FAQs - Email Collections 8

Home I FAQS I Gallery I Links I About Me I Airlines

Frequently Asked Questions - Email Collections 8

1.   Question regarding ETOPS from Anchorage.
2.   Encountering turbulence - will a Jumbo drop 500 to1000 feet?
3.   More on turbulence - how severe is this experience?
4.   What an experience - landing on a wrong Airport!
5.   Why are there no winglets on the Boeing 777's?
6.   Why Boeing 777 has no critical engine and what is an aft loaded wing?
7.   Airline pilot, a very responsible and noble profession - an insight by a medical scientist.
8.   Are the Boeing 777 engines prone to ground strikes?
9.   What are the altimeter setting procedures?
10. Does Boeing plan to retool the Boeing 737 to improve the its safety reputation?
11. Is it acceptable for pilots to have high blood pressure?
12. Are there electrical sockets for my Laptop computer in the Boeing 777?
13. Some technical questions on the Boeing 777's and Airbus 340's.
14. Do you use the arm rest when you fly the Boeing 777?
15. How to differentiate between a Boeing and Airbus airplane?
16. Technical question - Why V speeds vary with altitude, temperatures and air pressures?
17. Technical question - Which take off flap is more suitable?
18. Can you speed up by flooring the throttles at 35,000 feet and can I fly with a burst ear drum?
19. The Boeing versus Airbus debate - how about some balanced views?
20. Changing from MD-11 to Boeing 777 - what are the considerations?
21. Where is seating at 33H and 33J and can I view them?
22. Where is the Turn and Slip Coordinator and transition point for CAS and Mach Number?

1. Question regarding ETOPS from Anchorage.

Sir,

I am hoping you can help me out (and respond within a couple days' time). I am currently in my last semester of my college career (yippee!), and have to give a persuasive business presentation next week. The topic that I will be doing is why the made-up airline charter company I invented, with Anchorage as a hub and serving cities all over the globe, should purchase B777's instead of A340's to serve on long range routes. Sydney, Auckland, and
Honolulu are among some of the cities.

I am trying to make it as realistic as possible and am wondering: Would a B777 be able to serve any of the above three cities non-stop from Anchorage in light of ETOPS requirements? It's not a big deal, but am just curious and would like to give factual information in my presentation. Thanks for your help!

Sincerely,

Lee Wilson
Anchorage, Alaska

Hi Lee,

Tough job selling your idea as a 'new CEO' of this new Airline Charter Company eh :-) ? Okay, if your hub is in Anchorage, it is a little problematic using the Boeing 777's. You may loose out a little to the Airbus 340's because they have 4 engines and ETOPS is not a problem to them. I don't have an updated chart of the Pacific Oceanic area to give you an accurate picture of the suitable airports between Anchorage and Auckland. The Boeing 777 has an ETOPS approval up to 207 minutes.   The critical area is between the Anchorage and the Hawaii sector.   If you can use the Midway Islands, then your ETOPS problems are solved. Do an exercise yourself! If all the suitable airports are within the 207 minutes circle or 1500 nautical miles radius, you have no problems flying non-stop to Sydney, Auckland and Hawaii as far as ETOPS requirements are concerned.

For your information, on the 17th of last month (March), a United Airlines' B777 carrying 255 passengers flew over the mid-Pacific Ocean against strong headwinds for 192 minutes under one engine power to land without incident at Hawaii. Boeing confirmed that it was the longest one engine diversion during ETOPS segment since the advent of transoceanic twin-engine flights 20 years ago by a TWA B767-200. The B777 departed Auckland bound for Los Angeles. The planned 180 minutes from the ETOPS alternates was exceeded as they encountered stronger headwinds during the diversion.

Now, you got a choice to purchase the following Boeing 777 series with the ranges given below:-

(B777-200)      5,210 nm ( 9,650 km)
(B777-200ER) 7,730 nm (14,315 km)
(B777-200LR) 8,810 nm (16,315 km)
(B777-300)     5,950 nm (11,030 km)
(777-300ER)   7,175 nm (13,290 km)

Take your pick!

Read about the advantages and issues of the Boeing 777 versus Airbus 340 in my previous FAQs.

Good luck to your presentation!

Regards,

Capt Kay.

2. Encountering turbulence - will a Jumbo drop 500 to1000 feet?

Hello,

I have one fear when it comes to flying. Encountering turbulence and the plane dropping 500 to1000 feet all of a sudden. Is this very possible for a jumbo jet? How likely is this?

Chris Dunn
Senior Account Manager
SFG International

Hi Chris,

It is not very common for a Jumbo jet to drop 500-1000 feet suddenly. For
example, when a Boeing 747 is cruising at 35,000 feet, it is usually controlled by an autopilot. It maintains the height very accurately, even in turbulence. In all my life of flying (about 20,000 hours now) I have yet to experience a turbulence that had caused my airplane to drop anything like the altitude you described. Yes, I have experienced severe turbulence but they were only for a very short duration.

I have read that it is possible to be caught in an up or downdraft, producing quite great drop in altitude. That could only be encountered inside a very severe thunderstorm. No sane pilot will ever fly intentionally inside such severe weather condition!   My answer is that, it is very unlikely for you to encounter this in your normal air travel.

Regards,

Capt Kay

3. More on turbulence - how severe is this experience?

Hello,

Thank you so much for your great site! I have some questions for you.

I am wondering what CAN happen to a plane in the air, for instance, I was flying this weekend and we had turbulence like I've never felt before. We are talking about full-fledged amusement-park-ride antics... no joke! We were holding onto our seats and praying, holding hands. People were throwing up! I was bargaining with God. It was probably the most scary experience I have ever been in my entire life! The wind was batting us around like we were some little piñata. We did the dips where you felt like you're losing your stomach, the speed varied a lot, we went higher, lower, side to side! It was CRAZY! and of course, we were incredibly freaked out.

We got within 13 miles of our destination and had to turn around and go back to Chicago because the pilot said it was too dangerous to land. There were thunderstorms coming in. It was insane. We landed back at our point of departure. It was after midnight. They said they've got another plane all fueled up and ready to go. We heard the weather had moved east and it would be okay.

In the meantime, at the airport we were told that for our ride home, we needed to change crews, and that's why we were late. Nice lying tactics! ANYWAY, after an hour of waiting for a new plane, the Captain came out and talked to us and told us he was too tired to fly back. They tried to call up another Captain at home. They could not and had to cancel the flight.

So, my questions are:

1) How close were we to something REALLY going wrong? Someone was talking about wind shear and how these planes weren't meant to withstand it. (Boeing 737, I think, 6 seats across, 1-hour flight). I mean, what can possibly go wrong in the air? Can we get battered around and have the wings snap off? What's the REAL scoop?

2) Was this the pilot's incompetent? Why did they send us up if they KNEW there were storms?

3) What would you guess was the severity of this - severe? extreme?

Thanks so much for your time,

J Dolce

Hi Jessica,

I do empathize with your predicament that you were caught up with. As a pilot, I must confess that a bad turbulence is really a bad experience and I always steer clear of them whenever I could!

To answer your question, I can assure you that the airplane is fully capable of taking the turbulence without the wings snapping off (I have said this a number of times in my other answers to many previous FAQs!). Of course, it must have been very uncomfortable to be thrown about.   If you were securely fastened to your seat belts and the overhead luggage doors were locked, you could say that your turbulent flight was similar to an amusement-park-ride and nothing more!

It is difficult for me to judge if the pilot was competent or not. If your flight were a short sector of about one hour, it would usually depart as scheduled. Depending on the type of weather that is forecasted, a flight in the vicinity of a thunderstorm or microburst can be very turbulent. It is up to the pilot to avoid them.   What happen if the thunderstorm is exactly overhead the airport? The pilot is usually informed of turbulence by the Air Traffic Information Service or if he is flying with a wind shear warning equipment, he could avoid the turbulence by aborting the landing or divert to another Airport.

I would access the turbulence you experienced as 'severe'.

Regards,

Capt Kay.
Thanks so much! This is a VERY thorough answer and I will pass it on to my friend who flew with me. One final question, can turbulence ACTUALLY cause any harm? I mean what would be the WORST CASE SCENARIO? I can't find this sort of information anywhere and I figured you would probably know. I understand that I was safe in the circumstances I was in... and I know most fatalities happen because individuals are not belted in. But, what CAN happen? Could we go into a nose dive? Could the wings be damaged? Could we somehow flip over? Or are the ONLY dangers in planes happen during take-off, landing, climb and descent?
Thank you so much for all your time and attention!

Jessica

Hi Jessica,

A severe turbulence can cause injuries to crew and passengers if they are not fastened to their seat belts. The airplane will not nose dive because is designed to be very stable horizontally and laterally. It will follow any updrafts or downdrafts in severe turbulence but it will still remain in level flight. The wings will not be damaged nor can it flip over. However, during the approach to landing phase of the flight, a severe wind shear quite close to ground can cause an airplane to crash. All pilots have been trained to abort such a landing if an approach is not stabilized by 500 feet. The Boeing 777 has a wind shear warning system to warn pilots of severe turbulence during approach to land. Please read my previous FAQs on Wind Shear.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

4. What an experience - landing on a wrong Airport!

Hello,

I tracked down your Website whilst looking for images of the Boeing 777's. Congratulations on being so informative. I love airplanes, its probably has something to do with the fact that I grew up practically below a flight path.   We lived in Stanwell, a small village, bordering the perimeter of Heathrow Airport.

I shall be traveling to New York later this week (first time), and a little anxious as the furthest air travel was to Portugal with Air Luxo, two years ago.

As the airplane was coming to land at Gatwick, the passenger behind mentioned that he was sure we were flying over the Vauxhall Car Plant at Luton!    It transpired that it was indeed Luton although the pilot had announced a few minutes earlier that we were landing at Gatwick and gave us a brief weather report. The plane landed and all passengers removed their luggage and were preparing to disembark.   The weather outside was atrocious and I was quietly relieved that we had landed safely.   The aircraft doors opened and a member of the ground crew entered the airplane and spoke to the Captain. Meanwhile, passengers were up in the aisle waiting to exit. After some time, the Captain announced that we had landed at Luton by mistake! We had to refuel and return to Gatwick.
As you can imagine, being slightly nervous, coupled with the weather conditions, I had no desire to fly again - tempting fate was uppermost in my mind.  Several passengers asked if they could disembark at Luton and catch a coach to Gatwick. Understandably, our confidence in the Airline and crew were low.   I am pleased to say that we returned home safely - the two and half journey from Portugal to the U.K. was in fact 5 hours, and just to complete the fiasco, our flight number on the arrivals board was Flight No ???, Luton to Gatwick! Relatives waiting to collect us at the gate were confused. We looked so tanned and healthy after spending two weeks in Luton!

Is this a one off experience?

Many thanks.
Caroline.

Hi Caroline,

Thanks for sharing your experience. The Captain should have informed the passengers that he was diverting to Luton, but I believe he forgot to do so as he was busy.   He could not have mistaken Gatwick for Luton for they are quite far apart! So his excuse for mistaking the Airport, if it is true, is a serious matter where navigation is concerned!

Regards,

Capt Kay.

5. Why are there no winglets on the Boeing 777?

Hello,

Why doesn't the Boeing 777 have winglets?

Razaq

Hi Razaq,

This topic is also covered in my previous FAQs and here are some more information .

Basically, winglets reduce wingtip vortices, the swirling airflows formed by the difference between the pressure on the upper surface of an airplane's wing and that on the lower surface. High pressure on the lower surface creates a natural airflow that makes its way to the wingtip and curls upward around it. When flow around the wingtips streams out behind the airplane, a vortex is formed. These twisters represent an energy loss and are strong enough to flip airplanes that fly into them.

Winglets produce a good performance boost for jets by reducing drag, and that reduction could translate into slightly higher cruising speed. The Boeing 747-400s have winglets. The Boeing Business Jet, a derivative of the Boeing 737, has a set of the firm's eight-foot winglets as well.
After the energy crisis in 1976, Richard Whitcomb, a NASA aerodynamicist, in a research, compared a wing with a winglet and the same wing with a simple extension to increase its span. As a basis for comparing both devices, the extension and the winglet were sized so that both put an equal structural load on the wing. Whitcomb showed that winglets reduced drag by about 20 percent.
A wing with high aspect ratio will provide longer range at a given cruise speed than a short, stubby wing because the longer wing is less affected by the energy lost to the wingtip vortex. But long wings are prone to flex and have to be strengthened, which adds weight. Winglets provide the effect of increased aspect ratio without extending the wingspan.
If winglets are so great, why don't all airplanes have them? In the case of the Boeing 777, an airplane with exceptionally long range, the wings grew so long that folding wingtips were offered to get into tight airport gates. Dave Akiyama, manager of aerodynamics engineering in Boeing product development, points out that designing winglets can be tricky because they have a tendency to flutter. And so the computer came up with a Boeing 777 wing design that did away the winglets and fly just as efficiently.
Regards,

Capt Kay.

6.   Why Boeing 777 has no critical engine and what is an aft loaded wing?

Hello,

I have two more questions.   Why the Boeing 777 has no critical engine and what is a aft loaded wing?

Razaq,

Hi Razaq,

Unlike propellers aircraft, there is no critical engine in the right sense of the word because both the engines of the Boeing 777 are equally important. In a propeller aircraft, usually one engine is more critical than the other because both the propellers turns in the same direction.   As a result, when an engine fails, it is more critical and difficult to control on one side than the other.   That is why they have a critical engine, usually the right engine, I believe ( I have not flown a propeller aircraft for quite sometime now!).



Aft loaded wing refers to where the lift force acts on a wing. If you were to look at a side profile of a wing called an airfoil, you could see the distribution of the pressure acting over the shape. On most traditional airfoil shapes, this distribution tends to be concentrated towards the forward portion of the airfoil.

While these sorts of airfoil shapes worked well on planes up through the start of World War II, they were not as efficient on newer aircraft that approached the speed of sound. On high speed flight, shock waves start at about Mach 0.7 and they result in large increases in drag. They may interfere with control surfaces thereby drastically degrading a plane's performance. A new kind of airfoil called the supercritical airfoil was thus designed. As the pressure is distributed over the surface of a supercritical airfoil, the pressure is distributed much more evenly with a large portion of the lift concentrated towards the aft end of the shape.

This supercritical airfoil is thus termed as 'aft-loaded' because the lift force is more significantly 'loaded' onto the aft portion of the shape. When Boeing refers to the Boeing 777 as having aft-loaded wings, what they are implying is that this aircraft use supercritical airfoils. This is because the cruise speeds of the aircraft is around Mach 0.84. These aft-loaded wings are more efficient than a conventional wing because they reduce or delay the adverse effects of shock waves in transonic flight.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

7. Airline pilot, a very responsible and noble profession - an insight by a medical scientist.

Dear Capt Kay,

I have spent a few hours reading your highly interesting and informative website about aircraft and flying. I like to recommend this site to all my friends. I always like flying, but unfortunately I am now only eligible to fly as a passenger, which I did on numerous occasions with Malaysia Airlines and others. In your website which I visited with interest, I was more interested in the technical aspects of an aircraft, such as its take off, cruising, and landing speeds, weight of an aircraft, fuel consumption, force, thrust, the energy expended by a jet engine, nature and caloric values of the fuel, fuel consumption, dangers of flock of birds in the path of an aircraft, meteorology, aerodynamics, physics of flying, navigation, instrumentations, cosmic rays, ozone depletion, air and noise pollution, acid rains, oxygen deprivation, medical effects under hypoxic environments, sleep deprivation and circadian rhythms, haemodynamics, cardiac and pulmonary functions, hematological responses, bone marrow, and spleen feedback mechanisms, ventilations and pulmonary diseases, and Legionnaire’s Disease by Legionella pneumophila, on the incidence and epidemiology of neoplastic diseases (cancers and tumors), and degenerative disorders among pilots and crew members due to free radical damage and increased cosmic rays exposures.

Other areas I have in mind are the problems about congenital defects and the mental intelligence of babies born to pregnant air-stewardess under chronically low oxygen tensions, and cosmic rays damage. Then we also have the problem of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), neuro-motor responses, mental and psychological functions with rapid time changes, and sleep deprivation, all other medical as well as aircraft emergency situations, and much, much, much more I could list out the entire night till morning. Unfortunately not all these aviation dynamics, and medical problems I was so keen in, were posted in your website. Do you want me to help you in the medical areas? It is very easy for me.

You see I was a Government medical scientist and a research doctor. So all these technical and scientific information about piloting, about aircrafts, also intrigue me tremendously. Because of my scientific background, I have great love for physics, astronomy and mathematics, besides medical research and medicine. In fact physical sciences like physics, mathematics, astronomy, space travels, problem-solving scientific and mathematical puzzles are my very, very, hot passions in life, not those cool, and sissy subjects like biological and medical sciences. It is very unfortunate an ill wind blew these disciplines into my face.

Congratulations for your very informative and great work. I spent hours reading them, and was grossly engrossed in your aviation dynamics, and not in patho-physiological dynamics or haemo-pulmonary dynamics of medicine or physiology.

I think being a pilot is a tremendously responsible and exciting job, more noble than being a doctor or a biological / medical scientist.   As a pilot, you have the lives of hundreds of people sitting behind you who are all going to depend on you, your skills, and your experience in bringing them all up to 10.6 km (35,000 feet) into the air, hurtling them like a missile at near 1,000 km per hour, and yet you must pilot them safely to their destination in the most assuring, shortest, and fastest possible way. What a noble, responsible, and dramatic profession that is !   The lay public hardly can see this, and recognize this great responsibility. As a physician myself, only one life at a time depends on you, and if a doctor makes a mistake, only that life is lost. It will not affect others. There is nothing great about that, or being a doctor. It’s very boring job, especially when we sometimes get abusive, demanding, uncooperative and ungrateful patients.   But being a medical researcher at the same time, our responsibility spirals even far, far, higher than that of a jet plane. The burden is even far more extensive and heavier than being just an ordinary practicing doctor or even a pilot.

Imagine this scenario. A research doctor or scientist who is supposed to be far more intelligent, more brilliant, and has much higher thinking power and qualifications,   would be far more responsible. Think now of this picture. A medical researcher was asked to investigate on a certain problem about a certain drug, or a certain modality in the treatment protocol. But, he made a wrong design, or a fatal move in research and discovery. He then publishes the findings in a prestigious scientific / medical journal, and the editor did not even reject his paper. That piece of work is going to enter into all the medical libraries around the world, and that method or discovery is going to be taught to all future practicing doctors by universities around the world. The repercussions are like a nuclear chain reaction. The researcher’s name is going to appear everywhere. He is being hunted by every newspaper, radio, television and popular magazine.   His work is going be quoted and quoted over and over again in the references of subsequent medical and scientific journals. He is being sought after everywhere. He is invited as a very eminent guest speaker, and a paper presenter everywhere, and at every international scientific conference. He appears at public forums and at invited talks. His work is being discussed in the academia, and in the scientific / medical circles. He becomes an extremel  glamorous personality, perhaps admitted as a Fellow of a Royal Society, or even a Nobel Laurate. He becomes an icon in the high towers of the academia, and yet ironically he is not being recognized and appreciated as somebody by the lesser, and much lesser informed ordinary man-in-the street, who obviously being   not in the scientific circle, do not know all that. But unfortunately his findings was faulty and to a large extent wrong.

You can now imagine the repercussions this will have on the lives of, not just one patient, but on billions of people and patients around the world who are going to be subjected to that method of treatment or discovery that is going to be administered routinely by their future doctors. The ordinary and common doctors themselves are all going to depend on that piece of erroneous work, and information published by the researcher. No where else can doctors get scientific information except from published work in the journals, although unfortunately these days, extremely sad to admit, many of the less informed doctors and even physicians, depend entirely on drug companies, and drug salesmen who seem to know much more than them, to brain wash them with their products. The doctors   are being impressed, and brain-washed by these ‘evidenced-based’ data,   but wrong data ? There is no way they can check. Their training and mind-set is like that. The result is devastating, and I need say no more.

So the responsibility of a research scientist is obviously far, far, far, far, higher and greater than that of an ordinary practicing doctor who does only routine work based on all these information. The only exception are the university professors and senior lectures and readers of medicine who are well-informed. The public does not realize this.   The only safety valve we have here is that, the method is going to be checked and verified by other researchers many times over in terms of safety and efficacy before it is approved and recommended for practice. So there are some consolation here. These are safety features we can depend on, just like those safety features in an aircraft w e can rely heavily on. All these, plus the very heavy responsibilities of an airline pilot, the ordinary people in the street cannot see and appreciate. At least the safety of a life-saving procedure, whether in medicine or in aviation is being checked, and rechecked by many other people on the ground who are highly qualified, skilled, and critical. I think in this context, aviation physiology and aviation medicine as applied in space travel is the most exciting field of all sciences I can ever dream of.

But in the case of an airline pilot, we have no choice once we are in the air. We have to be contended with just one pilot, one or two first officers, an air-worthy aircraft, and then have hundreds of passengers sitting behind a large aircraft, like the Boeing 777 you are now flying. They will all be flying at the mercy of that Captain.   You are in command of that aircraft as a Captain, with your first and other flight officers only second in command. If the captain makes a gross mistake, or does a insane act, or purposely wanting to crash that plane for some ill-informed religious beliefs, or hearing mad voices, well, all those few hundred lives, including the pilot, and all his colleagues are going to be lost into eternity.

Back to being a pilot.   All those lives in the plane are going to depend on just that handful of cockpit crew, with the Captain bearing a very, very, heavy responsibility, short of some lunatic people in the plane. Under ordinary situations, if that aircraft and all the lives in it are lost, it is all because of some ill or misguided information (like wrong research data), wrong flight instructions,   instrumental or mechanical failures, so I believe.

Your job as a Captain, I believe, is a very saluting,   and a very noble one. I have always wanted to take off in life as a pilot, but somehow very high velocity cross-winds blew me off course, and very powerful head winds slowed me down. I wished there was a tail wind encouraging, and speeding me forward. I could not navigate back despite steering against these natural forces.   It only forced me to make an emergency landing on the wrong runway at the wrong airport. So that’s where I landed. Now I find solace only in seeing a plane taking off majestically like a huge screaming bird, and sometimes sitting inside only as a passenger. Otherwise, my only joy in life now is   doing astronomy as a hobby if the sky is clear. In some ways,   positional astronomy is very absorbing like navigation, and direction finding by the stars. My other joy is in music as an amateur violinist, my involvement in symphony orchestras, and to a very small extent, giving some comfort and assurance to my patients. These give me some peace.

I think being a pilot is a first class profession, other than me wishing to be an astronaut, an astronomer or a concert violinist.

Lim Ju Boo

BSc, Postgrad Dip Nutr (Lond), MSc (R’dg), MD, PhD (Med), FRSH (Lond), FRSMed (Lond), DSc (Int Medicine)
Malaysia

Dear Dr Lim,

Thank you for the lengthy email and your opinion as to the responsibility and nobility of the pilots profession. I think the medical profession is even more noble - look at Dr Carlo Urbani who sacrificed his life for the recent SARS research.

You have mentioned a long list of topics which were not included in my Website. Unfortunately, I have very little knowledge in some of them, especially those related to the medical field. So far, no one has asked me on some of the areas that you wrote about.   My Website is meant generally for the average air travelers who want to know the intricacies of some basic topics related to flying.   You are the first medical scientist whom I have come across, to show so much enthusiasm about flying. I am afraid, I am unable at the moment to cover some of the topics that you want to know. Thank you for your offer to help me out on Aviation Medicine.   I will come back to you again when I get a question that I am not able to explain from a medical point of view.

Once again, thank you for your insight on the responsibility and nobility of the pilot's profession.

Warmest Regards,

Capt Kay.

8. Are the Boeing 777 engines prone to ground strikes?

Dear Capt Kay,

As a Boeing777 has big-diameter engines and as a result, less clearance between the engines and the ground. Does it run a higher risk of striking its engines against the ground when landing, especially in unstable weather? Or has there been additional design to prevent this from happening?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions and also for running such an interesting site.

Sincerely,

Michael

Hi Michael,

You sure notice that the Boeing 777 engines are rather huge!   However, the design of the airplane is such that, should there be an instability due to weather that caused the wings to roll, the chances of the engine striking the runway is quite minimal because the main landing gears will contact the ground first. This is not to say that it the risk is unlikely. According to Boeing, if the airplane is diving down with a minus 4 degrees pitch and a roll angle of 8 degrees, the possibility of ground contact is possible. That would have been a very, very unstable approach!   Company procedures require pilots to go around if the airplane is not stabilized by 500 feet above ground prior to final landing.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

9. What are the altimeter setting procedures?

Hello!

Just another quick query that may not be so interesting to the general public but I am rather curious about....

My question is simply about the setting of the altimeter. I am aware that at flight level, the altimeter is set to ISA (1013/29.92).

Am I correct in saying that it is then set to QNH at 18000ft during the descent?
Most importantly, what I am curious about is, at which point in the approach do you set the altimeter to the airport height (QFE) to be able to know how high from the runway you are to complete an accurate touchdown? How accurate is it?

Also at which point after take off do you normally reset to local QNH?

Hope you can take time to answer,
Happy flying as always.

Rob Hirons,
Marseille, France.

Hi Robert,

The QNH is always set when passing the transition level.   The transition level varies from region to region. The transition level in the USA is 18000 feet and in France, it is given by the ATC, depending on the barometric pressure for that particular day. You are only correct if you are descending for a landing in any US Airports, whereby you set the QNH only passing through 18,000 feet. In France, it is different. After take off, you set the QNH after passing the transition altitude fixed at 4000 feet. On the descent, you would be notified on that day what the transition level is and you would then set the
QNH at, say 6000 feet.

QFE is used mainly in the Russian Federation, China and certain regions of the Middle East and Africa for transit flights. QFE is also used for circuit flying, especially for training purposes. It is rarely used in civil aviation today. On the approach, you set the QFE when you are given the reading by the Control Tower as you establish contact with them. If you are doing circuits and landings training, you set the QFE on the ground.

How accurate is it? When on the ground at the airport giving the QFE, the altimeter shows 0 feet. It is accurate as long as the QFE remains steady but you know the barometric pressures do change from time to time.   The Control Tower will usually update the pilots when the QFE changes.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

10. Does Boeing plan to retool the Boeing 737 to improve the its safety reputation?

Hi:

It seems to me that Boeing's loss of market share is rapidly turning into a business class case study. With Boeing losing so many orders (even from previously loyal domestic carriers) in the small plane segment, Airbus has been able to leverage its way up-market where its planes are less comfortable for the flier (i.e. B777 vs. A340) and less economical for the carrier (4 engines vs. 2). It's analogous to Japanese manufacturers selling small, fuel-efficient cars and ultimately being able to go after the big-ticket buyers with Lexus, etc. Of course, these thoughts (admittedly from an aviation industry ignorant non-pilot) avoid the whole issue of price and the subsidies that Airbus receives so that it can dump its planes for more share.

My question, does Boeing have any plans to re-tool the Boeing 737 and improve its safety reputation (the rudder hardover issue has never been fully resolved to my knowledge) such that it can defend itself better down-market?

I would love to see it done if it is economically feasible as Airbus and its (un)American Sales Manager don't compete fairly.

Hi Norman,

Thank you for your views. I do not represent Boeing but I believe they are 'retooling' the Boeing 737 and have been continually improving their safety reputation.   As regards to the rudder hardover issue, they have come up with a design solution for the rudder power control unit. A spokesman said that they would put them on the production airplanes and begin the retrofit.

As soon as they got these rudder PCU's out into the fleet, they would certainly be installed by all the Airlines with a total Boeing 737 fleet of about 2800 airplanes worldwide.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

11.   Is it acceptable for pilots to have high blood pressure?

Hi Capt Kay,

I would like to know if it is acceptable for pilots to have high blood pressure. Not all of us are blessed with normal blood pressure so would medication do the trick?

Thanks and regards

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

There are some pilots that have high blood pressure.   You know that hypertension is controllable by medication and exercises. It is only when pilots with high blood pressure that cannot be controlled would he be grounded. If you are young and wish to become a pilot, sign of hypertension would disqualify a new entrant.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

12.   Are there electrical sockets for my Laptop computer in the Boeing 777?

Hello,

Are there plugs in the coach section for laptop computer power supplies?

What is the exact model that I should I buy?

Cowan

Hi Cowen,

I think most Airlines do not have power sockets for your laptop computer in the coach section or economy class but I do know they are provided in the Business and First Class of the Boeing 777. [Looks like you got to pay more to use the facility now :-)! ] If you are going to use a laptop, I believe, any popular model will do because the Airline usually supply the sockets to fit your model.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

13. Some technical questions on the Boeing 777's and Airbus 340's

Hi Capt Kay,

Firstly, let me say thank you very much for this extremely informative and helpful website!

I have read through it many times! I also have to admit that it helped me through my last turbulent flight!

I have some question concerning the engines of aircraft. It appears to me that sometimes the same aircrafts types can have different models of engines. Not only can they use different engine products but also different types of similar models too, for example, Singapore Airlines uses on its Boeing 777-200, Rolls Royce Trent 884 as well as Trent 892 and so, as far as I know, Emirates and a lot of other Airlines too.

Why would they use different engine types on the same model of aircraft?
Does it make a difference to you being a pilot? Would you prefer flying the Boeing 777 with engines that have more thrust?
Different engines (eg. RR, GE, PW) have even in their similar models different thrust ratings? So is there something like a specific engine type that pilots love the most? [not taking into account that pilots and passengers like the engines with the lowest failure rate :-)]
As far as I know the climb rate of a Boeing 777 is better than the climb rate of Airbus 340. Does that make a difference for you as a pilot.

Thank you very much in advance for taking your time and effort in answering my questions!

Kind regards,

Ingo Puzik

Hi Ingo,

The Boeing 777 has a few models using different engines based on whether the airplanes are used for long haul or medium haul sector. A long haul airplane, for example, the Boeing 777-200IGW (increased gross weight) is fitted with the RR Trent 892 engines. It produces more thrust (90,300 lbs each) because its take off weight, 286,897 kg or 632,500 lbs require more power for take off. The RR Trent 884 engines are less powerful (86,400 lbs each) and are hence fitted onto the medium haul Boeing 777.

It makes no difference to a pilot whether he flies on a Boeing 777 with engines that have more or lesser thrust. It is only a question of whether you are flying on a long haul or on a medium haul route. On a long haul flight, you may be away from your home base longer than usual. It doesn't means that you will fly faster with more powerful engines. The engines with higher thrust will enable you to carry more fuel and take off at a higher weight but both models will still cruise at the same designed speed of Mach 0.84 (84 % speed of sound)

The Boeing 777's are fitted with three different types of engines, depending on which Airlines you are flying with. If an Airline loves British products, they would go for Rolls Royce whereas those who prefer American goods, go for General Electrics or Pratt & Whitney. So these are policy decisions. I have only flown on Boeing 777 fitted with RR engines and I am quite happy with them. Since I have not flown on those fitted with GE or PW engines, I cannot make a comparison except to say that they are all equally reliable.

Comparing climb rates between airplanes can be misleading sometimes because a lighter airplane will always out climb a heavier one irrespective of whether it is a Boeing 777 or Airbus 340.   Yes, I believe a Boeing 777 has a better climb rate than a Airbus 340 but it does not make very much difference to a pilot unless there is a race between them :-) Of course, sometimes, it helps if you have a good rate of climb; you would achieve your cruising level earlier but if you are climbing below an Airbus 340, you may be forced to reduce your climb rate in order to provide the safe separation between the two airplanes.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

14. Do you use the arm rest when you fly the Boeing 777?
Dear Capt Kay,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the great site you have provided for the Boeing 777 fans. I have flown the 777 on many occasions and it is my favorite aircraft. It is far superior in comfort as compared to the A330/A340. I would be very happy if you could answer my questions.
1. While hand flying the 777, do you rest your arm (one that holds the yoke) on the armrest .
2. When we drive, we use shoulder force to turn the car in certain occasions. Do you do that while flying? I fly the in home computer with Microsoft flight simulator. I have just bought a yoke and rudder pedal. I have no real life flying knowledge or experience. I would very much appreciate if you could kindly answer my questions. Your answers will enable me to fly like real pilot.
Thank you

Ravi

Hi Ravi,

Yes, I find it more comfortable to rest my arms on the armrest when I am hand flying the Boeing 777.   However, there are others who prefer not to rest their arms on the arm rest.   So it is a matter of preference. Most of the hand flying are done during flight tests in a simulator. In real life, most of the flying on the Boeing 777 are performed by the auto pilot.   The pilot will usually disconnect the autopilot at around 500 to 1000 feet before landing just to maintain their manual flying skills.

You don't use your shoulder force to turn the control wheel of the airplane.   The Boeing 777 flying control wheel is very stable. In fact, the best technique is to fly with two fingers each on the control column if you want to execute an accurate Instrument Landing Approach. The technique on a Microsoft flight simulator is different because the controls are very light.   A Microsoft flight simulator is a very good procedural trainer but is never like a real airplane in the handling of the yoke. I have answered a similar question such as yours in earlier FAQs.

Regards,

Capt Kay.
Dear Capt Kay,

Thank you for the great informative site that you have provided for the airplane lovers. I too like planes very much. Few months ago I had an opportunity to visit an A340 cockpit while on the ground. The Captain's and first officers seat were fitted with special armrests. The pilots use the armrest while hand flying. The Captain said that it makes hand flying very comfortable and reduces stress on the hand. I would like to know from you if you too use an armrest while hand flying the 777. I would very much appreciate if you would kindly answer me.

Thank you

Ravi2

Hi Ravi2,

Yes, the Boeing 777 too has an armrest on the Captain as well as the First Officer's seat but it does not have a side stick control like the Airbus 330/340. I too find it very comfortable using the armrest.

Regards,

Capt Kay

15. How to differentiate between a Boeing and Airbus airplane?

Hi,

I want to know how we can, just by looking at the airplane, tell whether it is a Boeing or Airbus? I hope you would not disappoint me.

Regards,

Vasanth

Hi Vasanth,

You have to be very familiar with all the Boeing and Airbus airplanes before you can tell the differences between them because there are so many models of the same types and they can look alike too! Sometimes the type of the airplanes are written on the side of the body but at other times, they are not.   So you can be confused unless you ask the Airlines you are flying on as to what airplane you are flying on.

From a visual aspect, a Boeing 747 is obvious because it has a fat cockpit. The difference between a Boeing 777 and Airbus 330 can be distinguished by the small winglets on the Airbus wingtips.   I have attached 2 photos for you to see the differences between these two airplanes.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

A Saudi Arabian Boeing 777 with no winglet

A Sri Lankan Airbus 330 with winglets

16.   Technical question - Why V speeds vary with altitude, temperatures and air pressures?

Hi,

I have a question. Why the Vee speeds during take off vary depending on altitude, temperature and air pressure?

Regards,
Pato

Hi Patricio,

When you mentioned the Vee speeds, I believe you are referring to the V1, VR and V2 speeds. I have defined these speeds in one of my previous FAQs relating to engine failure during take off.

Well, the V speeds not only vary with altitude, temperature and air pressure but also the airplane's weight and flaps settings too. In addition, the V1 speed is also affected by the runway slope and wind conditions. Therefore, adjustments have to be made on the V1 based on these additional factors.

At higher altitude, the air is less dense. Hence you have to make adjustments by adding or subtracting the speeds as you take off from higher ground. Similarly, changes in temperature and air pressure affect the density of air too.

So, if your aircraft weight is light and you require a higher flap settings for take off, your V speeds will also be considerably lower.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

17.   Technical question - Which takeoff flap is more suitable?

Hello,

Concerning Boeing 777 Performance, which takeoff flap setting is more suitable? Flaps 5 or 15?

With my best regards,

Waheeb

Hi Waheeb,

To choose between Flaps 5 or 15, one has to look at the take off weight, Runway length and surface conditions.   If the runway is short and air plane is heavy, then Flaps 15 is preferable. Flaps 5 is sometimes used if you want a good rate of climb after take off or where the Runway concerned will allow a better take off weight.   So, many factors will affect the choice of the flap usage.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

18.Can you speed up by flooring the throttles at 35,000 feet and can I fly with a burst ear drum?

Hi again,

Thanks for the reply to my earlier question. The PWs have 8,000 lbs. more thrust than the RR so do you think the acceleration would be markedly different? Can you make the airplane go faster at cruise altitude? What would happen if you floored the throttle at 35,000 feet in level flight, would the airplane speed up rapidly?! I imagine this is horribly fuel inefficient and no airline pilot would do this but I just wonder. Did you see the 777-300ER has had her first flight last week? There is a link where people can get a video clip.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q1/nr_030224g.html

I have a further question. I am contemplating taking flying lessons, however I have a bust eardrum in my right ear. It doesn't cause me any discomfort flying on ordinary pressurized airplanes like the 777 but do you think it could be a problem in something like a Cessna? I was advised against skydiving because of this.

I would appreciate your advice as a first port of call, I would of course consult a doctor and I imagine I will need a medical anyway. I can actually hear a conversation from 6' easily but there is no way any airline would consider me precisely because of this reason, and I am happy doing what I am doing I just would like to fly as a hobby in the future.

Thanks for your help.

Howard

Hi Howard,

When you made comparison of engine thrusts of different airplanes, you have to be specific as to the Model number. For example, the RR Trent 892 engines produce a maximum thrust of 90,300 lbs each whereas the RR Trent 884 has only a 86,400 lbs thrust rating. Both are fitted on the Boeing 777's. So which PWs engines are you referring to?

Sure, you can make the plane fly faster during cruise but it would be uneconomical! The power setting of the Boeing 777 is controlled by a computer (EEC). If the EEC is working, you can floor the throttles (this is not like a car accelerator!) or in reality, the thrust levers are pushed to full forward, the speed would still be controlled by the auto throttles to whatever is being set or programmed. However, if the auto throttles are overridden, the speed can exceed the designed speed. A warning will come on to remind the pilots that the maximum speed is exceeded. At 35,000 feet, the Boeing 777 cruises at Mach 0.84 or 84 % the speed of sound. The maximum speed would be in the region of around Mach 0.86 or the red mark in the speed indicator. So there isn't much speed to go further and it would not really speed up any much faster than you would have imagined! I did not see the launching of the Boeing 777-300ER as I was busy flying around somewhere.

If you have a burst ear drum, it may affect your medical examination if you wish to pursue a career in Airline flying. It didn't cause you much discomfort when you flew as a passenger because the Boeing 777 is pressurized and the cabin altitude is less than that of an unpressurized Cessna. However, it should not affect you very much if you decide to fly as a hobby because, I believe the medicals for a Private Pilot's License is less stringent.

I have two pilot friends who had ruptured eardrum but after treatment, they are now flying again. Both are Captains. One flies the Boeing 747 and the other, a Boeing 737.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

19. The Boeing versus Airbus debate - how about some balanced views?

Hi,

I am amazed at how one eyed your comments and views are. As someone running their own web site you can be biased even dishonest and no one can stop you, but how about a bit of balance? Airbus was subsidized by governments just as Boeing and other US manufacturers are.

The USAF and NASA spend huge amounts on research and buy for instance many hundreds of B707's as tankers, along with DC10s, while fighter programs have ridiculous costs to off set manufacturers costs like $8,000 for a 1/8 Allen key that cost 10 cents at Sears.

To sell B707's in the 60's the US government would give squadrons of recently retired aircraft like Sabres to countries who bought US aircraft. That is bribery or "subsidy". Both major manufacturers and their respective governments still do that so don't flog that pathetic story of US free enterprise against European government help. Many passengers prefer the A320 over the B737, for good reason, while you try getting Northwest pilots out of the A320, back to the older design stuff !!

Airbus have continued to push the frontiers of design, while Boeing have stagnated. The last new Boeing was the 777 which has been around for a decade, with nothing new on the marketing table.

Please give credit where it is due, and remember about 30% of the value of an Airbus is US built eg leading edge skins, engines etc.

The US government gives money to farmers so they can sell at lower prices and destroy other countries farmers, but that is OK. Uncle Sam cares for his own and there is no one else who matters like the breast implant court cases where damages for US citizens was many time greater
than the compensation for women from other countries,

As for your very poorly researched comments on Airbus versus Boeing on winglets and how the Boeing wing is better and doesn't need to have them, well what an uneducated comment, the B737 800 and BBJ have them because of performance gains. Surely you know enough about aerodynamics to tell the truth?

I am an Australian and yes I have been to the US twice, once for 2 weeks rode a BMW from LA to Dallas and back with a mate who was in the Marines and is now a State Trooper in Alaska and I visited him there on my second trip, some 4 weeks during which time I visited LA Dallas
Nashville Washington DC NY, Toronto with your northern neighbors, Chicago, Seattle, Anchorage and Portland I flew on about 6 US airlines, but I also flew with Aeroflot and found their meals vastly superior to any other Airlines, European, Asian, Australian, or US and they offered wonderful leg room. All the world has much to offer. No country is best at very many things, so open your eyes and your mind and your web site will be worth visiting again.

Arnold Long,
Brisbane Australia.

Hi Arnold,

Thank you for your feedbacks. For your information, I don't work for Boeing nor do I endorse their products intentionally. I am giving my opinion, as I know the Boeing 777 better than any other airplanes. I share whatever information I have to whoever ask them. I may be biased unintentionally, but it would be interesting if you could give more views in favor of the Airbuses. In this ways, readers may form their own matured opinion.

Back to the Boeing 777 - what truth do you want to know why this airplane does not require winglets? The Boeing 747-400 has winglets. Fine. It was found that it improves performance and saves fuel up to 20 per cent. However, from what I can gather, to save wing design costs, the computer came up with an optimum wing for the Boeing 777 that did not require winglets and still perform just as well. It still cruises at Mach 0.84 as compared to the Airbus 330/340 with winglets that cruises at Mach 0.82   What more can I say? True, the Boeing 737-800 and the BBJ also have winglets but they have nothing to do with my explanation that the Boeing 777 does not require winglets for them to perform just as well!

Regards,

Capt Kay.

Hi,

No I do not intend to defend Airbus, no run down Boeing, both build fine aircraft, I just read your comments as if they were Boeing comments . Flying a 777 means you graduated from other aircraft, and being US based that probably means via smaller Boeing, Douglas or/ and Lockheed.

Also I never believed no suggested you worked for Boeing. I attended a training course on MSG 3 planning, during which which a Boeing Designer and a head of maintenance from North West Airlines presented. The Boeing designer was very positive about the attributes of Airbus, and the Northwest man said once they shifted pilots into the A320, they would not trade that command for anything.

Lack of winglets or addition of them is not a design problem, rather the wing can be designed to incorporate them, so having them built in is not a problem. If the wing , once built, is enhanced by
the addition of the winglet, then one could say the design was the optimum wing.

Boeing designed the 777 to cruise at the same speed as the 747 deliberately, so they could be interchanged with no rescheduling, whereas Airbus chose a slightly lower Mach number cruise, to provide a better fuel consumption rate. With the problems in the middle east, and the fuel prices going up like a Saturn 4 rocket, I imagine Airline executives look more at fuel consumption than speed differentials of .01 mach. If speed was the only criteria, the Sonic cruiser would have sold well. Same with Concorde. You would know it uses the same fuel to carry just over a 100 passengers London New York as a 747, carrying 400 plus. Concorde sold 17, B747 over 1100 and still going strong. Much the same problem killed the 880 and 990 of the early 60's.

Interesting that many years ago an ex navy pilot said he like the Beech Baron much more than the Cessna 310, but said the 310 rode rough air much better because the wing flex made turbulence much less jarring. You indicate the opposite for Airbus versus Boeing.

As I said, you run the web site, so can write what ever you like, and obviously base it on your own experience and beliefs. I found most of what you wrote interesting but the (natural) bias was strong, as was your communicants suggestion that Airbus had unfair tax payer help. Informed people all over the world know the US has never operated any international dealing on a level playing field, it is always tilted in favor of the US, yet when it comes to helping even enemies, no country or people are as generous or forgiving.

On that point, sadly, people keep saying the US wants war with Iraq simply so they can control the oil fields, while supporting a brutal undemocratic government in Saudi Arabia. I happen to believe that even though Saddam actually offers Iraqi's greater freedom than any other mid east country, eg women have encouragement to be educated, no restriction on their dress, greater religious freedom that any place other than Israel, he should be removed from office and the people given freedom from poison gas, chemical weapons and torture.

Sadly this is one cause of so much hatred towards the US from so many countries. The terrible sight of people in middle east countries celebrating when news came through of the space shuttle accident
and earlier of the world trade center destruction, shows the attitude, bred of ignorance but also influenced by often dishonest government and business actions.

Sadly the US has never done any good in public relations. Read the book "The ugly American" and it really does portray so much of US foreign policy, and even after more than 40 years, it is relevant. Why does not the US place more emphasis on what your country did to protect Muslims in Bosnia, Your people spend countless hundreds of millions and many lives helping people who were personally thankful but apparently not very publicly thankful for US help. I do not remember Muslim countries helping their brothers. There are also more Muslims in the US than in Afghanistan !!

Having traveled around the world worked, in 3rd world countries, including a strongly Muslim one I saw that attitude so often. I went to school with many US kids, my oldest son is named after my US friend Mark, the trooper in Alaska, my sister taught in San Diego for 12 months, my Aunt is an American and naturally my cousins are, and amongst my great grandparents is an American, so I an not anti US, I am simply aware of a one eyed view of the world which to me, came through in some of your comments

5 friends, a family Mum Dad 3 girls died in the Pan Am crash in Pago Pago early 74. I went to school with the eldest daughter, while the father was from an electronics background, and helped develop the auto pilot system on the B58 Hustlers, a plane about which he spoke often. In 77 I actually got to see several B58's and saw what he he had described so often.

Sadly too the most common image of the US and its citizens is what your media portray, immoral, drug dealing violent criminals with life styles far beyond the dreams of 99% of the world. How is that you ask ? Watch your TV and movies Hollywood produces and tell me even one that actually is a reflection of what US of A is really like. Baywatch was enormously popular in the middle east, but it sure does not portray real people, E.R., LA law, Sex and the City are not a mirror to your country, but that is what people see, and so bad opinions are formed and cemented.

A strict Muslim would be horrified at what they see as "normal" Americans Which probably explains many of the attitudes. My six weeks there was very different ... Apart from some rotten sod stealing my sheepskin gloves in the post office in Richardson (Dallas) while I posted my letters, and there were only 4 other people there !!!.

Anyway enough of my ravings, happy flying,

Regards ...

Arnold

Hi Arnold,

Thank you for sharing some of your views in life. For your information, I am not an US citizen and I don't reside in the USA.

Below are further clarifications to my previous answers:-

I think you are not so clear about my explanation as to why the Boeing 777 does not have winglets. Winglets are fine on Boeing 747-400, Airbus 330/340, Boeing 737-800 or the BBJ. When Boeing first designed the 777, the computer came out with an optimum wing
design that does not require winglets. Of course, winglets on the Boeing 777 would have made it look sleek and majestic! If the additional construction cost justified the fuel saving, or its sleek look, I would have thought that the Boeing engineers would have done that!

You mentioned that the Boeing 777 was designed to cruise at the same speed as the Boeing 747 to facilitate interchangeability on commercial grounds. This is not true. The Boeing 777 is designed to cruise at Mach .84 whereas the Boeing 747 cruises at Mach .86

True, the Airbus 330/340 cruises at a lower speed of Mach .82 (Mach 0.02 slower and not 0.01!) than the Boeing 777. It is also agreed that it is more economical than the Boeing 777 because of lower fuel consumption.

The composite materials used to build the wings on the Airbus 330/340 have the advantage of reducing the basic weight of the airplanes. The minus point is that the wings are now more flexible, causing them to flex more than a Boeing 777. Result? Any turbulence felt
becomes more pronounced. The Baron and Cessna comparison you mentioned - wing flexing more makes turbulence less jarring - is an interesting theory. If you have not flown on both the airplanes, you should ask those who have experienced the differences or check it out yourself.

You are quite upset over my 'one eyed view' about Boeing planes, but I do give credits to where they are due. Only thing is, sometimes I do make a stand if I am asked for an opinion as to which airplane I prefer more. Having flown the Boeing 777 for the last five and a half years, (and still flying) I am happy with this latest plane from Boeing. Perhaps, the Airbus
380, when it comes into service in 2006, will offer something even better for every one.

Regards,

Capt Kay

20. Changing from MD-11 to Boeing 777 - what are the considerations?

Hello,

I am a student at the High school of Amsterdam and the study I follow is Aviation. At the moment we have a project to find out what has to happen in an Airline Company if they change from the MD-11 to the Boeing 777. We have to find out what the difference is between the conventional control system and the fly-by-wire system. This is what we did already. Now we have to know what has to happen in the Company? New pilots etc. I want to ask you. Do you know more about this?

Thanks,

Remko Bruinsma

Hi Remko,

Okay, you appear to be undertaking a project like what MBA students have to do; things a CEO of an Airline Company has to consider when upgrading from MD-11 to Boeing 777. There are at least a few main areas the Company has to look into; such as the retraining of pilots, engineers, ground traffic and operations staff. The pilots and engineers would only have to do a refresher or conversion course and it would take about 4 to 6 months. The
ground traffic and operations staff may take lesser time. There is no requirement to employ new pilots, engineers or the other staff; they merely require a retraining only.   At the end of their training, the pilots and engineers must be certified by the appropriate Licensing Authorities before they can undertake to carry commercial passengers or certify the maintenance of the new Boeing 777.

Well I guess, this briefly, is what the Airline Company has to look into, not forgetting the additional finance that is require to purchase the new planes.

Regards,

Capt Kay.

21.   Where is seating at 33H and 33J and can I view them?
Hi Capt Kay,

Where is seating 33H and 33J ....can I view them?

Thank you.

Lee.
Hi Lee,

33H and 33J is the 33rd row from the front in the Economy or Coach section. 33J is between 33I and 33K on the right side of the cabin. 33H is side seat near the aisle on the right. You can go to my Boeing 777 Images Page and Click Here to view the Interior and Exterior Photos of the Boeing 777-200 .

Regards,
Capt Kay

22. Where is the Turn and Slip Coordinator and transition point for CAS and Mach Number?
Hi Capt Kay,

I have two general questions which are not very technical.

Hope you are happy to answer it.

1) In Cessna we have a Turn Coordinator to give Slip and Skid indications of the aircraft. Where is this information found in the Boeing 777 flight deck?
2) Assume I know the definitions of CAS, TAS, GS and MACH Number, I sometimes see CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) and sometimes in OPT CRZ (Optimum Cruise), MACH Number is used. So when is CAS and when is MACH Number indicated in flight on the Boeing 777?

Please let me know. Thanks

Srihari J

Hi Srihari,

The information for the Turn and Slip Coordinator is incorporated into the Primary Flight Display and the cut off point between the CAS and Mach Number is when the Boeing 777 passes through 31,000 feet.   It automatically changes from CAS to Mach Number at this level in the Climb or Descent.

Regards,

Capt Kay .

Is this information sufficient for your knowledge?

Yes	Thank you for visiting AllFlySafe.com
No	Click here for more in Resources or Links.

Home I FAQS I Gallery I Links I About Me I Airlines