain, over the speed limit. <S> Any flight in which the pilot says 'watch this sh*t <S> ' - Like riding a motorcycle at night with no helmet, over the speed limit, while drunk. <S> Flying a single engine airplane is more dangerous than 'driving to the airport'. <A> I would not recommend it unless you have a positive reason to use a small plane. <S> Thrill seeking or taking aircraft flights for "fun" is not a good idea from a statistical point of view. <S> I fly strictly for practical reasons and I would recommend that as a general policy for anyone considering flying either as a pilot or a passenger. <S> Flying in a small aircraft is not as dangerous as base jumping or scuba diving. <S> Pilot nature, skill and attitude have a large impact on the danger in a flight. <S> Most people get killed in small planes because the pilot did something that was either foolish (like taking shortcuts in the pattern), reckless (flying into storms) or because they panicked. <S> If a pilot acts cocky, that is a huge warning sign.
|
Flying in a small aircraft is far more dangerous than other methods of transportation (see statistics in other answers). If you look at the statistics another way, like AOPA does , you'll find that General Aviation has "about one-sixth as many accidents on a per-vehicle-mile basis" compared to driving.
|
How do you handle frost on a plane? If you plan to fly on a cold morning and there is frost on the plane, what needs to be done? Do you have to remove the frost from the windows? wings? tail? fuselage? How should you remove a thick layer of frost? Can you rub the frost until it's smooth and take off? <Q> You should definitely not attempt flight if there is frost on the windows that would affect visibility, or on any of the wings or flight control surfaces. <S> Frost accumulation on such surfaces can reduce the lift generated by your wings, possibly causing a crash on takeoff. <S> According to the NTSB , frost the size of a grain of salt, distributed as sparsely as one per square centimeter over a wing's upper surface, can destroy enough lift to prevent a plane from taking off. <S> The cheapest solution is to try to re-position the plane on the ramp so that the sunlight has a chance to melt it away. <S> You can also temporarily move the plane into a heated hangar until it melts, or ask the FBO to do so for you. <S> If the forecast is predicting a chance of such conditions the night before, you can usually call the FBO on the night before and ask them to move your plane into their hangar just for the night, in advance of your morning flight. <S> If you're really anxious to go, you can ask the FBO to apply a heated deicing solution to your plane, but be prepared to pay for it (it's priced by the gallon and the amount needed will depend on the size and amount of frost of your plane). <S> Not all FBOs will have deicing capabilities, particularly if the region does not commonly experience such conditions. <A> I don't know if you're in the US, but if so then by regulation you must remove it from all critical areas before flight, per 14 CFR 91.527 : §91.527 <S> Operating in icing conditions. <S> (a) <S> No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA. <S> In practice, that really means removing it all, and I guess that other countries have similar rquirements. <S> The NTSB has a detailed guide on ground icing where they say that it must be removed "by any means necessary" before flight. <S> But you need to ensure any moisture is completely removed before flying, otherwise it may re-freeze. <S> Larger transport aircraft (or any aircraft, in principle) are usually de-iced, which is a common sight at airports in winter. <S> The FAA has an extremely detailed document if you're curious. <A> Polishing the frost until smooth used to be a legally permitted way of handling the problem. <S> The regs have changed, because a very small amount of frost, polished or not, can seriously affect your aircraft's performance. <S> POLISHING <S> THE FROST IS NO LONGER PERMITTED. <S> However, if the frost is not on control surfaces, say on the top of the fuselage, it is ok to fly with it on. <S> (Unless of course you are flying a Piaggio or some other plane where the shape of the fuselage creates lift...) <A> Of all the challenges in aviation, ice is probably the scariest, no matter the size of the airplane. <S> It can ruin your day REAL fast if you don't deal with it properly. <S> Bigger aircraft usually have better systems / support personnel to deal with it, but it still needs to be dealt with on smaller aircraft. <S> If you're still on the ground, remove it completely. <S> From every surface. <S> Use deice fluid to get rid of it (or a heated hangar), and if the accumulation is such that it keeps returning quickly, anti-ice solution can work. <S> But this level of icing should definitely factor into your No-Go decision.
|
For light aircraft, the usual recommendation is to hangar the aircraft and let the frost melt off. It must be removed!
|
Is there a website which highlights airport locations on a map? Is there a good website which shows airports (both public and GA)? I can look it on Google and Bing Maps (as shown in the image below). Shown the picture, I have zoomed in a lot to see airport icons (bottom left and top right). I feel that the icon on Bing (right) can be easily spotted than the one on Google (left). Even if I zoom out one level, Bing still shows both airports but Google doesn't. When I search on Internet, mostly A/F Directories are returned. Wikipedia also has a thorough list but I don't like plotting them on a map to find their proximity. <Q> SkyVector is a great resource for aviation maps and data of all kinds. <S> It offers worldwide sectional- and low-ifr-type charts, and a fully-featured Airports section . <S> I'm not sure if you also want airport diagrams, but you may also get some decent results with OpenStreetMap . <S> The open source maps have some hit-or-miss levels of detail for airports, some including full taxiway and runway data. <S> Others are just property outlines. <A> FltPlan.com has a great airport mapping engine. <S> Just click on "Nearby Airports" on the main page and enter the location that you want to search around. <S> You can search by zip code, city name, or an existing airport <S> id and filter the results by minimum runway length, distance, approach types, and fuel. <S> Here's an example of the results: <A> World Aero Data shows airports on a map, although I did find an airport which isn't mentioned. <S> Other than that, the map and airports are easily visible, irrespective of zoom level. <A> OurAirports , the continuation of DAFIF by community effort (since Australia (and possibly some other countries) copyrighted their official data) would be the obvious one. <A> For the purposes you state, I think that VFRMap is the best resource. <S> This offers what is essentially Google Maps with airport locations overlaid. <S> See the following two examples from VFRMap depicting first the Sectional background and then the Google Map Roadmap background. <S> Additional map backgrounds include VFR and IFR aeronautical charts, as well as Google's Roadmap, Satellite, and Terrain maps. <S> One of VFRMap's shortcomings is that it's airport database is limited to the United States.
|
I really like SkyVector for aeronautical planning purposes, but the distinction of VFRMap is the inclusion of some of the various Google Map options in addition to the aeronautical charts.
|
How does the mixture of an engine affect the engine's operation? I know that in most piston aircraft that there is a mixture control for the engine. My question is, how does the mixture control affect the engine's operation and what type of situations dictate a particular mixture setting? Would an incorrect mixture setting be detrimental, a minor effect or nothing at all? <Q> Simple Answer: Running the engine lean or rich at different altitudes. <S> Longer Answer <S> : There are a couple of reasons you want to adjust the mixture of a aircraft engine. <S> Since air density changes with altitude, it's a good idea to be able to change the fuel/air mixture at different altitudes. <S> If you did not adjust the mixture at high altitudes you may not get full power because the air is thinner and now there is same amount of fuel being mixed with less air. <S> All the unburnt fuel can cause issues like loss of power and/or fouling of plugs. <S> Being able to lean the mixture at higher altitude lets you save fuel, so you can go further on a full tank. <S> (hence saving money) Running a engine rich can help cool engine. <S> Fuel acts like a coolant in this manner. <S> Traditional piston powered aircraft engines are shut off by pulling the mixture to the off position. <S> This starves the engine and burns off remaining fuel in the cylinders. <S> This topic can also bring up other discussions. <S> Like EGT, CHT, <S> running an engine rich of peak or lean of peak, monitoring fuel flow rate with a flow meter, and fuel injectors on fuel injected systems. <S> Hope this helps. <A> The mixture control allows you to increase (to run "richer") or decrease (to run "leaner") <S> the amount of fuel in the fuel-air mixture. <S> As a general rule, you want to "lean out" the engine at higher altitudes because the air is thinner, and it takes more air (by volume) to burn the same amount of fuel. <S> Mixture controls are used with many piston engines. <S> However, turbine engines and some piston engines with fuel injection or altitude compensating carburetors do not have mixture controls. <S> In addition to zingle-dingle's points, it is important to lean an engine for takeoff at high elevations. <S> At a 7,000 ft (or higher) runway, for example, an engine with a full-rich mixture setting will not generate nearly as much power as one properly leaned out. <S> Since the normal mixture setting at low-elevation airports may be full-rich, this may come as a surprise to someone visiting the mountains. <S> It's not uncommon for a plane to crash at a high elevation airport because the engine was not leaned properly for takeoff. <S> Conversely, if an engine is properly leaned out at 14,000 ft., for example, the mixture should be adjusted to be more rich on or before a descent to 1,000 ft. to prevent engine overheating or possible stoppage due to too little fuel in the fuel/air mixture. <A> The stoichiometric mixture is the ideal chemical ratio of air:fuel, that will burn all the fuel in the mixture with no excess oxygen left. <S> It is located at somewhere around 15 parts air and 1 part fuel per unit of mass. <S> Mind you: the ideal ratio is based on mass, not on volume so if air density changes (as you climb/descend), as the carburetor is basically mixing volumes, your air:fuel ratio will change with altitude. <S> Mixture control will help you adjust that ideal 15:1 ratio, between what is called "lean" (more than 15 parts air), and "rich" (less than 15 parts). <S> Most power is available at the ideal ~15:1 <S> so normally that is where you would want to aim your mixture. <S> However: Running a bit on the "rich" side of ideal will consume more fuel,generate less power, and might cause carbon deposits, but theextra vapor-fuel that remains unburned will serve as a coolant and reducethe temperature of your cylinders. <S> That is why most of the times thepilots will set mixture on the "rich" side of ideal. <S> Running a bit on the "lean" side of the ideal will consume less fuel,will generate a little bit less power, but the lack of cooling fromthe extra fuel will eventually overheat the cylinders, leading to allsort of nasty stuff like detonation and overheating the oil. <S> There are very few exceptions I can think of: for long cruise at cold temperatures I might try a leaner mixture to see if I can skim a couple of pounds of fuel. <S> Or in an emergency engine-coughing situation I might cram the mixture to full rich to prevent the engine from starving or overheating. <S> But then again, if mixture is automated the FADEC will do that anyway.
|
As for the particular situations calling for operations: 99% of the times you simply want a good/ideal mixture, which is why mixture control is pretty much getting automatedthese days. Typically on climbing you want to run the engine a bit rich because your going slower and less air is able to help cool the engine.
|
Do pilots using an electronic flight bag need to carry paper charts? If a pilot uses an electronic flight bag (say, an iPad with ForeFlight or WingX), are they required to carry paper charts as a backup? Do different rules apply to operations under Parts 91, 121, and 135? <Q> A EFB is a legal replacement for paper charts and you are not required to carry backup if you are operating as part 91 single engine piston. <S> Advisory Circular 120-76B is in reference to part 91F (Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes). <S> AC 91-78 is aimed at Part 91 operators, VFR or IFR and states that EFBs can be used in all phases of flight in lieu of paper. <S> A backup data source is suggested, but is not required. <S> Note that this backup can be another electronic device. <S> See iPad Legal Briefing for Pilots . <A> Typically pilots using EFBs (which need to be approved by the FAA if being used for Part 121 or 135 flights) do not need to carry paper charts if, as Steve points out, you have at least two of them. <S> For Part 121, 135, and 91K there is usually a six month period after gaining EFB approval when the FAA requires paper backups in addition to the EFB's as a precaution. <S> A typical EFB program will have contingency procedures to use in the event of a failure or problem with one or more of the EFBs, and usually says that if one fails (and it can not be replaced or repaired) that you may not depart unless you have paper backups. <S> Lots of other good information about EFBs is available in Advisory Circular 120-76B and in Advisory Circular 91-78 . <A> See AC 120-76B. a. Paper Data Removal. <S> At least two operational EFBs are required to remove paper products that contain aeronautical charts, checklists, or other data required by the operating rules. <S> The design of the EFB function requires that no single failure or common mode error may cause the loss of required aeronautical information. <S> If paper charts are "required operating information" If you would otherwise be required to carry a paper chart, then you either still have to carry one, or else carry two EFBs. <S> What about part 91 operators? <S> Aircraft operated under part 91, except for parts 91F and 91K, require no EFB authorization or compliance with this AC, <S> provided the EFB does not replace any equipment or operating information required by the regulations.
|
Yes, if you only carry one EFB, then you have to also carry paper charts as a backup.
|
Which ATC instructions should be repeated back by the pilot? AIM 4-4-7 (b) says: Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification. As a student pilot soloing into class C airspace, on one flight ATC kept repeating everything back until I spoke it back to him. As I approached the airport he informed me of the bearing (12 o'clock) and distance to the airport until I acknowledged him (comms were pretty busy so I didn't initially repeat back his information). Since then I've noticed that if I don't repeat back wake turbulence warnings verbatim they will repeat the warning until I do. With a traffic alert I repeat back immediately 'looking for traffic' because if I look first they'll keep repeating the warning. Aside from AIM 4-4-7 is there any more specific guidance? <Q> ATC is, broadly speaking, required to ensure that pilots hear, understand, and acknowledge information that is delivered. <S> The way they do that is via read-backs, and although the AIM mentions a few of the things that are required it's a good idea to read back anything that's important <S> (If you're not sure, err on the side of "It's important"), with your aircraft callsign (No callsign? <S> Doesn't count!). <S> What are some important things controllers usually expect you to read back? <S> Clearances (headings, vectors, altitudes, transponder codes, and radio frequencies). <S> Like the AIM says, mutual verification. <S> Runway assignments, hold short instructions, line-up-and-wait, and takeoff clearances. <S> Wake Turbulence advisories. <S> Traffic point-outs. <S> The magic words here, by the by, are " Negative Contact " and " Traffic In Sight ". <S> I think if you say "Tally Ho! <S> " you're required to buy everyone on the frequency a bottle of 30-year-old scotch. <S> Instructions to " Maintain visual separation with " some traffic ATC is handing off collision avoidance responsibility to you as the pilot. <S> They need to hear " Will maintain visual separation with " the traffic in question. <S> They also need you to tell them if you lose visual contact. <S> Airport Point-Outs <S> (Especially if there are several airports close to each other) <S> You can also pre-empt this by calling the controller: "Cessna 12345 has Podunk Municipal in sight", possibly with a bearing and approximate distance. <S> Landing Clearances <S> If you're in a busy pattern and they give you a sequence ("Number 3, cleared to land") <S> they want to hear that part too. <S> That altimeter setting you get after a handoff. <S> (I blame Don Brown for getting me into this habit, but it IS a good one unless the frequency is crazy) <S> This list is by no means exhaustive, but it's most of the big stuff. <A> This little quote from the AIM is the source of a lot of confusion for new pilots. <S> In 4-2-3 (c), the AIM also says: c. Subsequent Contacts and Responses to Callup from a Ground Facility. <S> You should acknowledge all callups or clearances unless the controller or FSS specialist advises otherwise. <S> ... <S> Acknowledge with your aircraft identification, either at the beginning or at the end of your transmission, and one of the words "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," "Negative," or other appropriate remarks; e.g., "PIPER TWO ONE <S> FOUR LIMA, ROGER." <S> Let me make it simple: <S> You should read back those items that the AIM 4-4-7 specifies (and that you quoted in your question). <S> Basically any time that they give you a clearance or anything that contains a number. <S> The one exception is after you have been handed off to the final controller on a PAR approach, you do not acknowledge their instructions. <S> They come too fast and you will have your hands full <S> (and they specifically tell you this after your initial contact.) <S> As a short aside, you should know that there is case law which says that even when a pilot reads back a clearance incorrectly, the controller is not legally obligated to listen or correct the pilot. <S> They consider it the pilot responsibility to hear and understand all clearances. <S> For instance: Controller: Cessna 1234, descend and maintain 3,000 feet Pilot: Cessna 1234, Roger, descend and maintain 2,000 feet <S> Controller: <S> No response Pilot: Descends to 2,000 feet because that is what he understood, and may now be violated for it. <S> That being said, most controllers are very good and catch mistakes like this that you may make, but I have heard conversations in the cockpit along the lines of "it must be right because they didn't correct me when I read it back" and this is a situation ripe for problems/violations. <S> If there is ever a doubt, ask for clarification! <A> Regardless of what the AIM says, the practical rule I've always been taught is "read back all instructions". <S> In other words, if ATC is telling you to do something then you must read it back <S> otherwise they have no way to know if you understood the instruction correctly and will do what they expect you to. <S> This includes clearance, ground and airborne instructions. <S> ATC information on the other hand is not an instruction (e.g. traffic advisories) <S> so you only need to acknowledge it. <S> But you should also read back altimeter settings because they're essential for maintaining altitude and therefore separation correctly. <S> And ATC is often very good at giving student pilots extra attention so even if they wouldn't expect a readback in other circumstances, they may have made an extra effort in the case you mentioned to make sure there was no possible misunderstanding. <A> Not really an answer per-se, but I usually find it much easier to learn what NOT to read-back: <S> Weather information (except QNH (altimeter settings)), like wind speed/direction, etc <S> Time/hour/estimates (except EAT (expected approach time) when cleared to a hold) <S> Chatter (hey, it happens! <S> don't read it back) <S> I can't seem to think to any others, though there should be a couple more. <S> Anything else that doesn't fall into this will get a readback from me.
|
Taxi routes Instructions, ESPECIALLY runway crossings & hold-short instructions. You should acknowledge with at the bare minimum your aircraft call sign and preferably something that lets them know that you got their instructions/message and understand it, every time that ATC talks to you.
|
Is English sufficient for international aviation? Is it possible to fly internationally understanding only English for radio communications? Are there exceptions? <Q> There are 191 countries that are members of the ICAO, covering almost all of the world. <S> While communications may be performed in the local language, English must be used upon request on international flights. <S> Controllers and flight crew engaged in communications for international flights should be proficient in spoken English in addition to English aviation phraseology. <S> Some domestic airways and airports may require communications in the local language instead of English. <S> So English is sufficient if you stick to international airports and airways, but be sure to check the language requirements before you venture into foreign domestic airspace and airports. <A> ICAO has standardized on English (PDF), which "urges" (apparently it does not require?) <S> contracting states (participating members) to use English for all communication. <S> I believe proficiency standards implementation was originally set for 2008, but was pushed back to 2011 . <S> The exceptions to this standard would be, most likely, any country which is not an ICAO member . <S> For the most part, as of now flight in ICAO member countries should be possible if English is your only language, as the proficiency standards testing has been rolled out. <S> Personally speaking, I recently flew in Iceland, which has some forbiddingly-hard-to-pronounce names , but is an ICAO member state and which uses English for everything. <S> It was a great, low-stress experience; air traffic controllers were very understanding and knew what I meant when I attempted to pronounce place names, even if I butchered them. <S> Which I almost certainly did. <A> I can only speak for Europe and the U.S. but be prepared to encounter controllers who only speak French when flying in France. <S> As far as I know, France is the only country in Europe where English is not required for ATC. <S> The same may be true for (former) French colonies <S> but I don't know for sure.
|
ATC and pilots must be able to communicate in English on international flights involving ICAO member states.
|
What is ground effect? We've all heard the "acts like a cushion of air" explanation tossed casually around by CFIs. There's also plenty of books and reference materials that give a detailed, accurate, and complete explanation of ground effect, and which are incomprehensible to most student pilots. What's the simplest way to accurately explain ground effect? <Q> It's impossible to give a correct AND simple explanation I think. <S> I would explain it like this if I was asked: The downwash from the wings and the downward component of the wingtip vortices create a higher than normal pressure area below the wings because the air hits the ground and can't "escape", increasing lift. <S> Induced drag is reduced because wingtip vortices (causing drag) can't fully develop close to the ground. <A> For a simple and correct answer you need first to understand induced drag. <S> Please read this answer if you feel unsure. <S> Short version <S> : The wing creates lift by deflecting air downwards. <S> Induced drag is the consequence of this deflecting, because the resulting force of this deflection process is tilted backwards by half the deflection angle. <S> Due to the backward tilt, the force has a horizontal component, pointing backwards. <S> This is induced drag. <S> The ground effect will prevent this flow field from developing fully, because air cannot flow into the ground. <S> Consequently, the deflection angle is lower, and also its horizontal component, i.e. drag. <S> The same happens ahead of the wing, where the upward motion of air ahead of the stagnation point is also restricted. <S> Another consequence of this is a reduced lift curve slope in ground effect. <S> Lift is higher relative to induced drag compared to the free-flow case because the wing somewhat blocks the outflow of air at the trailing edge, and this results in a higher pressure on the bottom of the wing compared to the free-flow case. <S> This "cushion-effect" explanation is actually quite correct. <S> The pressure which lifts the airplane is not only created by accelerating air downwards, but also by ram pressure. <S> This effect disappears once the wing is far enough from the ground. <A> The ground acts as an aerodynamic mirror. <S> When the wing approaches the surface it is as if an inverted wing comes from below. <S> Their high pressure areas amplify each other, increasing the efficiency and thereby reducing the drag. <A> Here's my simplification, it's not the full story, but it covers the essentials. <S> Lift:When you are in free space, the high pressure below your wing dissipates into the surrounding air. <S> Drag:When you're in free space, the wake (turbulent, low pressure) behind your aircraft dissipates unimpeded until it becomes uniform with the surrounding atmosphere. <S> When you're in ground effect, the air near the ground absorbs this dissipation quicker because it has to shear against the ground (more friction that air in free space). <S> Additionally, wing-tip vortices encounter the ground and dissipate much quicker than in free space. <S> I suspect the reason GE is tied to wing length is because the longer your wing is, the stronger your wing tip vortices, and the further air has to travel laterally to exit the high pressure zone under the wing. <A> When in ground effect, the air on the bottom of the wing can't move around nearly as well and therefore pushes the plane upward to try and make more room. <A> in normal flight high above the ground, wings create lift by deflecting an air stream downwards. <S> This is not possible close to the ground: air does not travel through the ground surface. <S> Picture <S> the downward air stream being bounced back and increasing pressure underneath the wing. <S> This happens partially at the wing, not only behind it, because at sub-sonic speeds the air is being split in front of the wing. <S> So in ground effect, lift is created by pushing air downwards and by increased static pressure underneath the wing, like a hovercraft. <S> And the increased pressure does not come with an induced drag penalty. <S> And that is the main difference: total drag is lower in ground effect than in normal flight. <A> The wing pushes air down. <S> In flight, that air pushes on other air that moves. <S> In ground effect, that air pushes on the ground that doesnt move. <S> Pushing things that move is more difficult than pushing things that dont move. <S> Like walking on sand vs walking on pavement. <A> What happens behind the trailing edge is surely irrelevant. <S> The wing has an angle of incidence to the ground <S> so there is a wedge effect under it, presumably increasing pressure under the forward part of the chord and less so under the after part due to venturi effects. <S> Looks like a cushion effect to me and the airflow over the wing is deflected, and pressure reduced, as it would be at altitude.
|
When you're in ground effect, the high pressure below the wing encounters an incompressible solid, and therefore cannot dissipate as quick, causing higher pressure below the wing, and therefore more lift. Simple explanation: When out of ground effect, air on the bottom of the wing has plenty of room to move around.
|
What's P-Factor and why does it occur? Whenever I hear anyone talking about P-Factor, (whether it be single-engine left turning tendencies or multi-engine loss of directional control scenarios), someone always brings up the fact that the descending blade of a propeller generates more thrust than the ascending blade. I'm wondering why that's the case. What is P-Factor and why does it occur? <Q> For simplicity, assume a single-engine plane with a two-blade propeller. <S> Just imagine an aircraft is perfectly level and moving forward through the air. <S> The angle of attack on both blades of the propeller would be the same. <S> Now imagine the plane pitches up a bit. <S> One blade's angle of attack will increase and other will decrease. <S> (source: AOPA.org ) <S> Within reason, the greater the angle of attack, the greater the thrust generated. <S> So one blade (or, to be more precise, a blade on one side of the aircraft) will generate more thrust than the other. <A> Rather than try to do a full ground school session, I'm going to point you at the section on P-Factor in the awesome (free) textbook <S> See How It Flies . <S> To attempt to paraphrase, it occurs when your aircraft is operating at high angles of attack. <A> Angle of attack is defined as the angle between the chord line of an airfoil and the relative wind. <S> Now the relative wind is the apparent wind flow opposite the direction of that airfoil movement. <S> The relative wind depicted in these diagrams is for the airfoil we call the wing! <S> Put the relative wind vector for the rotating propeller blades opposite their movement and we have a minimal change in angle of attack change between the ascending or descending blades.
|
Just like the advancing blade on a helicopter produces more thrust because it's heading upwind, the descending blade of the propeller produces more thrust because it has a higher angle of attack relative to the aircraft's motion through the air.
|
Is it required to contact approach when flying VFR into a Class D airfield? Is it required when under VFR to contact an airfield's approach when approaching to land at a class D? KDLH is my example airfield. They possess independent radar approach and departure (same frequency) with a separate tower frequency. What would be the process of approaching this airfield under VFR? <Q> No it is not required to contact approach. <S> Unless you have to go through a larger D, C or B <S> airspace to get there. <S> I don't know of any larger Ds in the US, but there are plenty of D-airfields underneath C and B airspace. <S> In Germany (and I think around Europe, not sure though), there's a distinction between the tower-D and the approach-D (the former being called D-CTR, and the other just D), <S> to enter the approach-D you'd have to talk to approach, but if you can sneak under/around it, go ahead and call the tower directly, <S> let them know where you are, and they'll tell you how to enter their airspace. <S> In the US, they'll probably just tell you to enter the pattern (like "N12345, enter and report the right base for runway 5"). <S> In Europe you need an explicit clearance and they'll usually tell you how to enter (like "DEFGH, enter control zone via Echo, report Echo", Echo being a reporting point on the chart, Echo usually being to the east, with November, Whiskey and Sierra being north, west and south respectively (usually, that is, there may be more, and they may be placed differently, but they're always on the sectional or the terminal area chart) <A> @Pondlife <S> I suppose it's possible there's an airport somewhere with Class D airspace that REQUIRES you to call approach before you can call the tower, even for VFR flights, but I can't think of any off hand. <S> That would certainly be an unusual situation though: I'd expect a NOTAM about the procedure at the very least. <S> – voretaq7Dec <S> 25 at 7:05 <S> Required <S> is too strong a word. <S> However, I have heard both sides of this: <S> a pilot being chewed out for not contacting approach, and sent back away from the Delta space to "get in line", and also the tower accepting arrivals that just call the tower as the first contact. <S> It is all based on how busy the Tower is. <S> The "requirement" to call Approach first is not written in any NOTAM I can find. <S> It is a "local knowledge" thing. <A> Judging by the 86th issue of the Green Bay sectional, it is not even obvious that radar services are available. <S> The procedure would be to listen to ATIS on 124.1 and contact tower before entering the class D. <S> I believe this is true even if you are flying into a class D airfield with charted TRSA, such as Fargo (FAR) or Tri-Cities (TRI) <S> You are welcome and encouraged to lookup the frequency on the edge of the chart, (it will likely be contained in the ATIS) contact approach during the approach to the field, but it is by no means compulsory. <S> You can make your desire for non-participation clear by stating "Negative Radar Service" in your initial contact, arriving or departing. <A> Unless there is a charted B or C airspace, you are not REQUIRED to contact the approach facility. <S> Different towers may have different opinions on what they prefer you to do, however. <S> Some have TRSAs (responsibility is mapped out, and you can participate if you want), and some just mysteriously have a approach/departure frequency listed <S> and it's anyone's guess where that airspace extends to. <S> As a further amplification, they may just tell you 'contact approach on 123.45 and remain clear of the delta'. <S> So, their own operating procedures will dictate that you do contact approach, but you could run into a similar situation at any airfield where you just have to follow tower instructions.
|
Out of courtesy, you MAY contact approach when VFR, but it is by no means necessary. Standard Procedure to land VFR at Westchester County Airport, White Plains NY (KHPN) is to contact NY Approach first for sequencing.
|
What is the best altitude to penetrate a thunderstorm? 135.293(a)(7)(iii) requires that pilots be tested on: (iii) Operating in or near thunderstorms (including best penetrating altitudes), turbulent air (including clear air turbulence), icing, hail, and other potentially hazardous meteorological conditions; So what are the best penetrating altitudes when forced to operate in a thunderstorm? The most obvious answer is to stay out of it in the first place, but the reg requires us to come up with an answer.... <Q> The obvious answer you mentioned should be reiterated: Avoid thunderstorms whenever possible ! <S> Just because there are "best penetrating altitudes" doesn't change the fact that thunderstorms are extremely hazardous to aircraft and should be avoided in the first place. <S> With that said, the FAA's Advisory Circular 00-24C mentions that, if unable to avoid penetrating a thunderstorm: To avoid the most critical icing, establish a penetration altitude below the freezing level or above the level of -15ºC. <S> This is to help minimize rapid accumulation of clear ice: <S> Supercooled water freezes on impact with an aircraft. <S> Clear icing can occur at any altitude above the freezing level but at high levels, icing from smaller droplets may be rime or mixed rime and clear. <S> The abundance of large, supercooled water droplets makes clear icing very rapid between 0ºC and -15ºC, and encounters can be frequent in a cluster of cells. <S> Thunderstorm icing can be extremely hazardous. <S> Another point to mention is that, regardless of there being a recommended "penetration altitude," it is important to maintain a constant attitude, not altitude: <S> It is almost impossible to hold a constant altitude in a thunderstorm, and maneuvering in an attempt to do so greatly increases stress on the aircraft. <S> Stresses are least if the aircraft is held in a constant attitude. <S> But again, emphasizing the dangers of thunderstorms, the circular states: <S> Never regard any thunderstorm lightly, even when radar observers report the echoes are of light intensity. <S> and Weather recognizable as a thunderstorm should be considered hazardous, as penetration of any thunderstorm can lead to an aircraft accident and fatalities to those on board. <A> 0 AGL. <S> Do not ever penetrate a thunderstorm in an airplane. <S> It is stupid. <S> People die that way every year. <A> I was asked this question on a 135 ride. <S> Stumped for an answer, I was told I will get comfortable flying through if I wanted the job. <S> As this was in the plains, 5000 or 6000 depending on the direction of the flight was the recipe. <S> Not high enough for icing most of the time, yet enough altitude to recover from downdrafts. <S> This also kept us in Approach/Departure airspace and their radar was much better at depicting live weather, as opposed to what the Center controllers handling higher altitudes would be seeing. <S> Asking for vectors through level 1 or 2 was OK but taking level 3 when unavoidable was a rough ride. <S> Using tango prefix in the call sign let them know <S> I was neither a doctor nor an attorney. <S> Night time lowered their workload so they could find a way to get us across squall lines, coming up with diversions around this stuff. <S> After getting my head slammed into the ceiling I learned to hunch when it got bumpy. <S> Few months of that, seeing thundersnow and learning that lightning flashes looks pink when you get close made me go back to flying passengers. <S> Soon after the Check 21 legislation killed that whole business model but for many many years before me guys and gals were doing this every night with no accidents or incidents related to the practice.
|
Avoiding thunderstorms is the best policy.
|
What can a new commercial pilot do to build flight time? Most new commercial pilots don't have a lot of flight time, so won't be hired by the airlines or corporate operators. A lot of operations require an air carrier certificate (even though they are a "commercial" pilot, they can't just start flying people around)! What can they do to build time while (hopefully) getting paid to fly? <Q> Most folks <S> Without the CFI rating, some things to look in to include: <S> Banner Tow (if available in your area) <S> Crop dusting (again, if available in your area) <S> Glider towing Skydiving <S> The FAA has a page on skydiving operations this <S> that's worth a read. <S> Ferry Piloting (if you don't mind the travel) Photo work - anything from costal erosion photos to event coverage depending on your location. <S> News work - Hand in hand with Photo work, but also traffic and the like. <S> Sightseeing flights AOPA has a page on this which is worth a read , take care as you almost certainly want to be sure you fall under Part 91 and not Part 135! <S> Deliveries. <S> Someone needs a wedding cake moved across the state? <S> You can often do that in a Cessna more efficiently than they can by car, and as a commercial pilot you can even charge for it. <S> Corporate Flight Jobs <S> Sightseeing within 25sm of an airport <S> There are some outfits that will "sell" you SIC in their cargo twins. <S> It's a way to build TT, but it's considered an unscrupulous practice. <S> Many of these will probably require the very time you're looking to build, or experience in specific types of aircraft, but it can't hurt to investigate. <A> Another option that you can look at is the Civil Air Patrol . <S> They mostly do disaster reconnaissance flights, though they have several other aviation odd jobs they do for the government. <S> It can be really helpful if you know how to use a DSLR style camera because most of their reconnaissance work is done with that type of camera. <A> One of the most common ways to build time is to instruct. <S> You will need to get your CFI Rating. <S> I know you can also tow banners, and possibly sky divers (Not too sure on this one.) <A> Flight training facilities such as CAE or FlightSafety have right seat programs. <S> You volunteer your time as the right seater during training events. <S> A great opportunity to learn a jet aircraft and become very familiar with emergency checklists, as well as, networking with a multitude of flight departments. <S> After a specified number of training events they will type rate you in that aircraft for no cost. <S> It may be an unpaid position but the experience and networking potential is priceless. <A> Some EAA chapters share ownership of homebuilt airplanes and members can build flight time by using these planes. <S> Flight time is flight time and in many cases it doesn't matter that it's a homebuilt (for example, cross-country flying, navigation practice, tail-wheel practice, seaplane practice, basic aerobatics, etc). <S> Homebuilts also give an opportunity to do some aircraft maintenance & repair. <S> It's all good experience.
|
For a commercial pilot (without a CFI rating) you've got some options, but the real golden goose of time building is flight instructing. I know who are time-building accumulate the minimum amount of time until they have enough to get the CFI rating, then go out and instruct to get to their end goal (time / types).
|
How common are conformal fuel tanks? I know that the F-16 (F-16I and Block 50/52/60 models) have conformal fuel tanks standard now on top of the wing/fuselage area. The Silent Eagle model of the F-15E proposed by Boeing for South Korea, and other F-15E customers had them added. The F-18E (Superhornet) has demoed a set recently. But on older aircraft, how common were conformal fuel tanks? Or have they always been drop tanks before? <Q> Otherwise, I'd say somewhat common; streamlined fuel tanks and other conformal packages have been used for quite a while in several different designs. <S> Some World War II Supermarine Spitfires used what was called a " slipper tank " - a streamlined package of up to 90 gallons ( additional source ). <S> The early 1960s-era <S> English Electric Lightning used a 'conformal ventral store' that could hold either a fuel tank or rocket engine (?!). <S> The Gloster Javelin used a similar set of " bosom tanks ". <A> The Messerschmitt <S> Bf-110 used a conformal fuel tank under the forward fuselage, colloquially known as "Dackelbauch" (Dachshund belly). <S> The picture below should explain well why this name was chosen. <S> They were introduced to allow planes stationed in Norway to attack targets in Northern England. <S> When empty, their content would be a dangerous mixture of air and fuel vapor, so they were not very popular with their crews and only used briefly. <S> If you want, you could even call the center wing tank of some biplanes a conformal tank. <S> However, conformal tanks are rather unusual. <A> They're not unheard of, as from your examples. <S> Like any design, they have advantages and disadvantages. <S> Pros: <S> Typically more aerodynamic, and lighter, than a droptank of similar capacity. <S> Carried closer to the fuselage than hardpoint droptanks, reducing roll moment, increasing maneuverability. <S> Doesn't take up hardpoints desired for munitions ( <S> the primary reason the F-15E uses them is that it wouldn't have a useful range carrying 2000lb Mk-82s otherwise) <S> Typically allows more fuel storage than the centerline droptank (the only other location that isn't usually a munitions hardpoint) <S> Cons: <S> Aerodynamics are still negatively impacted Cannot be jettisoned mid-flight for weight/drag advantage <S> When empty of liquid fuel, CFTs can still contain a combustible vapor which could explode given a hit that might otherwise do only superficial damage (most modern designs use a bladder to contain the fuel and minimize vapor release into the CFT shell) <S> Not all airframes tolerate CFTs of a meaningful size without significant changes in handling. <S> The F-16I's performance is apparently unaffected by the additional 460 gallon-capacity CFTs, but the F-15E/I/SK, despite the airframe's air-superiority pedigree, is known to be at a disadvantage in a dogfight to the F-15C, the USAF's primary air-superiority variant.
|
Technically speaking, conformal tanks don't take up hardpoints, so I'm not sure what we have today has an equivalent in older designs.
|
What is Class F airspace, and why is it not used in the US? I've read that ICAO defines Class F airspace but the FAA has chosen not to use the airspace class in the US. What is the ICAO definition of Class F airspace and how does it differ from other airspace classes? What countries use Class F airspace? Why does the FAA only use A-E and G? <Q> ICAO Class F airspace is a bit of an odd duck (and the US FAA is apparently not the only agency that thinks so - from a quick check on Wikipedia <S> it seems more jurisdictions ignore class F than implement it. <S> They only mention Class F as being in use in Germany and the UK). <S> The catch is they're "advisory only" (so you don't have to comply with them, and all the weight is on the pilot's shoulders ). <S> Similarly ATC will provide separation services to IFR flights in Class F airspace, but they do so "where possible", which means they might tell you they can't provide that service <S> and you're on your own with see-and-avoid. <S> The general use case for Class F airspace seems to be allowing IFR flights to operate in "uncontrolled airspace". <S> As a US pilot (and thus having no experience with Class F Airspace), it sounds like the services provided in Class F airspace are effectively the equivalent of VFR Traffic Advisories ("Flight Following") : Controllers can give you advisories and make suggestions , but all responsibility is ultimately still on the pilot's shoulders, and you can politely tell the controller to get stuffed if you don't like their suggestions (without needing to declare an emergency to vest yourself with that authority). <S> In the US we already have the Flight Following system and culture set up for VFR folks (and generally speaking it's available nationwide, irrespective of airspace class, as long as the controller can get you on radar and isn't overworked). <S> We also have a pretty robust Class E airspace nationwide. <S> Because of this the FAA probably sees no need to designate specific "Class F" regions where IFR flights can get the equivalent of "Flight Following": If you're VFR you can usually get flight following if you want it, and if you're IFR you should have no trouble staying in controlled airspace (Class A, B, C, D, or E) for your entire route of flight. <A> Class F airspace is often used in the UK as a kind of "GA airway. <S> " It designates preferred paths with a advisory ATC service that GA traffic can use. <S> For example, there is a class F route defined between the north west of England and the Isle of Man. <S> Having a preferred route and an ATC service makes sense for that route as its an expanse of open water. <S> It simplifies search and rescue operations. <A> As voretaq7 said, it's a bit of an odd duck, and I don't know how it works in the UK <S> but in Germany F is only to allow IFR approaches/departures for uncontrolled airfields. <S> So basically, as soon as an airfield in G has an IFR approach, they get a F airspace around them, which in turn is usually only active when there's an IFR approach in progress. <S> As soon as it's completed, it reverts to G (depicted on the sectional as "F(HX)", meaning it's not always active). <S> So in order to determine if F or G rules apply, you need to ask FIS or AFIS (or approach, but then you're probably IFR already, so you don't need to care). <S> VFR "flight following" is not related to the airspace and is provided by FIS in E, F and G airspace, as long as radar coverage is available pretty much. <S> In D and C it's called CVFR and is provided by approach (or "Radar" as they like to call it). <S> It works the same way when shooting an approach into a G airfield in the US, you're only cleared for the approach, as soon as you enter G, it's up to you to see and avoid, as far as I know. <S> The point of having an F airspace is that the visibility requirements are different for VFR aircraft, where you have to stay a mile away <S> /thousand feet from clouds, whereas in G they only need to stay clear of clouds. <S> Allowing IFR approaches in G has the potential of allowing an IFR aircraft pop out of a cloud and not have even a mile or thousand feet separation from the next VFR aircraft. <S> Note that these extra VFR requirements are specific to Germany and deviates from the ICAO definition of airspace F. Update Germany is in the process of discontinuing the use of airspace F for IFR approaches into uncontrolled fields, in accordance with EU regulation 923/2012 "Standardised [sic] European Rules of the Air", or SERA. <S> Once SERA is in effect, IFR approaches will be allowed within airspace G in Germany as well. <S> Current airspace F will be replaced with airspace G and a so called "Radio Mandatory Zone", or RMZ. <A> In Canada anyway according to the CARS (Canadian Aviation Regulations) <S> " <S> Basically it's airspace dedicated to a certain activity and you better make damn sure you're not going to be getting in the way of that activity before you enter. <A> Canadian Class F is better compared to U.S. Special Use Airspace, if you read the regs for it, it covers the Canadian equivalent of Warning, Alert, Restricted, Prohibited, Military Operation, and Controlled Firing Areas. <S> Interesting that in the U.S. we do not depict,or inform about controlled firing areas, Spotter aircraft, and controllers, prevent non-participant aircraft from being harmed. <S> But they are depicted on Canadian charts, and basically treated like prohibited, or restricted areas as needed.
|
Class F airspace is "airspace of defined dimensions within which activities must be confined because of their nature, and within which limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. From a functional/regulatory standpoint Class F is a sort of hybrid between "Class E" controlled airspace and "Class G" (fully) uncontrolled airspace: Class F airspace is designated as "uncontrolled", but you can get ATC clearances in Class F airspace just like in controlled airspace.
|
What is the maximum taxi speed and who defines it? Which is the maximum speed that an airliner is limited to while taxiing? I know that during 90 degree turns it is 10 knots, but what about long, straight taxiways? 20 knots? 25? 30? More broadly, where I can find this information? Would it be in company SOPs? Manufacturer's FCOM? <Q> And here, a Reference from Boeing's 737 FCTM (pdf) . Ch2 for ground operations. <A> A "Safety Alert for Operators" (SAFO 09004) from 2/11/09 says "Slow the aircraft to a fast walking speed on the centerline of the landing runway prior to attempting to exit the runway. <S> Taxi at a fast walking speed until parked at the ramp or until aligned with the centerline of the runway for takeoff." <S> Which, of course, isn't a regulation, in this example is specifically talking about winter conditions. <S> Source: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/SAFO09004.pdf <S> Riverside County in Southern California has an ordinance (regulation) <S> that states: Section 12.08.100 Taxi speed. <S> No person shall taxi any aircraft on the airport unless there will be no danger of collision with any person or object. <S> All aircraft shall be taxied at a safe and reasonable speed commensurate with safe operation in relation to existing conditions and with due regard for other aircraft, persons and property. <S> (Ord. 5661 § 1, 1988; prior code § 5.11 (part))Source: http://www.riversideca.gov/municode/pdf/12/12-08.pdf <S> So whatever a "safe and reasonable speed" is. <S> I've heard it called a "brisk walking pace. <S> " <S> I had an airline pilot as a ground school instructor once, and she said that ground control was giving them a hassle one day, so everyone decided to taxi at a "brisk walking pace" around LAX. <S> Got ground whipped into shape real quick! <S> The FAA's website, under "Best Practices" says to "Maintain an appropriate taxi speed." <S> http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/pilots/best_practices/ <S> Roughly: Max 30 <S> kts: <S> straight line with no close obstacles (for example: back-tracking on the runway) Max 20 kts: straight line with obstacles (for example: on the taxiway, or close to other aircraft/stands/ground vehicles) <S> Max 10 kts: turns and entry onto ramp area <A> Both of the 747 operators I flew for in the 1990s observed a max taxi speed of 25 knows on a straight taxiway. <S> We were told in ground school that Boeing recommended 20 knots. <S> Concerning a previous answer of 10 knots in a turn, while that may be a good general answer, it would be subject to conditions. <S> I remember once almost leaving the taxiway in a turn at Jeddah even though I was a little less than 10 knots. <S> It was over 110F, which made the asphalt a little slippery. <S> After than experience, I slowed my 90 degree turns to around 6-7 knots if there was any question concerning the conditions. <S> Another consideration concerning taxi speed is how heavy you are and how far you have to taxi. <S> The problem is tire heating. <S> I seem to remember being told the 747 had a max taxi distance of 30,000 feet at max weight. <S> I don't know whether that was really true, but I do know that at Honolulu a taxi to the reef runway from some parking areas is at or a little over that. <S> Since I've been retired for 15 years, please take anything I say with due consideration to my aging-failing brain. <A> There is no official FAA guidance on taxi speed. <S> There is an urban legend around that the speed limit is "no faster than a man can walk" and although every airplane exceeds that pace today, the origin of that "no faster than a man can walk" goes back to the early days of aviation. <S> The very early planes had no brakes and no steerable wheels! <S> They required wing walkers to stop the planes and to guide them around corners. <S> Yes it was possible for the pilot to raise the tailskid off the ground and rudder his way around a corner, but in close quarters this would add too much speed so that wing walkers were the solution. <S> Why the rule of "no faster than..." Don't leave your steering gear (the wing walkers) behind!
|
Since it's not clearly defined by the FAA, I assume that most airlines limit taxi speeds via their SOPs, also due to the variety of equipment, it might be unfeasible for the FAA to mandate a specific speed.
|
How do I explain what makes an airplane fly to a non-technical person? As an engineer I can explain in very technical terms exactly what makes an airplane fly, however, it isn't easily understood by non-technical people. How can I explain it to a non-technical person, or a nine year old, in a way that isn't really incorrect but is far less technical than what we learn as pilots? <Q> The simplest explanation is the "hand out of the window" one: Hold your hand out of the window while in a moving car and hold your hand at an angle. <S> It gets pushed upwards. <S> Your hand represents the wing of an airplane. <S> Even a 4-year old understands the concept using this explanation. <A> Here's one way to do it: airplanes work by pushing air. <S> The wings push air down, and the airplane turns by pushing air in different ways. <S> Engines push air to the back, pulling the plane forward. <S> Wings work by turning the air downwards-- <S> the airflow on the top of the wing follows the curve of the wing, which points it downward. <S> My apologies if this is too low-level--is this what you had in mind? <A> Every pilot knows the first thing that makes an airplane fly is money. <S> as I tried to explain the 4 forces to my 6 year old daughter and trying to coach her <S> I asked, what makes it fall out of the sky. <S> I expected weight or gravity <S> and she said lack of money. <S> She was right. <S> I try to explain it like a straw. <S> You have four straws, one in front, one in back, one above and one below. <S> The one below the aircraft sucks at a constant rate and never stops (gravity/weight). <S> The one in front is the prop generating thrust. <S> It is essentially sucking its way forward. <S> The one in back is drag and it varies by situation <S> but it's always trying to keep you from going forward. <S> The final one is the one on top and that is lift. <S> Lift is generated by the wings and sucks the airplane up. <S> The wing creates lift by moving forward. <S> If any of the straws win other than the front one and the top one, you crash. <S> As for wind, no you can fly through no wind but the addition of wind coming at you effectively helps fill that forward straw so you can essentially take off at a lower ground speed. <S> This is called relative wind. <S> If your plane flies at 54 knots and you could essentially fly into a 34 knot headwind at 20 knots and achieve backwards flight at 14 knots. <A> Blow over a sheet of paper that is lying on the table, and watch it take off. <S> Then explain of course that there is a lot more air involved in keeping a 747 in the air, but you could make it plausible by mentioning how strong tornadoes and hurricanes are.
|
The plane's engine simply makes sure the "hand" keeps moving forward against the force of the wind.
|
Why would an airplane pilot choose to intentionally use more runway than required for a takeoff? An assumed temperature takeoff intentionally requires a pilot to use more runway than would be normally required. Why would someone want to do that instead of getting off the runway in the minimum distance possible? <Q> Imagine you're doing a takeoff at a high density altitude. <S> You need more runway to get up to speed because your engine is producing less power and you need to move faster to move the same amount of air over your wings as you would at a lower DA. <S> Aircraft can pretend the DA is higher by using a higher than normal temperature when calculating takeoff information. <S> In jets with automated engine controllers, this setting -in a round about way- allows you to set the engines to produce only the minimum thrust required to get off the ground safely. <S> Since that results in less thrust, there is less wear on the engine and that adds up significantly over time. <S> Your trade-off for this decreased wear is that you need more runway, which is usually readily available. <S> If you suddenly need full power you just move the throttle to the Take-Off/Go-Around ( <S> TOGA) or emergency power setting (or push a TOGA button on the throttle), which overrides the temperature preset. <A> An assumed temperature takeoff (also known as "flex" on Airbus/Fokker aircraft) is where the engine thrust is reduced to match the performance on a higher-temperature day, up to either the maximum thrust reduction allowed or the maximum assumed temperature that meets takeoff distance requirements. <S> Unlike a derate, assumed temperature takeoffs do not reduce the minimum control speed used for calculating takeoff speeds ($V_{MCG}$ for $V_1$, $V_{MCA}$ for $V_2$). <S> The minimum selectable temperature is the lowest temperature beyond the flat rating temperature range (the range of temperatures where maximum thrust is achievable, limited by an engine control unit), and the highest temperature is the temperature at which the maximum thrust reduction allowed will be met. <S> Except with specific certification and approval (such as 40% flex on the A340), such a procedure must not reduce the thrust beyond 25% of the nominal takeoff thrust (either full rate or a takeoff derate). <S> For example, the range of assumed temperatures permitted is 30-75 <S> °C (flat rated to $ISA+15$, thrust at 75° <S> C is 75% of normal rating). <S> The main reason for performing an assumed temperature takeoff is to conserve engine life, therefore reducing maintenance costs. <S> According to Boeing, engine wear exponentially increases with the takeoff thrust used -- with engines costing about 10 million USD each, this has the potential to save a lot of money for airlines. <S> If you are taking off using assumed temperature, you may (but are not required to) add thrust to TOGA in the case of an emergency, however if you are using a takeoff derate, you must not increase the thrust beyond the derated N1, as this could cause a loss of control (higher thrust = <S> higher actual $V_{MCG}$). <S> Not all aircraft allow assumed temperature in conjunction with derates. <S> For example, you can only select a derate or a flex temperature on all Airbus aircraft (if a derate option is offered). <S> NOTE <S> : do not attempt to "copy the jet jocks" in a piston aircraft and attempt a reduced throttle takeoff: only at takeoff throttle levels is extra fuel injected for cooling and reduction beyond this point could result in CHT levels rising to unacceptable levels, increasing the risk of engine damage. <A> Airshow pilots will sometimes use more runway than necessary. <S> They'll get the wheels off the ground but remain in ground effect (sometimes only a foot off the runway, which I count as "still using the runway") while accelerating. <S> The extra speed will permit them to make a dramatic vertical climb that's a lot steeper than Vy or Vx would permit. <A> It's basically a question of economics.
|
Derating your takeoff means using a lower thrust setting for the engine which means less wear and thus less money spent on maintenance.
|
Is it safe to roll an airplane that isn't approved for it? I have heard of pilots rolling airplanes that aren't approved for it (Cessna 172, Learjets, etc.), and other than the obvious legal issues, are there any mechanical or safety reasons to avoid it? DISCLAIMER I do not advocate doing anything (like this) that is not legal, but am looking more for additional reasons that I can use to dissuade people from doing this when they say that it isn't hurting anyone or something along those lines. <Q> There are a lot of good reasons not to roll such an airplane. <S> If the plane has gyroscopic instruments, you might tumble them (cause the spinning gyro to hit the inside of the instrument). <S> This can be expensive. <S> You might easily over-stress the air frame. <S> Normal category light aircraft are rated to -1.5 to +3.8Gs . <S> (That's for a new aircraft) <S> A botched roll can easily hit 4.5 or higher. <S> If you over stress the air frame, you might just put a lot of very expensive "wrinkles" in the skin that would be very hard to explain to the FBO, your boss, or the insurance company. <S> Trashing the gyros would be cheaper. <S> If you're not lucky, the wings fold up and you fall out of the sky. <S> Turning a botched roll into a "split-S" is one of the worst "recovery" mistakes you can make, and you're setting yourself up for it. <S> Non-aerobatic aircraft often have gravity-feed fuel systems. <S> A little bit of 0 or negative "G" <S> and it will get very very quiet in the plane. <S> Some people consider this silence detrimental to the continued safety of the flight. <S> Non-aerobatic aircraft rarely have inverted oil systems. <S> As the engine gets quiet, it also loses most of its lubrication. <S> Bare metal on metal friction can be detrimental to achieving TBO . <S> Having said all that, in the hands of an expert , it is technically possible to barrel roll most aircraft. <S> A good way to tell if you're an expert is to call your insurance company and tell them exactly what you plan to do. <S> If they'll quote you affordable coverage, you might be an expert. <S> Obligatory links because if I don't include them someone else will: <S> Tex Johnson rolling a 707 . <S> I'm pretty sure he'd never get away with this today. <S> Bob Hoover pouring iced tea . <S> Bob Hoover is beyond expert. <S> Way, way, beyond expert. <S> In the US and some countries, it's the International Aerobatic Club . <S> Get some competent dual instruction in a suitably rated airplane. <A> However it is only true if it is properly executed. <S> Make a small mistake <S> and you can easily put more stress on the aircraft than it can handle, put it to a spin due to excessive side-slip (barrel roll is cross-controlled manoeuvre), starve the engines of fuel (if you let it slip into negative G) or simply loose spatial orientation (especially in older aircraft with mechanical gyroscope that would tumble) and then you'll end up like these two pilots in Cessna 550B Citation in Germany in 2010 . <A> Do not even think about it unless you are an expert. <S> I read about an incident in Sport Aviation in which a non-aerobatic performer rolled a piston twin. <S> The airframe was overstressed and it broke up in flight. <S> All four on board were killed.
|
Non-aerobatic aircraft typically have limited elevator authority; once upside down, you might find it very difficult to keep the nose pushed up high enough to keep the roll going. A barrel roll, when properly executed, does not put the aircraft through any unusual stress and is possible with almost any aircraft. It's a stupid way to die. If you want to roll an airplane, contact your local aerobatic club.
|
How often does an autopilot update control surfaces' positions? How often does an autopilot update the position of the ailerons (or any other control surface) during cruise? Per second, per minute, or something else? <Q> So often that to any observer (visual or tactile) it appears continuous. <S> I say this as someone who has 2500 hours operating a transport category airplane. <S> The flight director provides continuous guidance that the autopilot continuously follows. <S> When holding the control column with autopilot on (below 10k feet you hold the controls even with autopilot engaged) you would interpret it as continuous input (the autopilot moves the controls just as if the other pilot were flying). <A> What they used in their experiments (and is most likely not the same in every aircraft because they will test to see what is required) is as follows: <S> The bandwidth column shows you how often the control surface is updated, and ranges from 3.9 times per second (on the slow moving leading edge of the wing) to 13.8 times per second (on the aileron because of the fast response of the airplane to roll control inputs). <S> This is a fixed value selected during the system design, and does not change based on the phase of flight (so it would be the same whether in cruise or in the landing configuration). <A> This is not only an Autopilot-specific question but also a design-specific question, which will be different based on the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and the Aircraft Specification. <S> Usually in modern aircraft, the Autopilot sends commands to Flight Control System which then sends commands to Actuators and this progression of commands happens at different rates. <S> This update rate could be, for example, 100 Hz (10 ms), 80 Hz (12.5 ms) or may be even slower or faster, depending on the flight control system of the aircraft. <S> So, the command is not sent per second or minute, but rather 100's of commands per second, because commands to move the control surface are the most critical commands on an aircraft. <A> Well I remember doing a night flight from Japan to Uk over russiain a JAl 747 and a perfect view of the wing, and night start et all.. <S> And one thing I noticed was that the inner airelonmoved once every four seconds as in a change, next, next, nextno predictable will be up or down or whatever way..just a maybe 10cm movement or less, continuously <S> ..was a joy to watch and some PID controller.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller <A> It depends on the manufacturer and model. <S> Although it's possible to create an autopilot that updates <S> real-time/continuously, not all autopilots are actually designed to do so. <S> Some autopilots (particularly older ones) updated once a minute, sometimes even slower. <S> There are several logical reasons to do this - one is to conserve power, the other is to lower cost - slower computers used to be significantly cheaper than ones that were fast enough to compute real time. <S> It's also simply unnecessary to continuously update the control surfaces. <S> So say you drift a couple hundred feet off course because the wind changed, the autopilot will correct within the next minute, and you'll end up continuing on merrily and you (as a pilot or passenger) would not have noticed. <S> The only time you need continuous updates to the control surfaces and engine speed, is during landing, and if I'm not mistaken, there's isn't a fully autonomously landing autopilot on the market (for civilian planes anyhow). <S> In fact, an autopilot that continuously updates the control surfaces may end up creating a jerky flight because it's constantly auto-correcting for wind gusts and changes in wind direction.
|
According to the paper Reconfigurable autopilot design for a high performance aircraft using model predictive control , each control surface is updated at a different rate depending on the needs of the overall system.
|
How do turbochargers aid engine performance as density altitude increases? How do turbochargers improve engine performance at high altitudes / density altitudes? Could you also address how this benefit could become a liability at low density altitudes, for example when the density altitude is negative? <Q> An oversimplification for sure: Turbochargers essentially compress the air going into the engine (cylinders) to maintain (near) sea level pressure internally, so the external density altitude doesn't affect the performance of the engine. <S> The "liability" at low density altutudes is that it is possible to over-boost the engine, potentially damaging it. <S> See the related question for more in-depth explanation and the liability of having a turbocharger at low density altitude. <A> Turbochargers increase available engine performance by increasing the amount of fuel/air mixture that can be burned in the cylinders. <S> This is accomplished by compressing the air before fuel is mixed in. <S> The performance of a reciprocating aircraft engine is directly dependent on how much fuel can be burned and converted into heat energy, which in turn is converted into kinetic energy (motion). <S> The amount of fuel that can be burned is dependent on how much air (actually the oxygen in the air) is available to burn with the fuel. <S> An increase in altitude causes a decrease in air density and therefore less air available to be burned with the fuel. <S> In a non-turbocharged (technically a "normally aspirated") aircraft engine, the reduction in available air will cause a corresponding reduction in available power. <S> A turbocharged engine overcomes this deficiency by compressing the air brought into the engine, thereby increasing the amount of fuel that can be burned with the air, and increasing the amount of power available. <A> From idle to full power will take longer at altitude and it may not be possible to successfully restart such an engine at high altitude until you have descended to an altitude where pressure is more favorable to start the engine.
|
The turbocharger will rotate at a higher RPM at altitude, compressing the air such that the amount of fuel & air entering the combustion chamber is nearly the same as at sea level.
|
Do autopilots force the aircraft to fly over certain coordinates? As part of a project I'm doing I plotted the flight paths of about 2000 flights around the globe, I noticed over both the North Atlantic and Pacific that there is a pattern to the flight paths: You should be able to see Europe on the right and the USA on the left. Why is there such a common pattern in the flight paths? They all seem to cross every 10 degrees longitude and 1 degree latitude. Is there any explanation for this? <Q> Over the North Atlantic, there are no predefined low-level or high-level airways as there are over the continents. <S> In order for aircraft to get a tailwind for eastbound flights and get out of the wind for westbound flights, Canadian and UK air traffic control set tracks based on the expected wind conditions twice a day. <S> The lines you are seeing are called an 'Organized Track System'; is this part of the world, they're called 'NAT' (North Atlantic) Tracks. <S> Five to six roughly-parallel tracks will be defined and move around every day, but they will generally go between whole degrees of latitude and 10 <S> ° increments of longitude. <S> For example, tonight's (Dec 31/13) track BRAVO ('B') will go from a intersection in the UK called... <S> ERAKA (at 58°N/10°W) to 60° <S> N/20 <S> °W to 61 <S> °N/30 <S> °W to 61° <S> N/40°W to 60 <S> ° <S> N/50 <S> °W to MOATT (at 58.025 <S> °N/59.928°W) <S> to LOMTA (at 57.203 <S> °N/62.619°W). <A> Historically, when flying over land, aircraft follow jet routes or airways (same thing, different altitude), which are pre-defined routes from one land-based navigational station (such as VOR) to another. <S> Variations in terrain (such as mountains), location of the VOR, and other airspace considerations all affect the location of routes available to aircraft in flight. <S> Over water, however, there are no terrain features, navigation is not conducted primarily with VOR, and there are far fewer airspace concerns in general. <S> Therefore, waypoints are placed in a grid (why not?), which encourages uniformity in flight paths over time, which is what you have discovered. <A> It's not that the autopilot forces the airplane over certain coordinates. <S> The autopilot follows a programmed flight plan (that is typically entered by the pilot or the dispatcher). <S> There is a huge database of standard reporting points that the flight plan is made up of, which is why you see similar routes. <S> The autopilot is the servant, not the master :) <S> This helps with search and rescue (heaven forbid!) <S> efforts if an airplane is lost, then it can give SAR a good starting point. <S> GPS is supposed to help create more direct routes, but total reliance on GPS-aided navigation isn't fully implemented world-wide. <A> This map should help explain it. <S> The navigation points are spaced out evenly, and the planes aim for those points.
|
So in answer to your question, it's not the autopilot, but rather there are published reporting point and standard routes that most pilots program their autopilot to follow.
|
What is an easy format for giving pilot reports? Is there a technique anyone has to make it easier to give PIREPs (mnemonics, etc?) I'd like to be able to give them while I fly but I can never find the expected format handy, so it ends up being a hassle. If there's a trick anyone has to make it easy to give one, please share! <Q> Who you are: Cherokee 1234A, a P28A <S> Where you are: 10 miles north of La Belle VOR, altitude 6000 feet <S> Build your own "METAR" <S> : <S> Five minutes ago (time) wind aloft 230 @ 24 (wind) imc <S> (visibility) medium turbulence (weather phenomena) broken clouds at my altitude, clear below <S> (cloud cover) temperature 10 degrees (temperature) <S> That's it! <S> There might be a way to exactly meet the form the controller needs to write it down, but this works fine and you have a fluent and well structured report. <A> PIREPs have no required format other than the identifying information: <S> Location, Time, Altitude, and Aircraft Type. <S> Other than that, you can call in any number of weather elements as a PIREP. <S> AOPA SkySpotter provides a nice flash card for recalling the various items, but there's no mnemonic provided. <S> If you're interested in giving the most complete PIREP possible, I'd suggest following the same format as an ATIS broadcast: wind, visibility, clouds, precip, and then touching on any other relevant information such as temperature or turbulence. <S> All in all, though, the most important thing about PIREPs is that you give them. <S> The briefer or controller who takes your report will be able to format it properly if you give the elements out of order... <S> they're just happy to get it at all. <A> The technique I have is to just call up ATC and ask if they've got time for "a quick PIREP". <S> If I'm giving a PIREP <S> I'm almost always either on flight following or IFR, in which case they already have my aircraft type; from there, I give a brief report with the items I want to provide. <S> It usually looks something like this: <S> Cessna <S> 321AB: Seattle Center, <S> Cessna 321AB... <S> I've got a PIREP for you if you have a moment. <S> ZSE: <S> Cessna 1AB, go ahead. <S> Cessna <S> 321AB: <S> Ok... over CLM at 7500, five minutes ago, the winds aloft were 280 at 20, temperature 39, clear below. <S> ZSE: <S> Cessna 1AB, got it. <S> Thank you. <S> I never worry about order, and I've never gotten yelled at by ATC or Flight Service. <S> As an aside, if it's crazy windy aloft with lots of changes per altitude, I'll give ATC winds almost always. <S> If there's icing conditions or below-freezing temps, I will always provide a PIREP. <S> They don't get into the system often enough and if you treat it casually and provide just the relevant info for the day <S> (if it's clear, don't tell them this) <S> you're doing everybody a great service.
|
I often call in nothing but winds aloft and temperature, simply because I know those are more difficult for the weather service to measure.
|
Are fireworks a hazard to aircraft? Tonight's fireworks got me wondering: With all of the firework displays happening at the same time, how do they keep aircraft away from them? Is there any risk of collision or blinding the pilots? Is there anything that pilots need to do differently when fireworks are in the area? <Q> In canada <S> and I assume in a similar way in the United States <S> , fireworks are treated like any other obstacle such as a communication tower, building, or crane. <S> The location and elevation of the firework activity is assessed for impacts to any instrument procedures, airways, minimum altitude areas, etc. <S> and NOTAM to temporarily amend affected procedures will be issued prior to the activity to advertise the changes and their effective periods. <S> Having said that, this doesn't address the VFR side of things. <S> Operating near fireworks is essentially the same see and be seen idea. <S> NOTAM get issued here all the time for the fireworks activity themselves and they would include a radius from the centre point. <S> Simply avoiding the area is usually sufficient. <A> As far as avoiding the stray bottle rocket, hopefully you're high enough in cruise and lucky enough in takeoff/landing to avoid these hazards. <S> As far as blinding, the fireworks can take away your night vision if you're close enough <S> but I don't think it would blind. <S> At least it has never happened to me. <A> Most firework displays peak at about 200 feet above the launching site. <S> Any aircraft low enough to tangle with fireworks is too low anyway. <S> Pilots see fireworks as little flowers on the ground. <S> They are not big or impressive from the air. <S> Also, the individual stars, and even the shells, do not weigh much. <S> Unless a firework went into a jet engine, it could not damage an aircraft.
|
In addition to the previous answer, there are often TFRs (Temporary Flight Restrictions) around the areas of organized fireworks displays- before you fly you're responsible for knowing where these locations are and not flying into that airspace.
|
How to go about designing a custom airfoil? I am familiar with the NACA 4-digit and 5-digit airfoil design system where airfoils, but I was wondering if anyone had some good reference material or software for designing a completely custom airfoil. From what I understand, many new aircraft use completely custom non-NACA airfoils, sometimes several different airfoils over the wingspan. I am curious about how the design process goes from specifications of the airflow (incidence angle, perhaps the sweep of the wing, air speed, density, reynolds number etc) to a new custom airfoil? <Q> Wing sweep, incidence, and airfoil geometry will all have to be adjusted to achieve the best performance at a certain air speed, density, and Reynolds number. <S> The software that egid mentioned is a good place to start. <S> While studying aerospace in college, XFOIL was used for basic airfoil analysis in our classes. <S> Another program used was AVL . <S> This analyzes the aircraft as a whole and can model other things such as dynamic stability. <S> I'm glad that XPlane was also mentioned, even though I wouldn't consider it the most scientific tool for testing wing geometry. <S> It is an interesting way to test configurations since it does use the airplane geometry to simulate the performance characteristics. <S> In order to consider more variables such as sweep, dihedral, and different airfoils over the wingspan, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software is used. <S> ANSYS Fluent is one example. <S> There are many other packages out there, and anyone doing serious commercial airfoil design will have proprietary software and methods for this. <S> Of course, even in the days of supercomputers and CFD, wind tunnel testing is still very important. <S> Scale models can be tested to validate the computer models and demonstrate performance. <S> As far as requirements, they can get very complicated. <S> For aircraft, of course, the primary goal is to provide the lowest drag at cruise conditions. <S> However, many other factors include: Preventing flutter Provide room for sufficient supporting structure Provide room for fuel <S> Methods to manufacture the shape Good stall characteristics <S> No bad aerodynamics with fuselage and engines Enough lift with flaps for low landing speed Able to accommodate flaps, slats, spoilers, and ailerons <S> Tip treatment like winglets/raked tips <S> Wingspan must fit into available space (airport, hangar, aircraft carrier, etc.) <S> And probably many more. <S> Of course, the air speed and conditions will also affect the fuselage, empennage (tail) and its control surfaces, and engines, so this will also be taken into account. <A> XFOIL is a piece of free software that appears to be under at least semi-active development (latest update this year, nothing for two years prior). <S> I've never used it and know nothing about it; this was merely the product of a google search for " airfoil design ". <S> It hurt my brain, but not necessarily because it was bad - it's just complicated stuff. <S> The fun part about XPlane for design is that you also get to design or modify aircraft and fly them to see how the changes affect performance, handling, or other characteristics. <A> XFLR5 is fantastic sofware for airfoil design. <S> It is basically a graphical user interface for xfoil @egid mentioned. <S> It is very good for low Reynolds number flows, i.e. quite slow flying larger aircraft or model airplanes. <S> Here is a link to a quick tutorial on the software, and there are many other tutorials you will find on Google. <S> In the latest versions you can even design whole planes. <S> Larger companies will make use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software, which actually solve the governing equations of fluid dynamics for a selected model (Xfoil and XFLR5 solve other very much simplified equations) <S> Comercial CFD packages are however generally VERY expensive, although OpenFOAM is an open source package that is gaining popularity. <S> CFD is however a science of it's own and if you don't know what you are doing you are probably going to get useless results. <S> Regards <A> For a recent design task involving reflex aerofoils we tried to get some data out of this program from www.mh-aerotools.de. <S> There's both an applet and download, I wasn't able to run the applet but the download is decently extensive. <S> Your problem however is probably that any decently-sized aircraft manufacturer will have their own proprietary CFD software for the purpose and skilled programmers and aeronautical engineers to go with it.
|
XPlane has a feature called Airfoil Maker that I messed with once.
|
How/Where can I get additional weather information for flight planning? METARs, TAFs, the area forecast (FA), and flight service briefings are great tools, but if I'm planning a flight with an overnight stay (or a flight that itself might take me a couple of days of travel time) I often feel that the weather picture I'm getting is a little too short-term for my liking. Aside from watching The Weather Channel are there any supplementary weather sources I can look at which are useful for aviation/flight-planning purposes? I'm interested mainly in resources for the USA but answers for other countries would be interesting too. <Q> In Europe, several national meteorological services provide additional info (sometimes on a paid basis). <S> Some other services cater e.g. especially to glider pilots. <S> Examples: <S> http://www.flugwetter.de/ <S> ($) <S> DWD - Deutscher Wetterdienst Luftfahrt <S> (free) <S> http://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/web/de/services/aviatik.html ($) <S> http://www.nzz.ch/wetter/thermikprognose/ <S> (free) <S> http://wetter-jetzt.de/ <S> ($) <S> ... <S> There are also a number of private websites run by clubs and/or enthusiast pilots, e.g. http://www.schaenissoaring.ch/wetter_berichte.cfm?SelectedMenuID=154 or http://www.alpenstreckenflug.de/wettera.htm which offer excellent (curated) information, sometimes on very special conditions like mountain waves etc.. <A> In my eyes, it's always a good idea to call WX BRIEF the evening before your planned flight (if you don't know your registration at this time, the pilot's last name is sufficient) and ask for a outlook briefing. <S> Before you call check the TAFs and SIGWX charts available at http://aviationweather.gov/products/swl/ <S> so you have a good idea what the briefer is talking about. <S> These guys are really helpful and especially when you call in the evening hours they take a lot of time to discuss the weather situation with you and even answer related questions or suggest other weather sources which may be helpful for your particular operation. <S> For you who don't know WX BRIEF: it's a free number 1800WXBRIEF (18009927433) <S> you can dial in the US to get a standard, abbreviated, or outlook briefing. <S> This service is provided by Lockheed Martin flight services. <S> If you need help to interpret weather information you will find the answer to your question in Advisory circular 00-45G . <A> One tool I use which is not aviation-specific is the NWS/NOAA Area Forecast Discussion . <S> This is a text-based collection of notes from the forecasters at regional National Weather Service offices, and I've found them to be full of useful "tribal knowledge" about weather patterns in an area. <S> I've found the most useful sections are the synopsis through the long-term (about 1-week) discussions. <S> There is a brief aviation-specific section as well, which is also available on aviationweather.gov <A> The Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC), the United States National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Meteorological Service of Mexico (NMSM) have a joint project called North American Ensemble Forecast System (NAEFS) . <S> I've referred to it in the past to get some outlook on temperature and precipitation amounts more than a couple days in the future. <S> From the NAEFS site: NAEFS combines state of the art ensemble forecasts, developed at the MSC and the NWS. <S> When combined, the grand ensemble can provide weather forecast guidance for the 1-14 day period that is of higher quality than the currently available operational guidance based on either set of ensembles alone. <S> It allows the generation of a set of forecast products that are seamless across the national boundaries between Canada, the United States and Mexico. <A> The (experimental) High Resolution Rapid Refresh model is pretty awesome. <S> It's got a huge selection of plots and some aviation-specific filters. <S> It's not particularly forward looking, though. <S> Most non-aviation forecasts are going to be pretty low detail, unfortunately. <S> I would tend to stick with NOAA source data rather than third party stuff, as I doubt most websites are actually using custom climate models. <S> The NOAA Climate Prediction Center has an 8-14 day outlook composite that might be somewhat useful. <S> It has longer-term forecasts, but they often are graphical, low-resolution, and not of particularly great use for long term planning. <A> As you mention that you are interested for resource in other country other than USA, here is the TAF, METAR/SPECI for Hong Kong International Airport(VHHH/HKG), ang SIGMET for HKFIR(VHHK). <S> You may access them though http://www.hko.gov.hk/aviat/amt_e/wxobsfc_e.htm <A> It's paid content but <S> I have used them to help take my light plane across the country twice. <S> Considering the importance of weather, I think membership is a good deal relative to the other costs of flying. <S> I'm not affiliated, just a happy customer.
|
A good NOAA source you didn't mention is http://aviationweather.gov , which has a more classic aviation focus in its available data. the weather briefs from http://avwxworkshops.com/ are great.
|
What is the security policy for getting into a Control Tower in the US? Are there any regulations the FAA has ruled to get into a Control Tower? Do people need any special kind of security clearance? Are there forbidden items or other special rules? I'd also want to know if there's a way for non-pilots (your average civilian Joe) to get into a Control Tower. <Q> It is still possible (and in my experience not that difficult) to get FAA tower tours (and sometimes even TRACON or Center tours), though you should be reasonable in your expectations here -- You are probably NOT going to get a tour of the tower at JFK or LAX. <S> The FAA used to actively encourage pilots with an instrument rating (or pursuing instrument training) to sign up for ATC facility tours under a program called "Operation Raincheck" -- <S> This program is still running, though it's been substantially scaled back (Poke around on the FAA Safety Team's SPANS system , or sign up for notices in your area and keep a sharp eye out. <S> Tours usually have a very limited number of slots available, and they fill up fast! ). <S> (As an example of how quickly the slots fill up, when N90 (New York TRACON) last had a Raincheck event it was full within a few hours of being announced. <S> No, I didn't get a slot.) <S> The printed AOPA Airport Directory has facility numbers in it <S> but that's a little out of date. <S> You can also get the phone number from Flight Service, the local FSDO, or ask the tower/ground controller for the number if they're not too busy. <S> When you call the facility explain that you're a pilot/student pilot and would like to arrange to tour the facility (and if possible shadow a controller). <S> They will usually ask for your name, address, airman certificate number, and a few other things to run a check and get approval to let you in to the facility. <S> My experience arranging a tour of our local tower was extremely pleasant - they are happy to do the tours and let you shadow a controller, and I even got to pick their brains about some peculiarities in local procedures. <S> It's a great educational experience, and I would recommend it for any pilot/student pilot. <A> As @voretaq7 says, getting tours of LAX of JFK towers just won't happen unless you happen to fly for an airline with a base there <S> and/or are good at persuasion. <S> I've tried to negotiate a tower tour with the supervisor at LAX on short notice but he did indicate if I had a lot of lead time they might have been able to work something out. <S> The easiest way to get a tour in my experience is just to call and ask for someone to talk to to request a tour. <S> I've been in the tower cab at EWR, AUS and CRG and in the Austin TRACON. <S> All of those were arranged with a phone call, a social security number and proof of citizenship (all post 9/11). <S> It helps to mention you are a pilot and want to see how things work on their side. <S> Typically the tower guys are going to want at least one of you to be a pilot <S> and they'll want more lead time if you are bringing a group. <S> They'll also probably want to verify citizenship for everyone ahead of time <S> and you'll want to be up front if you have an non-US people in the group just so they don't get surprised when you show up <S> and they ask for passports or other ID. <S> Bring donuts. <S> I have also toured the San Angelo, TX FSS. <S> For those guys I was already on field and just called the briefing number and asked if I could walk over. <S> They were happy to have us <S> (I had a student with me). <S> If you want a tour of any facility, just call. <S> They'll tell you what they require and how and when the tour will happen and who you can bring. <A> I've arranged tours of two control towers (a class D and a class B) and a TRACON without any issues. <S> I was only required to provide proof of US citizenship, from what I remember. <S> You must turn OFF (not airplane mode) cell phones before entering the tower or active part of the TRACON.
|
At towered GA airports - particularly ones with a lot of flight training - you can also contact the tower directly. You will also be expected to have government issued photo ID with you when you show up.
|
Is a full traffic pattern required when there is no traffic at an untowered airport? If there seems to be very little traffic at an untowered airport, and no one's replied to any of your radio calls, is it acceptable to just fly a straight-in approach to the runway, or should you still fly the full traffic pattern to final? It just seems like it would be a waste of time and fuel when it's not really necessary. Is there anything wrong with doing so? <Q> See AC 90-66A - RECOMMENDED ‘STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND PRACTICES FOR AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS <S> AT AIRPORTS <S> WITHOUT OPERATING CONTROL TOWERS for information about uncontrolled airport traffic patterns. <S> It includes the following which says that while the FAA recommends using the full pattern, it is not required: 7. <S> GENERAL OPERATING PRACTICES. <S> a. Use of standard traffic patterns for all ‘aircraft and CTAF procedures by radio-equipped aircraft are recommended at all airports without operating control towers. <S> However, it is recognized that other traffic patterns may already be in common use at some airports or that special circumstances or conditions exist that may prevent use of the standard traffic pattern <S> And then: e. <S> However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic. <S> Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in approaches. <S> f. Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern SO as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic. <S> Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot’s intentions upon completion of the approach <A> I'd like to answer your question with a short example. <S> A few days ago I flew to Venice (untowered) and decided to make a teardrop entry to set up for the 45. <S> My calls were 10 and 5 miles out, both ending with "any traffic please advise. <S> " <S> Guess what I saw overtaking me on my 4 o'clock position only a few hundred feet away at same altitude (500 feet above pattern)? <S> It is legal to make a straight in, but before you think about the time or fuel you waste please think about your own and even the guys who's not on CTAF and obviously heads down safety. <S> If you fly the 45 and the continue the pattern (it's not always left, check your sectional and the A/FD) <S> everybody knows what the other one is doing and if necessary can act accordingly. <A> It is legal. <S> The left downwind pattern entry at a 45 degree angle is recommended in the AIM to standardize operations and is therefore not regulatory in nature. <S> However, the reason it's not a particularly good idea is that not all aircraft are required to have radios at a non-towered airport. <S> A traffic pattern is quite small compared to the en route phase or an instrument approach, there's not much time or fuel to be wasted. <A> Nobody on the radio does NOT mean no traffic. <S> You have IFR Arrivals not yet released by approach to tower frequency, and you have 100% legal no radio aircraft. <S> Fly the pattern so that they know where to look for you! <A> There are a few airports out there with this line in their AF/D page: <S> STANDARD <S> TFC PATTERN REQUIRED OF ALL ACFT. <S> Such as KMBT, as seen here. <S> Not sure how legally binding this is, but it is written. <A> It is recommended in the AIM and elsewhere that you use the traffic pattern. <S> However, the FAR requires only that you make any turns in the proper direction, not that you fly the pattern or enter the pattern on downwind. <S> Straight in approaches are not prohibited. <S> (91.126) <S> "Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.... <S> When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace... <S> Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right;" "Otherwise authorized or required" applies to circling approaches, in which turns may be made in any direction (opening up a whole new set of risks). <S> Safety and common sense may dictate that you fly the pattern as a matter of practice. <S> It is also safer to announce your position, and to announce "left (or right) downwind" and "left (or right) base", in case you or the plane you don't see happens to be going the wrong direction.
|
The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern.
|
Why the pitot tube is heated but the static port isn't? In some light aircraft, like a Cessna 172, the pitot tube is heated but the exterior static port isn't. The usual reason I've heard is that static ports are much less susceptible to icing, but why is that the case? <Q> When pitot heat is turned on in these aircraft the entire mast heats up, including the static port. <S> This characteristic would be the same on most aircraft with a combined pitot/static mast. <S> As for why most light aircraft don't heat the static port, there are two big reasons. <S> First, as you've heard, static ports are normally not located in areas susceptible to icing -- they're on the side of the fuselage in areas of relatively undisturbed air (on most of the Cessnas <S> I'm familiar with <S> they're forward of the doors, on other aircraft they're right around where the registration numbers get painted). <S> As Falk pointed out this means ice normally won't accumulate there. <S> As an additional protection some aircraft have multiple external static ports (connected to a shared static line) so that if one port does get iced over you still have a source of reference pressure. <S> Second, a static failure is relatively easy to deal with - particularly in unpressurized light aircraft. <S> Many unpressurized aircraft that are regularly flown in instrument conditions will have an alternate static source in the cabin (which is simply a valve that opens the static line to cabin air), or the traditional "break the VSI glass" solution can be used to get a mostly-working altimeter. <A> You'll find your answer if you take a look at the form of a pitot tube or other kinds of ducts <S> where pitot (or total) pressure is taken and compare it to the parts of the aerofoil where ice is prone to accumulate. <S> Ice will most likely form on the leading edge of thin surfaces in the airstream but not on the side of the fuselage. <S> If ice would built up there you will probably have some more urgent problems then switching to your alternate static source ;) <A> Because static ports are much less susceptible to icing , exactly as you said. <S> (Also because alternate static sources are available. <S> If your static port ices up, you can pull the lever for alternate static source, and get another air-source from inside the cabin) <A> To perhaps be a bit more clear on the "why" question, the opening of pitot tubes must face into the windstream. <S> By contrast, the opening of the static ports should be perpendicular to the wind stream. <S> Since the water that causes ice accretion is generally moving with the air, it will be constantly hitting the pitot tube opening, but not hitting the static port opening (or not nearly as much, at least.) <S> It is not by coincidence that pitot tubes are generally in locations where ice will accrete while static ports usually aren't. <S> It is instead a necessary consequence of each of them meeting their design goals. <A> The first spots where ice accretion occurs are sharp angles and spikes. <S> This makes the external thermometers and pitot tubes the first locations where icing occurs.
|
Ice doesn't normally accrete where the static ports are located unless you have a huge icing problem. Some aircraft DO heat the static port, if only by side effect: Piper PA28 aircraft (Cherokee/Warrior/Archer/Arrow ) for example have the static port located on the pitot mast.
|
What is the EASA definition of night time? EASA requires pilots to log separately night time and night landings in the personal logbook. Now, I'm not sure in which period of time a landing is a night landing and flight time is night flight time. I would appreciate your answer, maybe also with a trustworthy source. <Q> According to this handy document from EASA , night is defined as: …the period between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, or such other period between sunset and sunrise as may be prescribed by the appropriate authority, as defined by the Member State. <S> (The FAA and ICAO use a similar definition.) <S> You can get the Civil Twilight times from a convenient astronomical calendar , but ignoring the specifics, the same rule of thumb the FAA uses for purposes of night currency will likely work for you too: <S> Night starts one hour after sunset (Sunset being when the last of the visible sun disc drops below the horizon.) <S> Night ends one hour before sunrise (Sunrise being when the first of the visible sun disk breaks the horizon.) <S> This actually cheats you out of a few minutes of "night" on either side of the calculation, but it's conservative guidance if you're conservative in what you log you won't accidentally mess up and give yourself more night time than you're really entitled too <S> (i.e. you won't make yourself "night current" when you really aren't). <S> Note that I'm a US pilot -- since all my flying and training is based on FAA regs in the US if I'm completely off the mark and <S> any European pilots or CFIs want to set me right <S> it would be much appreciated :-) <A> For europe the night is defined in the standardized european rules of the air (SERA, VO(EU) 923-2012) in the following way: ‘night’ means the hours between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight. <S> Civil twilight ends in the evening when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6 degrees below the horizon and begins in the morning when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6 degrees below the horizon <S> You will find the latest version of SERA here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html <S> SERA definition is consistent with ICAO definition found in Annex <S> 6 Part I: Night. <S> Note. <S> — Civil twilight ends in the evening when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6 degrees below the horizon and begins inthe morning when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6 degrees below the horizon. <A> CAP393 UK <S> In paragraph (5) confirms "night time" as 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise.
|
The hours between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight or such other periodbetween sunset and sunrise, as may be prescribed by the appropriate authority.
|
Can gliders access restricted airspace? If I recall, in America there were several "Prohibited Access" airspaces and others required permission, via radio, to enter in a typical aircraft. But, what if I'm gliding over a restricted airspace? (Say, over the Capitol?). Would I be shot down (or fined, sued, etc.)? <Q> These agreements may permit them to fly VFR in Class A airspace to capture mountain wave lift, through TFRs, through Restricted airspace, depending on the terms of the agreement with the FAA. <S> In particular, in the airspace you mention near the Capitol, there is a TFR Waiver in force which permits gliders to operate within the Capitol TFRs . <S> This Waiver supersedes the TFR rules and the associated NOTAMs. <S> Furthermore, it permits gliders to even thermal inside the TFR if necessary for safety of flight. <A> It doesn't matter what category of aircraft that you are flying, the rules for restricted and prohibited airspace applies the same unless there is a specific exemption in a NOTAM for that, which I haven't seen before. <A> As Inafziger has already said, there is no difference between a glider and a conventional airplane. <S> However it is possible to fly with both types of airplanes into all kinds of airspaces, if ATC granted the entry. <S> In 99 per cent of the times they will require a transponder though, which only a few gliders have. <S> (I think most aerobatic gliders have one)
|
Since gliders have no engines, they are often permitted to operate under special agreements called Letters of Authorization, which permit them to operate where other aircraft may not.
|
What materials are plane windows made of? I've always wondered, what are those dual-layered (bonus: sometimes they have a little <2mm hole, why is it there?) windows commercial jets put next to their seats made of? <Q> This material is light, relatively strong (not shatter-proof, but it'll take a moderate beating) and has decent optical properties. <S> Its major drawback is "crazing" -- hairline cracks on the surface of the material that form over time from dirt, stress, temperature, UV exposure, and the like. <S> Bonus answer: <S> The little hole serves a couple of purposes, but the biggie is pressure relief/equalization. <S> This gets discussed over on airliners.net a lot and they've covered it pretty thoroughly. <S> Basically the hole ensures that the cabin pressure is pushing against the outer (primary, usually thicker) sheet of plexiglass, which is plug-wedged into the fuselage structure and can't go anywhere. <S> Should the outer pane be damaged the hole will also theoretically bleed cabin pressure off at a controlled rate - though how successful that equalization is would depend on your altitude (and thus the pressure differential between the cabin and the outside air) and the degree of damage to the outer pane. <A> Windows are either made of acrylics ( PMMA , brand name e.g. "Plexiglas") or polycarbonate ( PC , "Lexan" or "Makrolon") materials. <S> The small hole is there to provide ventilation and enable removal of moisture/condensation, but the hole is only in the thin protective screen on the inside. <S> The much thicker actual window that holds the pressure is (hopefully) not punctured. <A> Most windows (Boeing) are a triple layer of plexiglas -Cabin air circulates between panes for defogging -Except the windows found on cargo doors (electrical heat instead) -Elasticity is the main reason why they are strong - <S> Windshields are different, must resist to bird strikes and be heated -One inch or more in thickness and special optical corrections -A <S> windshield pane for a 727 was $10,000 in the 1980s...! <S> Note that some airplanes have two different Vmo -Because of windshield bird strike resistance -As <S> an example, some Learjets -Vmo (low altitude where birds are) is 305 KIAS -Vmo (high altitude, above FL 140) <S> is 358 KIAS - <S> I did fly as Learjet instructor in the early 1970s <S> -I was told the windshields of the 24/25 were "birdproof" -Could resist a 4 lbs bird hitting the windshield at 350 mph -I wondered if it could resist a 350 lbs turkey at 4 mph... <S> ?ROFL <S> - One note also about a fire axe -If <S> you wish to make a hole to escape, do not try windows -Windows <S> are extremely resistant -It <S> is better to use a fire axe against metal (fuselage skin) - <S> Look at UK-CAA airplanes and "cut here" frames on side of fuselages -Airfield <S> firemen are knowledgeable about not trying to "break" windows -And <S> would open fuselages within the "cut here" frame indications - <A> There is a term called Tg, glass transition temperature. <S> In PC this is around 150C. <S> Therefore the mobility in the PC molecular chains at RT are unmobile, which in most amorphous polymers would cause them to be brittle. <S> However due to the chemical bonding of PC this does not occur. <S> However, upon an impact, the stress energy resulting from a certain point will be transferred across many of the Polycarbonate chains. <S> Induced impacts can cause large amounts of stress, especially at the speeds we are talking about. <S> Therefore the holes are not only there as people have already said, for the equalisation of pressure differences, but it also a stress relieving point for the material. <S> Sources: I am a MEng Materials Engineer with experience in this field
|
Generally aircraft windows are made of what we colloquially call "plexiglass" of some kind (Lexan polycarbonate is common in light General Aviation aircraft, acrylic plastics are also used).
|
Are there advantages when operating with CG near forward or aft limits? If the center of gravity of an airplane is too far aft, it will become more unstable Iif the CG is too far forward, then drag will increase due to increased angle of attack. But what are the benefits to operating with the CG near the aft, or forward, CG limits? In what situations would one choose to do so? <Q> A CG near the aft reduces drag by reducing the necessary downforce that has to be supplied (usually) by the tailplane . <S> This is also a point for competition gliding (more often than not you have water ballast in the vertical tailplane to compensate for those love handles). <S> Aerobatic gliders sometimes feature aft lead ballast to enable maneuvers like tailspins which are not possible with a forward CG. <S> Aft CGs come with reduced stability, which can be a severe flight-safety concern (e.g. in case of unrecoverable spins ). <S> Some fighter aircraft feature inherently unstable aerodynamics (see super-maneuverability ) which offer great agility (e.g. turning rates), but need constant input by a flight constrol system (and woe if that fails , e.g. via Pilot Induced Oscillation ). <S> In extreme cases this can limit the maneuverability as well and cause a pancake landing (the tailplane can only produce so much lift/downforce before itself stalls, at which point it is no longer holding your nose up). <A> The main benefit of operating with an aft CG, as mentioned, is that it can measurably reduce drag. <S> This happens because less tail down force is required to maintain level flight in a given configuration. <S> As a result, you can burn less fuel to maintain the same speed (or increase your speed for no additional fuel burn) compared to a forward CG. <S> As long as you ensure you remain within your aircraft's CG envelope, you can test this out by having a passenger shift their seat aft while in cruise. <S> There are, of course, some safety concerns. <S> @yankeekilo's answer covers this thoroughly, but if nothing else it should be reiterated that an aft cg is inherently less stable. <S> A forward CG makes recovery from stalls much easier, and in some cases can make stalls much harder to achieve because the moment-arm of your aircraft's CG changes. <S> This change can leave the tailplane with insufficient input during slow flight, which is why you may never reach stall in the first place; it also makes landings dangerous as there may not be enough control range to flare. <S> If this happens, you'll wheelbarrow or porpoise the aircraft . <A> Advantages of forward CG position: <S> Higher stability, so less attention is needed to keep the trimmed aircraft straight and level. <S> If the aircraft can be made to spin, the spin is easier to end. <S> For taildraggers: The tail can be lifted up earlier during the take-off run. <S> For tricycle landing gear aircraft: Better stability on the ground. <S> Well, that's about it! <S> Advantages of rear CG position: <S> Less trim drag, because less downforce needs to be created at the tail and compensated by the wing. <S> Better maneuverability and lower control forces, because less control surface deflection is needed for the same excursion from the trimmed state. <S> Lower minimum speed, which translates into lower take-off and landing distances. <S> For taildraggers: More stability on the ground against tipping over. <S> For tricycle landing gear aircraft: Lower rotation speed possible at takeoff. <S> Note that shifting the CG more aft, behind the neutral position, will make the aircraft statically unstable and will increase trim drag again, because now the tail will operate at abnormally high lift coefficients which come with high induced drag. <S> The typical application for forward CG positions is a manually controlled long range aircraft which will fly in gusty weather. <S> Then it will be beneficial to have high stability. <S> The typical applications for rear CG positions are performance- or maneuverability-optimized aircraft like gliders or aerobatic airplanes.
|
A forward CG results in greater flight stability and reduced danger of sudden stalling, but also increased drag (because of the increased downforce required from the tailplane).
|
How can I get more details about information in a NOTAM? In doing some planning for an upcoming flight, I noticed my destination (a towered airport) has a NOTAM about the runway: "FICON PATCHY ICE". That seems rather vague, I'd like more information before departing. Who should I contact to get more details about the runway conditions and how it might affect my flight? <Q> What, you dislike the fact that the NOTAM about patchy ice is patchy in its detail? :) <S> Generally if you need more information about a NOTAM (in the US) you can check with: Flight Service While collecting your briefing ask if they have any more detail -- sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but it's worth asking. <S> A local FBO Particularly for <S> FICON <S> NOTAMs - A local FBO will usually know the condition of the field, and often have other useful info for you (like how much a heated hangar is going to cost you for the night). <S> Airport Operations Again, particularly for FICON <S> NOTAMs - These guys will usually have a pretty good picture of the field's condition, since they're generally the poor shmucks responsible for doing the snow/ice clearing. <S> I usually make the tower my last resort call - they're almost certainly going to be willing to give you as much information as they can, but they're also busy doing other stuff like dealing with planes taking off/landing/taxiing around <S> & they'd probably appreciate if we tried the other sources first. <S> The other folks I mentioned generally have someone sitting around to answer phones and questions. <S> In the case of Flight Service, that's basically their job :-) <A> Well this NOTAM really doesn't give a good impression of what's the actual condition is, but I appreciate you being keen to get some detailed information prior getting there. <S> You should consider to call the airport manager - find the number e.g. at skyvector, but I wouldn't wait until the date of your departure, as these people are sometimes not easy to contact and it needs several tries, but of cause the information, especially regarding this NOTAM, should be as up to date as possible. <S> A local FBO could also provide you with some more detailed information. <A> In such a case the best action would be to call the tower's published telephone number. <S> They will have more information regarding this notam (and might even have created it themselves) .
|
Failing all of those, you can also call the tower phone number at a towered field (you can get that number from Flight Service too) and ask them for details.
|
Where does the Oxygen for the emergency gas masks come from? Normal commercial jets drop gas masks when cabin pressure drops, and supply oxygen, but, where does that oxygen come from? Do commercial jets store oxygen? If they do, isn't pressurised oxygen very flammable and too hazardous to carry? <Q> The flight deck is always equipped with pressurized oxygen masks. <S> The chemical oxygen generators generate lots of heat when they are activated. <S> When normally placed in their overhead compartments the heat is slowly dissipated. <S> However, oxygens generators are hazardous when canisters are not in their appropriate place. <S> The ValuJet Flight 592 crash into the Everglades on 11 May 1996 was caused by a fire after improperly packed oxygen generators in the cargo hold were accidentally activated. <S> Pressurized oxygen bottles also are hazardous. <S> Not only because the oxygen can turn a small fire into a blaze but if the high pressure bottles explode they cause substantial damage. <S> On 25 July 2008 an oxygen bottle installed in a Qantas Boeing 747 ruptured and propelled itself upward through the floor into the cabin. <A> Airliners do not carry tanks of oxygen for the "rubber jungle" when the ox masks are deployed. <S> The oxygen is created by chemical reaction within canisters stored in the overhead that are not activated until the rubber jungle drops down. <S> This chemical reaction does create a lot of heat. <S> That's what caused the Valuejet fire and crash in the Florida everglades a few years ago. <S> The canisters were being shipped and were not clearly marked as hazardous cargo, and other safety steps were missed that may have inerted the canisters. <S> Given the many millions probably billions of canister-hours that these devices have been used over the years, I would conclude they are safe. <S> Given the disaster that happened when they were handled improperly for shipping, I would also say the airlines cannot lower their guard on shipping these apparently harmless canisters at any time, ever. <A> Wikipedia has an excellent article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_oxygen_system <S> In some cases the oxygen masks are connected to a central oxygen supply (or more accurately, a supply of breathing gas, containing a mix of oxygen and other gas). <S> The oxygen can also be generated using a chemical device , one for each oxygen mask or seat row. <S> Side note: <S> contrary to what many people believe, oxygen is not required during normal flight. <S> The outside air at high altitude still contains the same percentage of oxygen (21%) as on the ground. <S> The outside air is pressurized and fed into the fuselage, allowing normal breathing.
|
On commercial aircraft the oxygen supply of the masks in the cabin comes either from a chemical oxygen generator or a centralized oxygen bottle system.
|
What does it take to maintain a private pilot certificate? What, if any, requirements are there to maintain a private pilot certificate? For example: Do I have to renew my certificate after a period of time? E.g. annually, 5 years, 10 years Do I have to receive a minimum number of continued training hours? Do I have to fly a minimum number of hours? For instance, say I had enough money/time to go out and start the process of getting a private pilot certificate tomorrow, but I didn't plan to make use of it in the foreseeable future, would it cost me more in time and money than if I waited until I had plans to use it? This is assuming I live and fly in the USA. Related Question: How much, generally speaking, does it cost to learn how to fly? Edit: Note I understand the safety aspect of not practicing and "getting rusty", for lack of a better term on my part, and that practically a certain amount of retraining would be required (though it seems that it is not legally required). The retraining is not mandated and I would need to retrain until I felt proficient enough technically and practically. Retraining would include familiarizing myself with the controls, instruments, radio, physics, etc. My main concern was that (a) at some point I my certificate would expire and I would have to go through the process again, making the initial effort practically useless, (b) that I may have to pay a significant amount of money to keep the certificate from expiring, or (c) that I would have to commit to a certain number of hours (instructed or solo) per year to keep the certificate. <Q> But, you need more than just a license to fly. <S> To use your license, while flying solo, you also need a Medical Certificate (if required for the aircraft or flight rules) and a Current BFR (Biennial Flight Review). <S> Medical Certificates are good for 5 years until you're 40, then good for 2 years. <S> Its a quick trip to an FAA approved doctor to examine you for any obvious medical conditions. <S> A BFR is a review with an instructor every two years to make sure you're still proficient and safe. <S> If all goes well, it takes about 90 minutes. <S> However , if you want to fly passengers, you also need 3 landings within the previous 90 days. <S> If you want to fly passengers at night , you need 3 landings to a full stop, at night, within the previous 90 days. <S> If your 90-day landings have lapsed, you can quickly fix it with 3 trips around the pattern, taking off and landing each time <S> (touch-n-go during the day, or full-stop at night). <S> Then taxi back to the ramp, pick up your passengers, and go on your way. <A> The plain and simple answer to your updated question is that once you get your pilot license, it is good forever. <S> You can go 50 years without flying, and the license itself is still valid. <S> When it comes time to fly again, depending on the type of airplane that you want to fly, you will probably also need a medical. <S> Most importantly, in order to be safe , you will want to fly enough to be proficient and comfortable in the airplane so that you don't hurt yourself, others, or the airplane. <S> If you go a long time without flying, it can be almost like starting over. <S> In short, the additional training that you will have to do in order to become comfortable will end up costing you more in the long run, but you don't have to do anything to maintain just the license portion that you are asking about. <A> There is no simple answer to this question because it depends how much you fly and how much time you need to re-learn after not flying for a while. <S> A US private pilot's license never expires, but you do lose currency. <S> The recurring training requirement is in 14 CFR 61.56 : you must pass a biennial flight review (BFR) every two years, which consists of one hour ground school and one hour in the air with an instructor. <S> If you do not have a current BFR (or have passed an equivalent test) then you can't fly as PIC. <S> Apart from the BFR there is no requirement at all to fly regularly, nor is there a requirement to fly a minimum number of hours. <S> That's for solo day <S> VFR only; there are minimums if you intend to carry passengers, fly at night or operate under IFR (see 14 CFR 61.57 ). <S> So in an extreme case, you could get your license and not fly for 20 years. <S> Then you would 'just' need to pass a BFR to become legal again, with no need to do the theory and practical tests over again (a BFR is not a test). <S> But you would need a valid third-class medical as well. <S> The costs are impossible to estimate because it depends on how long your break from flying is and how quick you are to pick it up again. <S> If you don't fly for a year you might need a couple of hours with an instructor to be safe again, but if you don't fly for 5 years it's probably going to be much more time. <S> This is definitely one case where 'safe' is a lot more important than 'legal'. <A> All of the people here are correct. <S> Your license has no expiration date, but your medical does, depending on your age. <S> I personally went 15 years without flying. <S> This year I got my medical set and needed some time with an instructor to get the feel back for the plane. <S> I am back in the saddle after 7 hours with an instructor and the biennial flight review itself. <A> To answer your question simply with emphasis on continued cost. <S> There is no minimum hours required for life. <S> The only cost involved to become current is to hire a flight instructor for a flight review(FR). <S> This isn't required every 2 years, but you must have had a FR within 2 years of operating as a private pilot. <S> There is no test and no examiner for a FR. <S> The only requirement is one hour of flight and one hour of ground training with an instructor of your choosing. <S> The only other cost involved to operate as a private pilot would be a medical certificate from a designated medical examiner. <S> A private pilot can fly as a sport pilot without a medical under certain limitations. <S> If you have the money/time now, and feel that it would more practical/better investment than waiting for costs to go up, than there is very little expense you would need to spend later. <A> The limits being flying a legal Part 103 ultralight plane then you would need no license or time in air or medical check to resume flying. <S> I would advise you to take extreme caution as in any sport you lay off for a few years, you have a big surprise coming.. <S> Use it or lose it ! <S> The primery thought here is " Safety " yours & ours. <S> So just generally follow the rules & the aviation community will breath a little easier .. <S> RJ Muni
|
You will need to have a Flight Review within the previous two years that you will need to be able to pass (and you have to be proficient in order to pass it). A license, once granted, is good forever (barring some enforcement action). Your certificate never expires and never needs renewed.
|
Is there a dedicated emergency frequency? Coast patrol has a dedicated frequency for emergency that must be watched at almost all hours, and even if I recall, it had a "dead silent period" to prioritise whatever emergency might be reported. Is there a dedicated frequency for aviation? Or shall MAYDAYs just be sent to the standard ATC frequency? <Q> If a pilot is already speaking to ATC (or monitoring a frequency) they should continue to use that frequency for any emergency or abnormal situation. <S> If they are not currently receiving ATC services or on an ATC frequency, attempt to use 121.5. <S> Many ATC providers and enroute airliners monitor this frequency and can relay or provide assistance. <S> The FAA's AIM (6-3-1) describes emergency use of 121.5 in the United States: h. <S> Although the frequency in use or other frequencies assigned by ATC are preferable, the following emergency frequencies can be used for distress or urgency communications, if necessary or desirable: 1. <S> 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz. <S> Both have a range generally limited to line of sight. <S> 121.5 MHz is guarded by direction finding stations and some military and civil aircraft. <S> 243.0 MHz is guarded by military aircraft. <S> Both 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz are guarded by military towers, most civil towers, FSSs, and radar facilities. <S> Normally ARTCC emergency frequency capability does not extend to radar coverage limits. <S> [emphasis mine] <S> If an ARTCC does not respond when called on 121.5 MHz or 243.0 MHz, call the nearest tower or FSS. <A> This is monitored by many control towers and flight service stations. <S> It is also typically monitored by airplanes on cross-country trips (especially airliners). <S> You will occasionally hear ATC ask an airplane to try to contact another airplane "on guard" in an attempt to relay a message to an aircraft which they have lost communications with. <S> However, if you are currently in communication with ATC on another frequency, or there is a frequency where you know you can communicate your distress and it will be heard, you should use that frequency instead, because there is no guarantee your message will be heard on 121.5 in all parts of the country/world. <S> Older ELT's (emergency locator transmitter) also transmitted a siren type sound on this frequency when activated which sounds like this . <S> In addition, it is used as an intercept frequency. <S> In other words, if you get intercepted by a fighter jet, you better be listening in on 121.5 for any commands they give you. <A> However, there is a dedicated emergency frequency as Bret said (121.5 MHz), which is the same all over the world. <S> It's generally used if there is no response from the ATC facility the pilot was communicating with. <S> On many glass cockpits there's even a shortcut to tune to the emergency frequency. <S> For example, on Garmin equipment like the G1000 and G530/430 you have to press and hold the "flip-flop" key for 2 seconds and it will automatically tune 121.5 for you. <A> Canada has similar procedures to the US. <S> From the Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual , in the COM section: 5.11 Emergency Communications <S> [...] <S> The first transmission of the distress call and message by an aircraft should be on the air-to-ground frequency in use at the time. <S> If the aircraft is unable to establish communication on the frequency in use, the distress call and message should be repeated on the HF general calling or distress frequency 3 <S> 023.5 kHz, 5 680 kHz, 121.5 MHz, 406.1 MHz, or other distress frequency available, such as 2 182 kHz, in an effort to establish communications with any ground station or the maritime service. <A> If you have two radios it is a good idea to monitor 121.5 on your second radio. <S> You can set the volume slightly lower than the primary radio you are listening to. <S> Doing this allows you to hear ELT's (remember the old ELT's are not monitored by satellites anymore - just the 406 elt's) <S> So if you hear an ELT you can notify ATC and they can investigate it. <S> This has helped more than one downed pilot. <S> Also, if you are flying VFR and nearing a TFR, or other restricted airspace, you may get a call in the blind on 121.5 giving your position, direction of flight, and altitude readout along with a warning that you are about to enter, or have entered restricted airspace. <S> This call may keep you from having a violation. <S> If you are in the restricted airspace, the call will include a direction to exit the airspace and usually a frequency to contact for directions. <S> We all need to help and watch out for each other. <S> If you do this long enough you will make a call on 121.5 in error. <S> At that time all of the people who never make mistakes will point it out to you. <S> Just remember, by monitoring 121.5 you can keep yourself stay out of trouble and help someone else who has experienced trouble. <A> 121.5 MHz is the international civilian distress frequency. <S> It has been designated for emergency communication by an international agreement. <S> ICAO Annex 10, Volume V, <S> § 4.1.3.1.1 states that frequency 121.5 MHz “shall be used only for genuine emergency purposes” broadly covering the following activities: <S> The handling of an emergency situations; air-ground communication with aircraft with airborne equipment failure; search and rescue operations and the operation of emergency locator transmitters (ELTs); and air policing/interception action.
|
Yes, the aircraft emergency frequency (which we often call "guard") is 121.5 MHz. As a general rule, declaring an emergency should be done on the frequency you are currently communicating on.
|
Why are dirt and bugs on an aircraft so bad? It's noted in many POHs to keep your aircraft clean all the time, but is there a reason to this? Dirt hardly add any sort of weight to the aircraft, bugs are extremely small and other things such as cars easily move even when dirty as a mud pig. Does having dirt or bugs on your aircraft seriously affect the structure or performance signficantly? If so, why? <Q> For (modern) gliders with highly optimized laminar flow <S> airfoils , bugs (or dirt) are a non-negligible factor, especially in competition gliding. <S> There are some older laminar airfoils that are notoriously allergic to bugs (and rain), but all are to a certain degree. <S> This is also the reason why any glider pilot worth his or her salt will painstakingly clean their ship each afternoon and before each competition flight. <S> Sufficient bugs will degrade your performance by a noticeable amount - most gliding computers even have a special "bug" factor to include that into glide path calculation (even though the measuring and correllation of that is quite subjective). <S> I´ve had a few flights in somewhat biblically bug-infested conditions (summer, hot, low thermals) that more or less painted the leading edge black (like in this picture from an article on the DG Flugzeugbau website ). <S> Bug wipers are quite common on high-end and competition gliders and can be found e.g. at http://www.storka.at/ . <S> Or try to google for "Mückenputzer". <S> Of course bug wipers are not without drawbacks (concerning cost, installation, ease of use, drag etc.). <S> A friend of mine once stuck a banana peel on his wing and tried to remove that with the wiper, resulting in banana and wiper being stuck in the middle of the wing. <S> It took some creative maneuvers to clear that mess, by which time probably a lifetime aerodynamic benefit of cleaning had been spent. <S> As for the comparison with cars, their aerodynamics differ in a lot of ways. <S> In comparison to a wing there is no laminar flow to talk of at higher speeds (most of it is turbulent), which drastically reduces the influence of the surface smoothness on the drag produced. <A> One of the main reasons why it's not a good thing to have dead bugs on the windshield is that it becomes very difficult to spot other traffic. <S> Other planes are just little specks at a distance and when your windshield is covered with specks from dead bugs it becomes very difficult to spot another aircraft in the distance. <A> Bugs or other dirt can have several effects on a (light) aircraft: <S> It will have some effect on airflow, however slight <S> It may affect the paint or surface by corroding or leaving stains <S> It can block pitot tubes or other openings <S> The effect of dead bugs on airflow is probably negligible (frost or ice would be a different story), but a blocked pitot tube can be very dangerous because the airspeed indicator will read incorrectly. <S> Dead bugs on the windscreen may seem like a minor issue, but even a small blind spot could hide another aircraft and prevent the pilot seeing it. <A> A lot of bugs on the leading edge of a wing does significantly degrade performance. <S> Years ago I gave a lot of float plane instruction in a J3 with an 85 hp engine. <S> If the student was heavy and there were a lot of bugs, it wouldn't fly. <S> Clean off the bugs <S> and it would. <A> Mud dauber wasps are credited for at least two total losses: Birgenair Flight 301 and Florida Commuter Airlines Flight 65 . <S> Airfoil soiling can make a large difference to performance. <S> I don't operate aircraft, but I have operated wind turbines. <S> Older stall-regulated wind turbines can take a performance hit of 20% if they're not kept clean. <A> The first thought is possibly that a build-up of dirt/bugs on the surfaces of the aircraft would affect the smooth flow of air and thus affect the amount of drag produced. <S> This could, albeit quite slight, affect the flight characteristics of the aircraft. <S> There is a secondary thought, certain substances - especially bird poo - are quite corrosive and could therefore lead to more structural damage which is extremely hard to spot. <S> You should keep your car clean for much the same reason - however on a car <S> the worst you're going to get is a little rust spot on your bodywork. <S> In the wrong place on a aircraft that could be a corroded rivet or bolt. <A> A rough surface on the leading edge of the wing has a surprisingly large effect. <S> I tried to answer a similar/related question on the Skeptics site: Can a sandpaper-thick layer of ice reduce lift by 30 percent and increase drag up to 40 percent? <A> The worst thing is a perfect flat surface, as you get a bond of static air to the surface. <S> The flowing air has to pull away from this. <S> The best I have seen is when the wing surface has millions of small features which make the air turbulent - this is all on a macro scale at the surface. <S> The above flowing air rides over the turbulent air more freely. <S> Like a stack of steel plate on thousands of ball bearings. <S> Imagine taking the bearings away and trying to slide the steel across the floor! <S> Sharks do this, their skin has details which stop the flowing water sticking. <S> Another way is the repel the air molecules at atomic level from the wing surface - reduces sticking. <S> You use a high voltage electrode on leading edge to charge the airSo <S> the wing and the air now share like charges and repel each other - less sticking. <S> Thx for the opportunity to share odd memories of random facts from decades ago. <S> I have ran out of skill now and will probably not bother you again,, Steve <A> I know that the Supermarine company painstakingly blind riveted the leading edge of the spitfire wing as it proved faster. <S> They did a series of experiments some involving gluing split peas in rows to mimic domed rivets!
|
It can build up on windows and obstruct the view A heavy buildup of dirt could make the brakes less effective
|
Are there any LSA aircraft that can be flown IFR in IMC? Are there any LSA aircraft that are IFR certified? A LSA would be the perfect private commuter plane for an instrument rated private pilot. If not, what are the most cost effective airplanes that are IFR certified? Is there anything cheaper than a C172? Just to be clear: I am asking about aircraft that are IFR certified , meaning that they can be flown IFR in IMC conditions. I am also aware that there is a huge difference between different countries with regard to aircraft certification so my question is mainly about the U.S. <Q> Sorry to reanimate this rather old question, but I'm surprised none of the previous answers mentioned the Evector SportStar MAX, which has a model that is IFR equipped and which was available several years before this question was asked. <S> From its POH (section 1.2): <S> Certification basis <S> SportStar MAX complies with the ASTM F2245-07a Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane, issued by ASTM International Committee F37. <S> IFR version complies with FAR 91.205 requirements, ... <S> Here's a Plane & Pilot review of the IFR version, and here's a Press Release from Evector about this model. <S> Evektor followed the MAX model with the Harmony, and at least one place on their website suggests it too is available in an IFR equipped version. <A> There is at least one LSA that is approved for IFR flight: The Zodiac 650 (available as a kit, or a factory-built Special Light Sport Aircraft). <S> AOPA's Light Sport / Sport Pilot FAQ addresses this well <S> , so I'll just steal their answer: <S> Can I fly a special light sport aircraft (SLSA) in IFR conditions or at night? <S> Only day/VFR conditions are specifically addressed in the ASTM consensus standards that govern the production of SLSA. <S> Being that sport pilots and those exercising sport pilot privileges are limited to flying only in day/VFR conditions, this seems appropriate. <S> On the other hand, if an appropriately rated pilot (example: private pilot with an instrument rating) wants to fly SLSA under IFR or at night, the aircraft's operating limitations must allow it, and the aircraft must be equipped per 91.205 for VFR flight at night and/or IFR flight. <S> Additionally, 91.327(d) requires all SLSA to be operated in accordance with the aircraft's operating instructions. <S> Operating instructions differ from operating limitations in that the engine, airframe, and accessory manufacturers issue them; the FAA issues operating limitations. <S> An example of operating instructions is a SLSA equipped with a Rotax engine. <S> Rotax's operating instructions prohibit the use of a Rotax engine at night or in IFR conditions unless it is the FAA type certificated engine (14 CFR part 33). <S> Other engine, airframe, and accessory manufacturers might impose similar restrictions. <S> If you are appropriately rated and would like to operate a special light sport aircraft at night or under IFR, contact the manufacturer to determine if any provisions can be made. <S> (Note also that there were some rumors of the ASTM consensus standards changing at some point to require DAY VFR ONLY placards on new Special Light-Sport Aircraft -- <S> At this time I don't believe that's happened yet, but it might...) <A> Yes. <S> As long as the pilot is IFR rated with a medical certificate and the aircraft is properly equipped. <S> Including IFR certified lighting, avionics and power-plant. <S> The ASTM commitee voted to ban LSA flight into IMC, but that has not been approved by the FAA, as mentioned here . <A> A quick websearch leads me to believe that you can fly a properly equipped LSA on an IFR flight plan (eg: being directed by ATC), but you cannot fly an LSA into IMC. <S> IMC and IFR are not the same thing, and LSA's may be equipped for IFR flight, but they cannot be certified for IMC flight. <S> Sources: <S> LSA for Instrument Training? <S> Light Sport Aircraft <S> More info, April, 2017: <S> https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/04/17/can-you-fly-ifr-in-an-lsa/ <S> In summary, if you are an instrument pilot, and if you are current, and if you have a medical, and if you purchase an aircraft like the Bristell and register it as an ELSA, no regulation prevents you from filing and flying IFR including into IMC. <A> Yes. <S> Bristell has provided a legal path for this in the US. <S> The aircraft must be certificated as an ELSA, not an SLSA, and all the other IFR requirements must be met. <S> https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/04/17/can-you-fly-ifr-in-an-lsa/
|
More broadly, you can operate light sport aircraft under IFR (in VMC or IMC) as long as it's permitted by the operating instructions.
|
Why is 121.5 called "guard"? What is a "guarded" frequency and how does it differ from a frequency that's unguarded? <Q> Guard definitions: a state of caution, vigilance, or preparedness against adverse circumstances watch over in order to protect or control. <S> The AIM 6-3-1 (h)(1) says (emphasis mine): 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz. <S> Both have a range generally limited to line of sight. <S> 121.5 MHz is guarded by direction finding stations and some military and civil aircraft. <S> 243.0 MHz is guarded by military aircraft. <S> Both 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz are guarded by military towers, most civil towers, FSSs, and radar facilities. <S> Normally ARTCC emergency frequency capability does not extend to radar coverage limits. <S> If an ARTCC does not respond when called on 121.5 MHz or 243.0 MHz, call the nearest tower or FSS. <A> Two reasons: First, and most relevant today, all facilities are supposed to "guard" (monitor) the frequency if able. <S> Most ATC facilities and Flight Service stations monitor 121.5MHz, as do many airliners or aircraft with two radios. <S> Lnafziger already gave you the relevant AIM paragraphs that talk about this. <S> Second, "guard frequencies" in general radio terminology are frequencies that have extra protection in the band. <S> This is done for two reasons: to prevent use of the guard channel from interfering with other channels, and/or to ensure that the guard channel is always clear and that adjacent channels won't "bleed over" and render it unusable. <S> This mattered more in the days of tube radios with poor frequency alignment & confinement - modern radios bleed much less, but some frequencies are still afforded extra band protection. <S> 121.5MHz in the USA is guarded in both respects - monitored as Lnafziger describes, and afforded extra band protection (50KHz on either side, 121.425 - 121.475 MHz & 121.525 - 121.575 are unusable per AC 90-50 ). <A> I wonder whether it comes from the French, where the verb "guarder" means "to keep" or "to reserve" or "to keep in reserve". <S> A "guarded" frequency would then mean "a reserved frequency" which makes perfect sense. <S> Note that Mayday comes from the French . <A> From my days as a Navy communications officer, if you guarded a frequency such as 121.5MHZ you also had a transmitter set for that frequency as well as a receiver. <S> If you only monitored a frequency, you only had a receiver tuned to it. <S> We at least monitored both 121.5 and 243.0 any time we put out to sea.
|
It is called guard because everybody is supposed to listen/guard the frequency just in case someone has a problem.
|
What happens when an airplane gets struck by lightning? I know that they certify airplanes for lightning strikes (at least some of them anyway), but does it cause any damage to the airplane or to the electronics? Are there any required inspections if an airplanes is struck by lightning? <Q> The vast majority of aircraft require an inspection, from small Cessna singles to Boeing airliners. <S> Most of the time, the damage is easily visible as "burn" marks or erosion of parts of the skin. <S> A check of the communication/navigation systems, both visually and functional testing A check of all avionics, including GPS systems Propeller should be removed and inspected by an A/P for damage Engine should be inspected by a procedure similar to the following: Remove the engine from the aircraft and disassemble it. <S> Inspect the engine for arcing and heat damage to the crankshaft,main bearings, counterweights, camshaft lobes, bearings, gear teethand any other parts applicable to your engine. <S> Any magnetic partsshould be degaussed following the specific procedure in your manual. <S> Measure each other part to make sure it is within tolerances for your engine. <S> Reassemble, then install the engine. <S> (depends on company) <S> Send in an lightning strike report to your manufacturer Confirmation of compass being within 10 degrees of another (stricter for transport low visibility operations) after completion of repair/inspection works <S> Sources: <S> Cessna 172R Maintenance Manual Aero Magazine -- <S> Lightning Strikes: <S> Protection, Inspection, and Repair (Boeing, Q4 2012) Continental Maintenance and Overhaul Manual: M-18 <A> The one time that I was struck by lightning for sure (there with a couple of other times I wondered if I had) was in a Cessna 310. <S> Everything was working after the strike. <S> However, an inspection of the airplane afterward showed that the very aft end of the right tip tank had melted and then resolidified. <S> As I understand it, a lightning charge typically "flows" around the outside of a metal aircraft. <A> Airplanes are designed to withstand lightning strikes, since they are expected to experience this in service. <S> The goal is to conduct the current through the airplane while minimizing any damage this will cause. <S> Metal parts are naturally conductive, but composites need a conductive layer such as a metal mesh added to conduct the current. <S> The parts also need to be connected, or the current will arc across the gap, possibly damaging both parts or sparking a fire. <S> This connection can either be through properly installed fasteners like bolts or rivets, or through the use of bonding jumpers. <S> Fuel and electical systems in the aircraft require special attention. <S> In the fuel tanks, parts must be connected well without gaps to avoid sparks that could ignite fuel vapors. <S> Electrical systems must be sufficiently isolated to prevent lightning current from damaging them. <S> As this Boeing information shows , the protection required also depends on the location in the airplane. <S> Different parts generally experience lightning strikes in different ways, and need different approaches in design. <S> The Boeing page also includes a flowchart for deciding whether a system needs to be inspected after a lightning strike. <S> If the system was not used after the strike, it should be checked. <S> If the system was used after the strike, it only needs to be checked if the system had anomalies in flight or of there is damage near the antennas for that system.
|
Usually, they require at the very least: A visual inspection of the aircraft for damage, particularly the nose, tail section and wingtips.
|
When should the term "pan-pan" be used instead of "Mayday"? FAAO JO 7110.65 , §10-1-1 states that "pan-pan" can be used to indicate a state of urgency: a. An emergency can be either a Distress or an Urgency condition as defined in the "Pilot/Controller Glossary." b. A pilot who encounters a Distress condition should declare an emergency by beginning the initial communication with the word "Mayday," preferably repeated three times. For an Urgency condition, the word "Pan-Pan" should be used in the same manner. Under what conditions might a pilot use the phrase "pan-pan", versus "Mayday"? <Q> Oddly enough, the FARs and the AIM do not define these terms even though they use them frequently, but it is in the Pilot Controller Glossary (see below). <S> This is one of those areas that I've never really been given specific training on <S> and I guess figured that I would "know it when I saw it". <S> The definitions kind of support that since they leave it to the discretion of the pilot: EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition. <S> DISTRESS (MAYDAY)- <S> A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance. <S> URGENCY (PAN-PAN)- <S> A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition. <S> Flight Safety released a report titled Use of Standard Phraseology by Flight Crews and Air Traffic Controllers Clarifies Aircraft Emergencies which includes a quote from an official in which she says that there is a misconception among some pilots about the difference between declaring mayday and pan-pan: <S> I have observed many cases where a mayday is given when pan-pan should be sufficient. <S> Many pilots do not realize that this distinction is ATC's way of prioritizing two or more aircraft with an emergency at the same time. <S> She also included some of the most important factors to consider when deciding to declare an emergency: Is the aircraft in immediate danger? <S> Does the aircraft require immediate assistance? <S> Will the aircraft require priority handling during the approach or during any other phase of flight? <S> Will the aircraft need special assistance on the ground? <S> Does the crew need any assistance from other parties? <S> The most important thing though is not whether you declare exactly the right kind of emergency, but that you actually let them know when you need help. <S> Don't forget that you can also change your mind. <S> If you declared an Urgency condition and decide that you need more assistance/priority, you can always "upgrade" it to a Distress, and vice-versa. <A> The rule of thumb I was given when learning to fly (not in the US) was that mayday means "this aircraft is in immediate danger and I need assistance", whereas pan-pan means <S> "I have an urgent safety issue but the aircraft is not in immediate danger". <S> Put another way, mayday always means that your own aircraft is in distress, but pan-pan is appropriate for reporting other aircraft in distress, ships or other vessels in distress <S> , passenger emergencies aboard your own aircraft (someone has a heart attack and you need a diversion immediately) and so on. <S> But I think this is a rather grey area. <S> For example, a few months ago a passenger jumped from a light aircraft in Florida . <S> According to the definition I was taught, the pilot should have made a pan-pan call because there was no immediate danger to the aircraft. <S> In fact, he made a mayday call, which might still have been very appropriate because if the pilot was so shaken (understandably) that he needed vectors or other immediate assistance in order to land safely then the aircraft was indeed in danger, thus justifying a mayday call. <A> It might be worth remembering that both these terms have a nautical origin. <S> On the sea, pan-pan-pan (from the french en panne , meaning broken down ) usually meant that your engine was out and that you were drifting. <S> You were not in immediate danger but obviously, you could soon be hitting rocks or drifting into the path of other vessels with no way to alter your heading. <S> May-day (from the french m'aidez <S> meaning help me ) usually meant that you were sinking. <S> These don't translate to aircraft so well since planes can't generally drift along aimlessly for very long. <S> So probably the category for pan-pan is rather narrow. <A> Mayday should be used if you or any passengers on board are in danger and need immediate assistance. <S> Pan-Pan therefore informs potential rescuers (including emergency services and other craft in the area) that a safety problem exists whereas "Mayday" will call upon them to drop all other activities and immediately initiate a rescue attempt. <A> I know that in some parts of the world pan-pan-pan may be spoken after mayday-mayday-mayday to tell ATC and other pilots in the airspace that you have a problem, but want to solve it yourself (until further notice). <S> ATC would then clear the immediate airspace to allow the aircraft in destress to maneuver however it needed to and work the problem without lots of other people and variables getting in the way. <S> This actually happened on a Quantas a380 flight. <S> After a stopover in Singapore, as it headed towards Australia, an engine basically exploded, which cut fuel lines, hydraulic lines, etc (basically, it was baddd). <S> The pilots declared "pan-pan-pan" and eventually successfully landed back at Singapore.
|
Pan-Pan is used when a safety problem exists, which might not necessarily be related to your plane (eg if you see another aircraft/vehicle in danger or if you for example notice a fire on ground).
|
Why don't pilots always use autoland? In aeroplanes that are equipped for autoland and landing at an airport with a working and adequate instrument landing system for the conditions, why would a pilot choose not to use autoland? If I had to guess, I'd say it's due to some of the following: Autoland is stressful and labour-intensive for pilots compared with flying the plane normally down to the ground in VMC. Autoland produces less comfortable or otherwise "worse" quality landings. Using autoland is less fun or enjoyable for the pilots. The use of autoland is restricted by aviation regulations. But I don't have any sources to back up these claims. <Q> There are a number of reasons why pilot don't use autoland all the time, even if the airport and aircraft are equipped with the right equipment. <S> To name the two most important ones: Pilots need to practise their flying technique. <S> If they would alwaysfly autopilot, they would lose the skills to fly. <S> Skills that theyneed when the autopilot does fail. <S> Of course autoland needs to be practised as well. <S> Auto land requires very accurate ILS guidance. <S> Even if the airport isequipped with calibrated ILS Cat IIIb equipment (required forautoland), the signals will be degraded by traffic that is operatingnear the ILS antennas. <S> Under low visibility circumstances, whenpilots cannot land visually, traffic spacing is increased and groundvehicles are not allowed anywhere near the ILS antennas to ensure thebest possible signal quality. <S> This is a standard part of the LowVisibility Procedures (LVP) of all airports. <S> The downside of this isthat the capacity of the airport is reduced. <S> If autoland would beperformed while there is no ILS signal protection, the effects can be spectacular at best or fatal at worst. <S> Photo by BFU <S> , incident report here <A> ATC doesn't care if you are going to do one, but I have heard guys give courtesy calls to the tower letting them know they'd be autolanding. <S> The biggest pain with autoland is that it is a monitored approach. <S> My only experience with those are in Category II ILS approaches (though my aircraft did not have autoland capability). <S> Monitored approaches are higher workload and are briefed and flown differently than normal approaches <S> *. <S> As noted by another answer, when you are going to fly an ILS to cat II or III minimums, the ground controllers need to be protecting the ILS critical areas to guarantee the glideslope quality if you are going to follow it below cat I minimums. <S> This may require coordination with the tower controller. <S> Lastly, other pilots I've asked about autolands in Boeing widebody aircraft have all told me some variation of not liking to autoland unless they have to do one per company procedures. <S> * Feel free to follow <S> "What is a monitored approach?" <S> in another question and read more about specific question. <A> There is a percieved public belief that autolands are safer (and better?) than manual landings, neither of which I believe to be true. <S> ‘Better’ is a subjective quality, though I certainly pride myself to achieve smoother touchdowns than an autoland, the reality is an autoland is always rougher and more violent than the worst manual landing by any rookie pilot. <S> In fact, it’s quite an insider joke to tell the cabin crew <S> it was an autoland and blame it on the machine whenever I have a bad manual landing. <S> The word ‘positive landing’ was on the engineer’s minds. <S> ‘Safer’ , now that is the real point: autolands are a necessary evil, which we put up with in bad weather because we would not be able to land manually/visually otherwise. <S> I would argue the chance of the machine cocking up the approach is higher than a well-train pilot not being able to land manually. <S> People screwup or become incapacitated aswell, but the chance to manually save the aircraft from a malfunctioning autopilot at 50’ durring autolanding are slim at best: <S> On my a/c the PM needs to call ‘Flare’ or ‘No Flare’ at 30 feet , indicating to the other pilot that the machine is working correctly or not, in which case the PF must take manual action to save the day. <S> This in zero visibility, below 30’ (hopefully above the runway), in an aircraft flying 140kts and descending at +700 feet per minute. <S> And you ask why we don’t do that every day? <S> TLDR : <S> Autolands are not better nor safer than a well-trained pilot’s manual landing. <S> They are used when necssary, as a secondary option
|
There are phases of flight whereit is better or even required to let the autopilot do its job, butlanding is one the things pilot are allowed to and need to be capableof doing themselves. Autoland is typically only used when it absolute has to, which means when the weather dictates or when it needs to be used for currency requirements.
|
Why do some aircraft have multiple ailerons per wing? In a recent flight on an Airbus A380 I noticed that its ailerons are split into three segments which move independently. What advantages does this design have? Do other aircraft have split ailerons (or other control surfaces)? <Q> General Reasons <S> There are three main reasons for having multiple ailerons per wing on large aircraft: Aileron Reversal <S> On a large aircraft, at high speeds a deflected aileron can twist the wing enough to cause a net roll torque opposite to the one intended. <S> The further out on the wing an aileron is, the more likely this problem is to arise. <S> For high-speed aircraft, this necessitates an outboard/inboard aileron, with the outboard being locked out at a certain speed limit. <S> On the Airbus A380, the downwards motion of the outward aileron is locked out at 240 KIAS, and upward motion at 300 KIAS. <S> Systems Redundancy <S> Another issue is that on most large aircraft, it is simply infeasible to have cables running through the aircraft, so hydraulic systems are used instead. <S> Having ailerons split would allow for more redundancy of system failures, allowing more controllability in these failure conditions. <S> Load Alleviation Function <S> One of the examples of using this is in Airbus's Safety First magazine ( July 2012 ), where they use the flexibility of having three ailerons to tune out lateral accelerations in the rear of the aircraft changing the gains of each of the controls. <S> By being able to move the centre aileron a fraction after the inner aileron, they managed to avoid these initial shifts during flight testing of the A380. <S> Other Aircraft <S> The majority of airliners have multiple ailerons, however in some instances (such as the Airbus A310), there is no outboard aileron -- this function is replaced by spoilers. <S> Another example of using computers on multiple ailerons is the Boeing 747-8, with the use of the outboard aileron to fix issues relating to the development of flutter in certain extremes of the flight envelope, called the Outboard Aileron Modal Suppression (OAMS) system. <A> I don't know the specific rationale in this case, but if you think about mechanical advantage, the farther an aileron is out from the center of gravity, the more roll effect will have on the airplane. <S> You'll notice in the image that the outer aileron is deflected less than the inner aileron, even though they are probably producing roughly the same roll moment. <S> A benefit I see is that it undoubtedly reduces wing-loading at the far end of the wings, and therefore reduces stress/flex on the wing during turns. <S> This could be very important for an aircraft as massive and heavy as an A380, but less important for smaller aircraft where the wing-load is naturally less. <A> In case of the A380 I've read in the FCOM that they don't deflect all ailerons at the same time for passenger comfort and the ailerons are used to dampen out wing oscillations e.g. caused by turbulence. <S> The A330 has a split aileron as well.
|
Building on what Bret Copeland has already discussed in his answer, multiple ailerons can be used by fly-by-wire computers to flex the aircraft's wings in a specific manner to allow for less loading on the wing during cruise (counteracts the wing's natural tendency to flex upwards), as well as allowing for dynamic turbulence alleviation.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.