PPL is Private Pilot License May fly for pleasure or personal business.

Private pilots cannot be paid, compensated to fly, or hired by any operator.

CPL is Commercial Pilot License Can be paid, compensated to fly, or hired by operators and are required to have higher training standards than private or sport pilots.

ATPL is Airline Transport Pilot License ATPs, as they are called, typically qualify to fly the major airliners.

ATPs must qualify with a range of experience and training to be considered for this certificate. — Wikipedia

Nobody has mentioned experience specifics.

You can get a PPL in about 35 flying hours.

It is really a licence to learn how to fly, but without being paid to do so.

You can get a CPL in about 250 flying hours.

This also is a licence to learn how to fly, but while being paid to do so.

This is also much more difficult to earn, involving much higher precision flying and a ton more knowledge.

You can get an ATPL in about 1,500 flying hours.

It is a licence that tells professional pilots you have now learned the basics of how to fly an airplane.

Having said that, a pilot never stops learning, every type they add requires extensive training, and MOST commercial pilots come close to killing themselves about five times during their career.

Commercial pilots also have to prove they still have their skills - and their health - every six months.

PPL is a "Private Pilots License" and is a qualification which allows you to act as Pilot in Command in an aeroplane [PPL(A)] or Helicopter [PPL(H)] without remuneration.

It is the most common license held in general aviation, and is the first step to all the other licenses that you mentioned in your question.

CPL is a Commercial Pilots License, and allows you to act as Pilot in Command of a charter or corporate flight.

ATPL (or ATP Certificate) is an Airline Transport Pilots License and is the highest level of pilot certification.

PPL Private Pilot License.

You may fly your own plane or rent one to fly.

You can fly families and friends.

You can not be paid to fly.

CPL Commercial Pilot License.

You can be paid to fly, but usually in small planes only.

Typical activities include aerial photography, banner towing, dropping sky divers, etc.

ATPL Airline Transport Pilot License.

You can act as captain of a large airliner.

To give a rough perspective, PPLs usually fly small single-engine propeller planes ; CPLs fly slightly larger planes that carry maybe 20~50 people, ATPLs are the ones that fly Airbus and Boeings.

Note that the pilot license restricts which kind of aviation activity a pilot can fly, but does not restrict the size or speed of the aircraft.

Technically you can fly an A380 with a PPL if you fly it privately, but very few people (if any!)

do that.

In the simple sense, PPL must be acquired before CPL, and CPL before ATPL.

It is like driving licenses: you must get an ordinary driving license before you can drive a bus, and you better can drive a bus before you want to drive a semi-trailer.

The higher privilege licenses require better precision, better proficiency and handling more complex aircraft systems.

Obviously, pilot and driving licenses vary country by country, but I feel this answer address the OP's concerns.

PPL - PRIVATE PILOT CERTIFICATE

This is the lowest grade of pilot certificate which allows a user to operate an aircraft in all areas of the National Airspace System with limited provisions.

Along with a Third Class Medical Certificate, it allows the holder to act as PIC in all categories and classes of aircraft, or on type rated large or turbojet powered aircraft.

Use of a PPL along with a Basic Med is permissible as well, provided operations are restricted to the limitations in §61.113(i).

A PPL also allows the holder to tow gliders, conduct factory test flights, and demonstrate aircraft to prospective buyers under the limitations in Part 61.

It also has limited provisions available to serve as PIC for compensation or hire as detailed in §61.113. CPL - COMMERCIAL PILOT CERTIFICATE

This is the next grade of pilot certificate up from Private Pilot.

It allows all the privelages of a PPL plus, when combined with a valid Second Class or higher Medical Certificate, a CPL allows the holder to serve as PIC while carrying persons or property or to fly for compensation or hire under the areas listed in §119.1(e).

It does not permit the holder to fly in operations which involve holding out for common carriage such as a part 121 scheduled air carrier or a part 135 charter or commuter operation.

Along with an instrument rating for either airplane, helicopter, or powered lift, it is also a pre-requisite to apply for either an Airline Transport Pilot or Flight Instructor Certificates.

ATPL - AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATE

This is the highest grade of pilot certificate issued in the United States.

They are only issued for the Airplane, Helicopter or Powered lift categories of aircraft as well as specific type ratings.

In addition to all the privileges of a CPL and, when combined with a First Class Medical Certificate, it allows the holder to exercise privileges of PIC and SIC in scheduled air carrier, charter and commuter services if either the holder or the holder’s employer also holds a valid Part 121 air carrier certificate or Part 135 charter or commuter certificates.

It also permits limited flight instruction within the holder or holder’s employer’s Part 121 or 135 certificates on an aircraft the holder is type rated on under the operation.

Uk & Europe minimum number of hours for a PPL is 45 with most people taking around 60 to pass plus 9 written exams.

Commercial PL is 200 hours which includes 150 pilot in command - most people now do the ATPL additional exams when qualifying for cpl and have them frozen.

Question: What are hiding under these letters?What do they stand for?I have read many others, but I could never understand what they mean and the pilot's career on each of them.If possible, can anyone post a brief list and their tasks and responsibilities, please?

How do PPL, CPL, and ATPL compare?

PPL is for flying for pleasure or personal business and may fly singe engine propeller planes. CPL allows you to fly slightly larger planes that carry 20-50 people. Finally, ATPL allows you to fly Airbus and Boeings.

PPL stands for Private Pilot License, the holder of which may fly for personal matters in small, single engine propeller planes and can also tow gliders, perform factory tests and demonstrate aircraft for sale. CPL stands for Commercial Pilot License, the holder of which can be remunerated for flying and can be hired. They can act as pilot in command for charter/corporate flights of up to 20-50 people in slighly bigger  planes. ATPL stands for Airline Transport Pilot License, the holders of which can fly for major airlines; it is the highest level certificate.


The NOTAM format is from the time when people still would call the value of individual bits over a phone line.

Ok, that may not have happened, but my point is that data transfer was incredibly slow compared to current day standards.

Therefore a compact format saved significant transmission time and cost without losing any information.

The format didn't change since.

1 - It's always been done that way.

- You'd be surprised

how many government computer systems are still using ancient hardware and operating systems.

As I understand your question is mainly about line E of a NOTAM, right?

Well, this one is in fact meant to use 'plain' English language, in contrast to all other lines, where location and reach as well as type and urgency and duration is encoded.

Just, as it already has been mentioned, NOTAMs originate in a time when transmission speed was unimaginable slow by todays standards.

So the answer is rather IT related ... stone age IT that is.

Standard transmission speed back then was 45 Baud, that's 45 bit per second -

with lots of pauses added for feed and other functions, resulting in an effective transmission speed of less than 8 characters per second (*1).

Already the lines before line E contain anywhere between 150 to 200 characters, thus requiring some 25 seconds to transmit.

The E line you cite is another 60 characters, or 8 seconds.

The suggestion made would now increase that to 129 characters or an additional 9 seconds.

With no increase in information transmitted.

For a rough calculation it may be safe to assume 1 minute of transmission time per NOTAM.

That's barley 60 per hour.

And 60 is a rather low number of active NOTAMs within the reach of an aerodrome to be kept at hand for its pilots.

Keep in mind, there was no internet and instant access to remote data bases at all.

Everything had to be transmited ahead of time - and there where people collecting all incoming NOTAMs and filing them into folders (that's what line A supports) to be up to date and ready for flight planing.

So short message length was an essential must to make it transmitable.

It wasn't until the 1970s that the situation relaxed a bit due faster transmission - still not much, as at the same time air traffic, and related NOTAMs rose in number.

The other limit was introduced by early data processing.

The E line is limited to 1200 characters at all.

This (back then unimaginable hucht) limit was introduced by the size of disk block on the mainframe system used by.

2048 characters was the limit for a whole block, minus some organisational data, minus all other lines, this left 1200 bytes per NOTAM.

Since some even needed more, block chaining for up to 12,000 characters was allowed -

not realy liked though.

Bottom line, abbreviation was a must due the hardware available.

At the same time, these abrevations helped in understanding, the very same way we use extreme codified radio sequences for fast exchange and clear interaction.

There is no doubt about the meaning, as every day language may create.

This might seam strange, but it's like with any other formalized communication.

No matter if its about debates in the commons or ATC communication - or in this case NOTAMs.

There used to be a good technical reason (transmission time over low-rate modems), so everyone learned how to decode things.

That original reason has long since gone away, but nearly everyone affected has already learned the code, so the short-term benefits of changing are minimal--and accrue mainly to new entrants (who have little/no power) whereas the costs would be borne by everyone.

There's also a possible "hazing" effect: if the old timers had to go through something unpleasant, then it can become a ritual part of joining the tribe, regardless of what (if any) practical value it has to newbies.

Because the FAA imagines that we are still in the teletype age, and thus believes that every bit of text not actually burned into the the paper scroll (or perhaps we should say every byte of information not transmitted over the wires) is a precious saving of some sort.

It's exactly the same misguided reason that airport weather reports (METARS) are still formatted in the near-unintelligible condensed manner as they are.

Question: I'm currently getting thru a PPL course book and I don't understand this. Is there any purpose of sending NOTAMs in this format:  "RWY 08R/26L DUE WIP NO CENTRELINE, TDZ OR SALS LIGHTING AVBL"  instead of plain language  "For runway 08/26, due to work in progress, there is no centreline, touchdown zone or simple approach lighting available"  Why do they force pilots to learn common ICAO abbreviations when they could simply send the text message without encoding it? The same questions goes for TAFs and METARs.

Why do NOTAMs consist of code instead of plain language?

NOTAMs originate in a time when transmission speed was unimaginable slow by todays standards. At that time abbreviation was essential because of the hardware. No one it seems has yet decided to update things to suit current technology.

The NOTAM format is a remnant of the time when hardware and IT were much older, so communications were much slower and this format helped save money and time. It could also be argued that the coded language cannot be misinterpreted like every-day language can. Also, to some extent, it has become a ritualistic part of becoming a pilot, despite not having practical value.

The coded language cannot be misinterpreted like every-day language can.

It has become a ritualistic part of becoming a pilot, despite not having practical value.


Well, the 3 points you make are easily demonstrable to be true, and also a fairly unique feature of all three if looked at side-by-side.

The 747 is the only one with an obvious hump towards the front of the aircraft.

This upper row of windows is unlike either of the other two Photo Aldo Bidini:: source: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Alitalia/Boeing-747-243B/1200648/L?sid=f499b3169d12a0d4f410846e6512443a

The A380 has an entire upper row of windows - it does indeed have 2 full decks.

Richard Vandervord source: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Etihad-Airways/Airbus-A380-861/2574151/L

If it has 4 engines, but neither a half upper deck and hump or a full upper deck (and it's an airbus!)

then yes it is an A340 Aero Icarus source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/46423105@N03/5445375360/

However, that is not all the 4 engine passenger aircraft.

The BAe 146 is a 4 engine regional airliner, and you could add to your distinguishing features "has a T-tail, must be a 146".

It is also the only one of the bunch with a high wing.

Adrian Pingstone source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lufthansa.rj85.arp.jpg

And then we're into the Ilyushins.

The Il-96, is easily distinguishable from the similar(ish)

A340 as it is considerably smaller - hard to tell from a close-in photo, but in real life if one were parked next to the other the IL-96 is smaller.

Anna Zvereva source:

The Il-86 has 4 engines but does not fit your criteria, as it only remains in service with the Russian Military, but the Il-62 is still in commercial service.

It's very easy to distinguish by having its 4 engines mounted on the tail Tim Rees source: http://www.airliners.net/photo/LOT---Polish/Ilyushin-Il-62M/1033235/L

You can add the BAe 146 to the list.

Boeing has B747 with 4 engines.

Airbus has A380 and A340 with 4 engines.

Antonov has an-124 with 4 engines and an-225 mriya with 6 engines.

Well... we should not forget legacy aircraft still in use.

You might also spot some Douglas DC-8 still in use.

In this link I have been able to find 8 planes still in use.

This figure via wikipedia :

In order to identify this old model just look to the engines, old fashion slim hets and look to the wing tips, there is no wing tip device.

There's still John's 707 flying around - not commercially granted.

There's the VC-10 that could be confused with the IL-62.

Only military now but was commercial.

And the Avro 85/100.

Same but different from the BAe 146.Bit too picky?

As stated in other answers, there are quite a few more 4 engined jet liners than just the three types stated in your claim.

Identification of the 747 and A380 is pretty simple indeed and correctly asserted in the claim.

Other types will all have their own characteristics, which would have to be found by studying photos and/or drawings of the aircraft in question (and possibly knowledge of which types can be expected at a specific airport, e.g. you're not going to find Il-62s in western Europe because they're banned there for noise abatement reasons).

Question: Just heard following somewhere:   It is easy to distinguish four-engine passenger jetliner type, because there are only three of them:   if it has "hump" upper deck then it is Boeing 747,  if it has two decks then it is Airbus A380,  otherwise it is Airbus A340.    Is this statement true?  I'm asking about commercial passenger jetliners only. So no cargo, no military etc.

How many four-engine commercial passenger jetliner types are currently in use?

There are a number of 4-engine jetliners in use in addition to the Boeing 747, Airbus 380 and Airbus 340. These include the Bae 146, which can be identified by its T-tail.

Apart from the three models listed, the BAe 146 is another commercial 4-engine aircraft. Also, there are some legacy 4-engine aircraft that fit the criteria still in use, like the Douglas DC-8. Thus, this list is not exhaustive and there are more 4-engine jet liners.

There are some legacy 4-engine aircraft that fit the criteria still in use, like the Douglas DC-8.

This list is not exhaustive and there are more 4-engine jet liners.


The Gossamer Albatross is a human-powered plane with a top speed of 29 km/h (18mph).

It was used to cross the English Channel and seems to meet the criteria of the question.

The Antonov AN-2 has no stall speed quoted in the operating manual and can fly under full control at about 30 mph.

Thus if the headwind is sufficiently large the aircraft will move backwards with respect to the ground.

The Harrier , Yak-38 , Yak-141 , XV-15 , and V-22 are all fixed wing aircraft.

All can hover in mid air, controlled.

So they are in controlled flight at 0 velocity.

At least the Harrier can even be in controlled flight flying backwards, so with negative velocity.

The others may as well, I don't know.

now, if you're looking at modern, more commonly used transportation, powered paragliding would probably take the cake.

CC BY 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13110495

Powered paragliders usually fly between 15 and 50 mph (25 and 72 km/h) at altitudes from 'foot-dragging on the water' up to 24,000+ ft (5400 m) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_paragliding

The beginners equipment are often the slowest, and with proper skill, and the right weather, can have a stall speed of zero .

Whilst being lifted by a thermal, the only thing that will push the glider forward is the natural tilt.

naturally, on a still day, the slowest of equipment will stall at below 10mph .

Disclaimer: this is not an airplane, but it is a fixed wing vehicle, made to primarily move forward to generate lift, akin to most airplanes.

If you are including historical aircraft, the Wright Flyer averaged 10 fps (approx 6.8 mph or 11 kph) over

it's first 120 foot flight in 1903.

Reference: https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/fly/1903/triumph.cfm

Building it just for very slow speed does not look practical (if you really need this, use helicopter).

Some old planes may be slower, but they do not use the newest technologies and may not be built for slow flight anyway.

Some patrol, agricultural planes may benefit from slow flying, but we need something more extreme.

I expect such aircraft to be some specific machine that has a huge wing and low weight for other reasons, and should be recently built to benefit from latest technologies.

Solar impulse looks like a good candidate.

It has take-off speed of 35 km/h (22 mph) only.

Looks like

its minimal speed is about 20.67 mph only.

Its large wing holds the solar batteries.

It has a wingspan larger than Boeing 747 and the weight close to Cessna 172 !

(picture from Wikimedia Commons ).

The Ruppert Archaeoptrix Electro ( Wikipedia , official website ) apparently has a stall speed of 30 km/h (19 mph / 16 kn) , and I think that makes it a candidate for the current "slowest" fixed wing aircraft.

It is a relatively new glider that can be foot launched, but there are also wheeled and motorless configurations, and it can also be launched by towing. For the motorized version:

Gossamer Condor , the first human powered airplane capable of basic maneuvered flight.

When it finally won the Kremer prize for a 1 mile figure 8 course

it did that course in 7 minutes and 22 seconds.

The later Gossamer Albatross that crossed the English Channel had to be faster.

This assumes that the question criteria was AIRSPEED (not groundspeed) for a fixed-wing, man-carrying aircraft that could take off and land under its own power and

maneuver both into and out of the wind (figure 8 maneuver).

You should check out planes with custer wings.

It was claimed that the aircraft could fly under control at 11 mph (18 km/h) and that it could take off with a 1,500 lb (680 kg) load at 70% power in 90 ft (28 m).

Slepcev Storch

(A 3/4-size replica of the Fieseler

Fi

156 Storch , a German WW2 reconnaissance aircraft well known for its slow-speed performance) 36 km/h or 40 km/h (19kn/22kn) Picture Source Performance according to Wikipedia :

Maximum speed: 150 km/h (93 mph; 81 kn)

Cruise speed: 133 km/h (83 mph; 72 kn) Stall speed: 40 km/h (25 mph; 22 kn) Rate of climb: 6 m/s (1,200 ft/min) Performance according to ulm.it : Maximum speed: 150 km/h VNE: 182 km/h Stall speed: (flaps out) 36 Km/h Climb rate: 9,1 m/s (1800 ft/min)

I was at the Biggen Hill airshow many years ago where not one but two different aircraft flew backwards.

One was the AN-2 which was able to nose up into the headwind so far that it actually flew backwards for a short distance down the runway.

The other was a Russian super jet, (possibly a Sukhoi 27 or Sukhoi 35 ?)

that did a vertical climb on afterburners that shock the ground then slowed to a stop before falling on its tail while still vertical.

It flew tail first towards the ground before lowering the nose.

Alaskan Bush Planes are modified to fly very slowly for short landings: Features include:"Short runway requirements, typically gained through high aspect ratio wings and high-lift devices such as flaps, slots and slats to improve low speed flight characteristics, allowing shorter ground rolls on landing or takeoff."

This might be helpful too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_STOL_aircraft

Here is a video showing that the Gossamer Albatross flew at lowest speed, 7mph (11.2kmph).

Very slow.

But the save speed will be 10mph (16.1kmph), as mentioned in that video.

It lasted 2 hours to cross England strait from England to France.

Question: It's easy to find information about the fastest airplanes, in different categories (e.g.  X-15 ,  SR-71 , the  Concorde  etc), but what is the slowest one? Which powered, manned airplane is capable of sustained level flight at lowest velocity?

What is the slowest fixed-wing airplane?

There are a number of candidates for the slowest fixed-wing airplane. Candidates include the Antonov AN-2, the Solar impulse, Alaskan Bush planes and the Gossamer Condor.

Without there being a clear winner, the candidates that have been built with these specifications in mind are: the Gossamer Albatross, the  Antonov AN-2, Solar impulse, the Ruppert Archaeoptrix Electro, the Gossamer Condor, the  Slepcev Storch and Alaskan Bush Planes.


It's for wing bending relief (for cantilevered wings ).

As the generated lift bends the wings upward, the weight of the fuel will counter that.

As the plane loses weight in-flight due to burning fuel, so does the need for wing bending relief (less weight → less lift), that's why the wing tanks are the last to be used.

For context, a Boeing 777-200ER can hold 29 tonnes of fuel in each wing, and each wing measures ~27 metres and is self-supported.

Example:

Let's say in our airliner each wing tank holds 100 units (200 total for both tanks), and the center tank holds 200 units, and you have a flight that needs 200 units of fuel.

Correct scenario: By filling only the wing tanks, the weight of fuel in the wings will counter the bending of the lift.

Incorrect scenario: By filling only the center tank, the wings will bend a great deal (maybe even beyond their design limit).

This is not good, and even if it is within the design limits, the repeating [avoidable] stresses will shorten the plane's lifespan .

Example for order of use (schedule):

Our flight needs 300 units, based on the above, we will fill the wing tanks, and fill half the center tank.

Correct order: By emptying the center first, we have extended the duration of the wing bending relief.

Incorrect order: By emptying the wings first, we lose the wing bending relief, while the plane is still heavy.

Related:

How is fuel stored and routed on a trijet with one engine at the tail?

Having all the payload of a plane concentrated at the fuselage creates a large bending load on the wings in order to support that weight.

Storing fuel in the wings allows some of that weight to be placed at the same place where it's being supported, in the wings.

Distributing the weight into the wings reduces the loads where the wings meet the fuselage.

A minor point - keeping less of the flammable fuel in the body has a safety benefit.

Using up what's in the body first helps keep it further away from the crew and passengers.

In a crash you'd prefer the fuel to not ignite, but of the two locations, its better burning out by the wings than inside the main fuselage.

Probably the main reason why fuel is put into the main wing tanks first is because on some airliners (if not most) the engines are fed directly from the wing tanks.

Some airliners have to pump the fuel from center tanks into the wing tanks before the engines can utilize the fuel.

So for example, if the flight requires 10,000 pounds of fuel, and each wing can hold 5,000 pounds, plus the center tank holds an additional 5,000 pounds, then you don't want to start in the belly tank, because you'll end up with 5,000 pounds in the belly, and 2,500 pounds in each wing.

Then the flight crew will have to do a fuel transfer in flight of 5,000 pounds from the belly tank into the wings.

Imagine if the flight only required 5,000 pounds and you started in the center tank.

You would end up with the full fuel load in the center tank.

When the flight crew arrives to take the plane they will have to transfer fuel into the wing tanks before take-off.

If you are topping off the aircraft, it won't matter if you fuel the belly or wings first.

However, another consideration, which is not part of your question is weight and balance on the ground when the aircraft is empty.

Some aircraft like the older DC8 has like 8 or 10 fuel tanks in various locations, some are forward of the CG and some are aft of the CG.

However, the fuel tanks in the root of the wings are usually slightly forward of CG which helps to prevent tail tipping.

The simplest explanation is that the wings are designed to be the load bearing structure in the air and on the ground.

So, you want the most weight to be in/on the wings.

In other words, you want to keep the weight stress on the wing structure as opposed to the fuselage because the wings are designed to carry weight.

Wing tanks are loaded first because:

That keeps the most weight on the wings.

They will always be loaded.

Center tanks may not be fueled at all on shorter flights.

Fuel is then consumed from the center tanks first to keep the most weight on the wings through the flight.

The weight from the fuel will counter the upward bending of the wings, as nothing but the wings alone must bear the load of the cabin, and all of its passengers/cargo.

Using fuel from the wings last will decrease stress on wings, and the joints between the wing and cabin.

Question: When fueling airliners, why is fuel filled first in the tanks in the wings and then the center tanks? And why do they use fuel from the center tanks first and then from the tanks in the wings?  From my research I've found the purpose is not to give too much stress to the structure of the wings, but I don't understand exactly how it works. How does having fuel first in the wings and leaving it last in the wings help protect the structure of the wings?

Why are fuel tanks in the wings filled first, and why are they used last?

Having all the payload of a plane concentrated at the fuselage creates a large bending load on the wings in order to support that weight. Storing fuel in the wings allows some of that weight to be placed at the same place where it's being supported, in the wings. Distributing the weight into the wings reduces the loads where the wings meet the fuselage.  the weight stress should be kept on the wing structure as opposed to the fuselage because the wings are designed to carry weight.

The main reason is because wing bending relief is necessary, so the wings must carry most of the weight  as opposed to the fuselage, as they are designed to do. The wing tanks are filled first because in some airliners, the engines use directly the fuel from the wing tanks. Another reason is safety; if there is an accidents and the tanks ignite, it is best that the main fuselage is as empty as possible.


She kept the Squadron Leader updated as much as she needed to, but she preferred to keep comms chatter to a minimum when she was... Military-related terms: ... on patrol ... on station ...on a sortie ...on a shout [ British English, specifically used for search and rescue ] ... on recce/on recon [ British and American English, respectively ] General terms: ...in the air ...

airborne ...

at the controls ...flying ...in flight ...on a mission ...

doing (her) rounds ...

aloft

There might be other, more technical terms in use in the military for specific operations or missions

but I have no experience there.

Mostly when a pilot is busy in flying, the phrase used it in the air .

In your example, it will appear as: ...

she preferred to keep comms chatter to a minimum when she was in the air ...

I've used the term "wheels up" before.

Since you've had many in-atmosphere answers, here are a few for not-in-atmosphere flight: In /

On orbit Weightless Parabolic

(Usually used to say that something is above the Karman line but has not achieved orbital velocity)

Off-planet

Here is one more that might help... aloft

Another option not yet mentioned, from U.S. military jargon, is in country , though this carries some contextual baggage.

It's similar to in enemy territory and might be used by, for example, a carrier pilot while in an assigned combat or patrol area.

It might contextually suggest to the reader that radio silence or strict concentration is important to the specific mission at hand.

It would be less fitting if you want to suggest to the reader that this pilot's general, personal preference is simply to avoid chit-chat in the cockpit.

There's also the phrase sterile cockpit which just means a policy of avoiding distractions in the cockpit.

This is a common phrase among pilots and would be used as in "She preferred to keep a sterile cockpit."

(Of course, these nuances will only matter to readers familiar with the jargon.

There's always a balance to be struck between impressing those who know the jargon and alienating those who don't.

Everyone understands " ...

while airborne " and pilots won't look at you funny for saying it.)

Question: I'm writing a sci-fi story involving aircraft and space craft. I'm struggling to get the terminology right for referring to a pilot being 'in the air' either on a mission or a training exercise. I have a feeling there is a phrase for this but I'm struggling to think of it.  The context would be military, as in the following sentence:   She kept the Squadron Leader updated as much as she needed to, but she preferred to keep comms chatter to a minimum when she was in the air.

What would be a technical or slang term for 'in the air'?

Aloft, wheels up, on patrol, on recce, airborne and off-planer are all terms used to mean "in the air".

There are many alternatives to "in the air", although there is nothing wrong with it and  it could be used in this context: "on patrol", "on station", "on a  sortie", "on  a shout", "on recce/on recon", "airborne", "at the controls", "flying", "in flight", "on a mission ", "doing (her) rounds", "aloft", "wheels up", "in country", "on orbit", "weightless", "parabolic", "off-planet".

at the controls ...flying ...in flight ...on a mission …


When military and civilian aircraft of similar speeds are compared, their engines differ mostly by their names.

It is simply too expensive to develop a civilian type in parallel to a military type when later both are used in the same way.

Examples: The B-52 engine is called J57 and was made by Pratt & Whitney.

The same company called this design JT-3C

when it was mounted to the Boeing 707 and the DC-8.

Later models used a turbofan development of the J57, the Pratt & Whitney TF33, which was called JT3D in civilian use.

The C-5A Galaxy pioneered large bypass ratio turbofans with the General Electric TF39 , which was used on the Boeing 747 , DC-10 and A300B as the CF6 later.

Even the same aircraft will sometimes use a different name for basically the same engine, depending on the use:

The T-39 Sabreliner used the J60 engine while the civilian Sabreliner called the same engine JT12 .

But even when the flight regime is different, component reuse is common between civilian and military engines: The core of the General Electric F101 (installed in the B-1A bomber, the supersonic first version of the B-1) became the CFM-56 turbofan which is used in the Boeing 737 or the Airbus A320.

Supersonic flight requires a high nozzle velocity, therefore high bypass ratios are unsuitable.

However, the differences between sub- and supersonic engines disappear the closer you move towards the gas generator core.

High-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and high pressure turbine look and work the same.

Civilian engines add a large fan in front while supersonic military engines sometimes add an afterburner.

The biggest difference, however, is in the intakes (large pitot intake with blunt lips for subsonic aircraft versus adjustable spike or ramp intakes for supersonic flight) and the nozzle (fixed for subsonic flight versus a complex, adjustable convergent-divergent nozzle for supersonic flight).

Two reasons: age and speed.

High bypass turbofans have only been in existence since the 70s -

the B-52 was one of the first mass-produced jet powered military aircraft, and turbofans were simply not around at the time.

Same for the U-2. Many fighter aircraft go supersonic, and jet engine thrust T is defined as $T

= \dot{m}

\cdot

(V_e - V_0)$, with $V_0$ the airspeed.

Exhaust velocity $V_e$ must be higher than true airspeed in order to generate thrust, and turbojets have a much higher exhaust flux velocity than the cold stream of the turbofan.

Image source Pure turbojets are noisy and thirsty, and modern fighters use low bypass jet engines with mixed exhaust streams, like the one depicted above.

This configuration still allows for the use of afterburners:

take-off thrust is where high bypass turbofans are particularly strong.

I agree with all of the answers posted so far, particularly regarding supersonic speed.

Let me add another perspective: Differences in priorities.

The major factors influencing engine design are: cost, weight, fuel efficiency, and response time (how long from when the pilot moves the throttle to when you have full thrust), and maintainability.

Both military and commercial operators care about all of these, but they differ on which one is most important.

To a commercial operator, fuel efficiency trumps everything else, hands down.

The fuel bill for a large airline can run in the billions of dollars per year, so saving even 0.1% fuel efficiency is worth a lot to them.

That's why you see high bypass turbo fans on all commercial jet liners.

That configuration is the most fuel efficient.

The tradeoff is that once the pilot pushes the throttle, it takes a couple of seconds for that huge fan to spin up.

Airlines are willing to live with that in exchange for better fuel efficiency.

The military does care about fuel efficiency, but they also care about response time.

When a fighter pilot wants thrust, he wants thrust

right now and the cost is secondary.

Waiting a few seconds for the engine to respond could be the difference between life and death.

That's why you see afterburners on fighter jets.

Afterburners are great at giving you a huge amount of thrust very quickly.

But they are huge gas guzzlers

so you would never put them on a commercial jet liner.

It isn't universally true that military and commercial aircraft use different engines.

The military and commercial versions of the Boeing 707/C135 used similar engines as do the military and commercial versions of the DC10.

Combat aircraft however are usually powered by low bypass turbofan engines rather than the high bypass turbofans used in commercial jetliners.

The low bypass engines are less fuel efficient but are more compact and have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the high bypass engines as well as including an afterburner which can be used to increase thrust at critical periods although at the expense of even greater fuel consumption.

The design of the Lockheed SR71 "Blackbird" reconnaissance aircraft featured turbo-ramjet engines which at high speeds generated most of their thrust in the bypass ducts surrounding the central turbojet engine, using the ramjet principle in which the incoming air is compressed by ram pressure alone without the use of a compressor.

The requirement for supersonic maximum speeds has traditionally been a major factor determining the choice of engines for combat, although such speeds have in practice only been routinely used by reconnaissance aircraft, most notably the SR71.

Most manned fighters use so much fuel in afterburner that this capability is rarely used except for takeoff and when manouvering at high g factors, when the extra thrust is needed to counteract drag induced at high angles of attack (AOA).

The F22 Raptor however has a "supercruise" capability of achieving supersonic speed without the use of afterburner.

The B-52 and U-2 are not the best examples, both are 60 year-old designs which use 60 year-old engine designs.

The first turbofan flew in 1952 , but it took a while for turbofans to become common.

In 1961, the B-52H became the first B-52 to have turbofans.

By the 1970s , turbofans were used in fighters too.

Modern supersonic fighters use turbofans, for example the F-22 uses the P&W F-119 engine which has a bypass ratio of 0.25.

This engine can drive the F-22 at supersonic speeds without using its afterburner.

Question: Why do most military aircraft and helicopters use different engine technology (fighters, B52, U2, etc) than most commercial aircraft?[I removed the use of axial terminology]

Why do most military aircraft use different engines than commercial aircraft?

It isn't universally true that military and commercial aircraft use different engines. When military and civilian aircraft of similar speeds are compared, their engines differ mostly by their names. But even when the flight regime is different, component reuse is common between civilian and military engines:   The core of the  General Electric F101  (installed in the B-1A bomber, the supersonic first version of the B-1) became the  CFM-56  turbofan which is used in the Boeing 737 or the Airbus A320.  It is simply too expensive to develop a civilian type in parallel to a military type when later both are used in the same way.

It is not entirely true that they use different engines: sometimes military engines are reused in commercial aircraft, or their engines differ only in name. However, where there is a difference, it is due to the age and speed. Military aircraft must reach supersonic speeds, so they must have the appropriate engines. Also, these two types of aircraft have different priorities. For commercial airlines, fuel efficiency is their main concern. The military cares more for response time than for fuel efficiency.

There is a difference due to the age and speed. Military aircraft must reach supersonic speeds, so they must have the appropriate engines.

These two types of aircraft have different priorities. For commercial airlines, fuel efficiency is their main concern. The military cares more for response time than for fuel efficiency.


Quite a few, actually.

British Airways is the largest operator of B747-400 and flies a number of routes: Where does the Boeing 747-400 fly?

The aircraft operates on a variety of routes, including: Beijing Boston Cape Town Dubai Lagos Las Vegas Mexico Miami New York (JFK) Phoenix San Francisco Toronto Air China operates both 747-400s and 747-8s KLM does so but is phasing the 747-400 out Korean Air, Lufthansa, Thai Airways, Virgin, El Al, Saudia operate 747s, among others.

Wikipedia lists 489 747s in service as of July 2017 though around half of them are cargo and the numbers would have reduced still further by now.

The latest data that I could lay my hands on lists the following airlines (less than twenty, sadly): Air China Air India Asiana Airlines Atlas Air British Airways China Airlines Corsair El Al Iraqi Airways KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Korean Air Lufthansa Mahan Air Qantas Rossiya Airlines Thai Airways Virgin Atlantic Wamos Air

There are many airlines still operating the 747 in passenger service.

Lufthansa has bought the 747-8, the last delivery was in April 2015, so I'd expect that the 747 will be in passenger service for at least another 20 years.

Here's your choice: KLM Lufthansa (both the Boeing 747-400 and 747-8) British Airways Thai Airways Virgin Atlantic Iran Air (747-200, probably the oldest passenger 747 still in commercial service) China Airlines Air China

Korean Air Qantas Air Atlanta Icelandic El AL Corsair Dubai Air Wing Saudi Airlines Royal Air Maroc Wamos Air Rossiya Airlines Atlas Asiana ...

Probably more, but this is a start.

There are still lots of 747's in scheduled passenger service and at least a few dozen of them will almost certainly remain so for the next 20+ years.

747-400 British Airways has 36 of them with retirement scheduled for 2024 .

Virgin Atlantic has 8 of them with retirement beginning in 2019 .

KLM has 14 of them Qantas has 10 of them China Airlines still has some El Al still flies them , but is planning retirement in 2019.

Several others around the world There were deliveries of passenger 747-400s all the way up through 2005 , so the newest ones are only about 12-13 years old.

The U.S. airlines, however, were among the first customers and had some of the oldest ones.

In Delta's case, they literally had the oldest one, as Northwest (which Delta acquired several years ago) was the launch customer of the 747-400.

So, while Delta and United's 747s were mostly over 20 years old (some over 25,) many other customers operate much newer ones.

While the 747-400s are on their way out, the 747-8Is are mostly only a few years old and should still be flying for decades.

These are currently flown by 3 airlines in scheduled passenger service, as well as several others in charter and/or VIP service.

Lufthansa has 19 of them

Korean Air has 10 of them

Air China has 7 of them While the Delta 747-400s with their lovely 14-seat 1-1 business-class configuration upstairs are unfortunately no more, if you're looking to ride upstairs on a 747, my personal recommendation would be Korean Air's 747-8s.

Other Commercial Operations

There are lots of 747s in cargo service and this doesn't appear likely to change any time soon.

The 747-8F is still in production and has accounted for almost all of the recent new 747 orders.

It appears that it will remain in production for at least the next few years and possibly quite a bit longer than that.

UPS ordered 14 of them a little over a year ago, so that will keep the line going for at least a couple more years by itself.

Aside from the numerous 747-400 cargo and charter operators, the following operators all fly the 747-8F and, so, will likely continue flying it for a couple more decades: UPS (14)

AirBridgeCargo (7)

Silk Way Airlines (5) Saudi Cargo (5) Korean Air Cargo (7) (in addition to the 10 747-8Is operated by Korean Air) Cathay Pacific Cargo (14) Volga-Dnepr Airlines (5) Atlas Air (10)

Nippon Cargo Airlines (8) Cargolux (14)

Additionally, 8 747-8Is are being operated as business jets or VIP jets, not counting the 2 recently purchased by the U.S. Air Force for use as the next Air Force One fleet.

If the past is any indication, the Air Force One 747-8s will likely still be in regular service (though technically not commercial service) even longer than most of the other recent 747 deliveries, due to the relatively low number of flight cycles that they get.

They could possibly remain in service 30 years from now or more.

For comparison, the current Air Force One fleet is composed of modified 747-200s, which have long been retired from airline service.

I took this photo in July 2016 at the Frankfurt airport.

So at least in 2016 Lufthansa did indeed operate Boeing 747.

Delta just retired their last 747, but plenty of others still use them.

If you are in the Dallas area, you can see several 747's (mostly cargo, but BA operates the DFW->LHR->DFW route with a 747-400 - we call her "The Queen")

Looking at the older models, even the 747-200 is in commercial use, here is a complete list .

Some days ago a 747-200 of Fars Air Qeshm was damaged in an accident.

Boeing is not allowed to deliver repair parts.

But mins asks actually about flying as passenger.

I'm not sure, but a 747SP is some kind of 747-100?

So it is maybe possible to fly as passenger with one from Las Vegas Sands .

But I'm afraid you have to spend a lot of money.

Question: No American airline flies it anymore, but the Jumbo has been mythic for decades:   ANA B747-400.  Wikimedia , photo by Kentaro Iemoto  Is it still possible for a passenger to board a Jumbo Jet? Which airlines are still operating the B747 in 2018?

Are there any Boeing 747 still flying for commercial use?

Many airlines are still usingthe 747 Jumbo jet even though Delta have retired their last one. Moreover, the 747-81 is quite new and should be fluing for many decades more.

There are actually a lot of airlines that operate them for passenger use, mainly the 747-8Is. A list of the airlines still using them: British Airways, Air China, Air India,  Asiana Airlines,  Atlas Air, China Airlines, Corsair, El Al Iraqi Airways,  KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Korean Air, Lufthansa, Mahan Air, Qantas, Rossiya Airlines, Thai Airways, Virgin Atlantic  Wamos Air, and one can even be seen  in the Dallas area.


The plane would be lighter.

Not by much.

It cannot be hard to dedicate different planes to different routes.

This adds to the logistics difficulties in scheduling the airframes.

It's MUCH easier if all the airframes can be used on all the routes.

Returning the life jackets each time the plane has to fly over water.

This involves extra down-time/logistics before the airframe can fly the next trip.

You've used the phrase, "large bodies of water"; think about if the airplane needed to ditch in a "small body of water".

It would be preferrable that all people had life jackets and thus a chance to live.

Why do airlines not remove the life jackets from planes that fly over land?

They do, at least some of them.

I fly on intra-European routes regularly (mainly Eurowings) and have never seen life jackets on flights that don't cross the Mediterranean.

Obviously, the safety instructions don't include the life jacket demonstration either.

I would guess that especially for low-cost carriers, the weight advantage makes a difference.

Because this can still happen.

That’s US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River.

They made a movie about it starring Tom Hanks.

There’s no way to predict disasters, and had the plane been “efficient” having no life jackets

, I suspect it could have meant a lot of people drowning.

[But see comments.]

So it’s better to plan for contingencies, especially when it’s a cheap solution (Like life jackets or floating seats).

In other words, planning for anything and everything going wrong is just something pilots and aerospace engineers (and lawyers) are in the habit of doing, ideally.

Why do airlines not remove the life jackets from planes that fly over land?

The plane would be lighter and the safety demonstration shorter.

Some do.

As a specific example, if you fly Delta from Minneapolis to Lincoln, Nebraska, you'll be on a Canadair RJ-something (actually run by Sky West) that will only have a couple of infant lifejackets on board.

Everyone else can use their seat bottom cushion to help float – there are straps on the bottom to help you hold onto it.

However, it only makes sense to do this on planes that won't be used over any significant body of water.

For example, the lack of lifejackets prevents Sky West using those particular planes for something like a Minneapolis–Detroit flight, which would either pass over Lake Michigan or take an uncompetitive detour to the south.

They probably couldn't be used on Minneapolis–Chicago flights, even, since those can be routed out over the lake to approach O'Hare from the east.

Similarly, a European carrier that decided not to carry lifejackets would be unable to fly that plane to the UK without spending the time to put the lifejackets back and replace all the safety cards.

The Airbus A380 seats around 850 passengers 4 .

American Airlines has a fleet of about 950 aircraft of various models 2 .

The Cadillac of Wal-mart life-vests, purchased individually, costs \$30 1 .

Outfitting a fleet of 950

A380s with

life-vests purchased individually at Wal-mart comes in a $24,225,000 USD.

Even though I outfitted one of the largest fleets consisting of the largest aircraft with the life vests purchased using idiotically low business-sense, if I managed the rest of the business with some sense then the cost is (optimistically) about a day's worth of profits (American Airlines had a net profit of \$7.6B in 2015, though 2016 was a little slower at \$2.7B 3 ) for a once-in-an-aircraft's-liftime purchase (though there's no reason to retire them with the aircraft).

Regardless, your question was "why", not "why not"; what incentives are there for doing having life vests?

One possible incentive for airliners to go ahead and equip all aircraft with them is to take out any restrictions on the aircraft's serviceable zone that would be in-place if not equipped with life vests.

Maybe airports such as New York require life vests because it's so close to a large body of water that traveling over it is practically unavoidable?

Maybe it's economically advantageous to be able to re-route aircraft without the luxury of predictability.

Still I apologize I still have not fed you with any true answers, only supposition.

Maybe there is a regulation...

Otherwise, maybe the CEO of American Airlines will respond and tell us why the hell he blankets the life vests.

(Edited for coherence).

Mins raised a point about cost of maintenance being a significant cost (possibly larger than the cost to supply).

So maybe the there isn't much strength in the "why not" court.

References:

Question: According to  this  question, life jackets are not mandatory in planes that do not fly over large bodies of water. However, I have never been on an airline flight without life jackets (and the corresponding safety demonstration).  Why do airlines not remove the life jackets from planes that fly over land? The plane would be lighter and the safety demonstration shorter. Moreover, it can not be hard to dedicate different planes to different routes and avoid returning the life jackets each time the plane has to fly over water.

Why do all airliners have life jackets?

One possible incentive for airliners to go ahead and equip all aircraft with them is to take out any restrictions on the aircraft's serviceable zone that would be in-place if not equipped with life vests.  Moreover, planning for anything and everything going wrong is just something pilots and aerospace engineers (and lawyers) are in the habit of doing. It’s better to plan for contingencies, especially when it’s a cheap solution (Like life jackets or floating seats). However,  some people say they fly on intra-European routes regularly (mainly Eurowings) and have never seen life jackets on flights that don't cross the Mediterranean.

Some airlines remove the life jackets for flights that do not pass over bodies of water, especially low-cost companies for which the advantage of the reduced weight is important. That said, most carriers avoid it, because it is more convenient if all aircrafts can be used on all possible routes without restrictions. It is preferable to prepare for contingencies, just to be safe in the event of an emergency.

It is more convenient if all aircrafts can be used on all possible routes without restrictions.


There are really two reasons.

First, fighter tactics have evolved over time, and second, the role of the B-52 has evolved over time.

Fighter tactics Fighters used to depend (heavily) upon getting fairly close to an enemy, and shooting it down with a machine gun.

Over the years, guns have become less and less dominant, and instead fighters tend to use missiles from outside a machine gun's effective range.

Role Change

The B-52 was designed from the beginning to carry nuclear weapons.

Nonetheless, it's never been used to actually bomb an enemy with a nuclear weapon.

Early in its life, the B-52 was used to drop conventional bombs on enemies though.

During the Vietnam conflict (in particular)

B-52s were used to drop thousands of conventional 500 pound bombs on various targets.

The Linebacker II campaign was, perhaps, especially notable.

During Linebacker II, 15 B-52s were lost--all of them to surface to air missiles (SAMs) not enemy fighters.

Linebacker II did see some limited success from tail guns as well: two B-52s shot down two MiGs.

No B-52 (nor any other aircraft of similar size) has shot down an enemy fighter since.

Now, B-52s act as an aerial platform for launching stand-off weapons.

Its normal operation is to fly in low (where it's difficult to detect on radar), and launch from a substantial distance from the target.

Since it can be a substantial distance from the target, an enemy would need to defend a much larger perimeter (e.g., a large number of fighters basically blanketing a large area) to stand a decent chance of intercepting it.

Even if we assume an enemy fighter were to intercept the B-52, we get back to the situation with fighter tactics outlined above--

they'd be unlikely to get within range of its tail gun anyway.

I was in the United States Air Force (USAF) working B-52's when the tail gunner position was retired.

The reason was that it was deemed ineffective.

As the answers here point out, fighter aircraft evolved such that medium and long range air-to-air missiles were the primary weapons.

This kept fighters out far enough that the tail gun cannot hit.

But another very important reason was that the electronic countermeasures on the B-52s evolved such that it became the primary defense and was very effective.

Another major factor was that the fire control system was dependent on a radar transmitter/receiver.

That in itself is a problem, because the radar signal could be detected and identified.

When you are flying into enemy territory, you really don't want to do it with a radar transmission signal that says "BUFF OVER HERE WITH

LARGE PAYLOAD THAT WILL DO MASSIVE STRATEGIC DAMAGE IF WE GET THROUGH".

It needed to be re-engineered to be more stealth, and the USAF didn't assess the time and cost to do that would pay off.

Flexible gunnery is useless against surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles.

Which is the backbone of today's air defense systems.

Instead bombers have other means to distract said missiles.

( Source )

Flares and such.

Because the defending nations stopped sending fighter planes at them to shoot them down at close range (where those guns were effective) and instead launched Ground to Air or Air to Air missiles at them from a larger distance.

This meant that it's more important to defend against missiles than against fighters.

Gun turrets are for defending against aircraft that are within gun range.

However, modern fighters will usually lock on and fire missiles long before the fighter is within the range of a gun turret.

Nowadays, you can lock onto planes that you can barely see or even not see at all.

On the other hand, you have a very limited effective range with machineguns.

Also, keep in mind that shooting down a plane from another plane is very hard (check videos on gunner training in WWII).

Now imagine trying to do so on very fast planes like nowadays fighter jets.

To sum things up, most of the time, you won't even be in range to be able to use your machine guns and, even if you were, it would probably be really hard to defend yourself effectively.

Keep in mind that adding these machineguns weights down the aircraft and might even hinder the installation of more important equipment like flares or jammers.

There was a tailgunner on the B-52 because the use of canons by jet fighters back in the Vietnam war was more common than nowadays.

Modern fighters are usually armed with missiles, with which they can engage from far beyond the range of guns.

At least one North Vietnamese fighter was shot down by a B52D's rear gun armament during the Vietnam War, however.

Question: I know that for a period of time the B-52 had a tailgunner, but nowadays many heavy bombers lack any turret defense.Why?

Why don't modern heavy bombers have gun turrets?

Nowadays, the main weapons against bombers are ground-to-air missiles, machine guns would be useless against these, hence no need for a gun turret.

The main reason is that fighter tactics have changed; guns are much less used and instead fighters use long range air-to-air missiles. Guns are useless against either those, or surface-to-air missiles. The guns do not have the necessary range to be effective. The role of the B-52 changed together with its electronic countermeasures and it became the primary defence, losing the gun turrets in the process. Another reason is that the fire control system operated using a radar. These machineguns weighted a lot and left no room for more important equipment, i.e. flares, jammers, etc.

Fighter tactics have changed; guns are much less used and instead fighters use long range air-to-air missiles. Guns are useless against either those, or surface-to-air missiles. The guns do not have the necessary range to be effective.


Short-field take-off techniques often achieve a shorter ground run by hurting climb performance.

While having more runway is great for safety, planning to use less of the runway is not a huge benefit: you always plan to have enough runway left if you need to abort during the take-off roll.

It's much better to have more height quickly in the climb-out: it gives you more margin against obstacles after the runway's protected area, and it gives you more height to land in case of an engine failure after take-off (EFATO).

The numbers for a normal take-off optimise for a good rate of climb, which has the greatest benefit to safety.

A short-field take-off gives you an extra option when the runway length is too short for that - at the cost of some margin if there's a problem in the climb-out.

First off as the pilot in command, you are free to do this if you feel it is the safe way to operate the aircraft in a given situation even if runway does not dictate it.

According to the FAA's handbook the short field take off requires a high degree of control of the aircraft, The pilot should be aware that, in some airplanes, a deviation of 5 knots from the recommended speed may result in a significant reduction in climb performance; therefore, the pilot must maintain precise control of the airspeed to ensure the maneuver is executed safely and successfully.

While an experienced pilot may be ok with this student pilots and newly minted ticket holders may feel less comfortable and thus choose to only fly from runways where this is not required, although it should be noted this is part of the ACS and thus part of getting at least a PPL here in the US.

Due to the degree of precision the maneuver may be used less than a standard takeoff.

There is an interesting article here worth reading on the topic.

Short field takeoffs are more complicated than simple takeoffs.

That is why they are taught later, once you are familiar with normal takeoffs.

Depending upon the plane, there are several steps you need to take for a short field takeoff:

add flaps, line up before the piano, press brakes, full power, check engine gauges, release brakes, etc.

This is simply more complicated than full throttle/check engine gauges.

There are a thousand things that you need to keep in mind while flying.

It is best to keep simple things simple.

Of course you can always do short field takeoffs if it pleases you.

Most runways you will takeoff from will be long enough from a GA perspective.

In case the runway is short, you should of course use the short field technique. :)

As Dave and others have already mentioned, short-field takeoffs result in taking off with significantly less airspeed than usual.

Your goal in a short-field takeoff is essentially to fly the plane just slightly above the point where it is not flyable.

As a result of this, the margin for error in a short-field takeoff is considerably smaller than in a normal takeoff.

In addition to the relatively poor climb-out performance mentioned in Dan's answer, you're intentionally trying to fly just beyond stall speed.

Relatively small wind gusts can put you back on the ground in a hurry, as could momentarily pitching up too much.

All-in-all the short-field takeoff is just a relatively more dangerous way to take off if you have sufficient runway for a normal takeoff.

You'll have less control authority and, so, less ability to correct the plane's attitude in gusty conditions.

You'll have less airspeed and be more susceptible to stalling at low altitude (whether due to gusty winds, accidental excess pitch, or a combination of the two.)

You'll also be less able to climb clear of obstacles at the end of the runway.

The flaps will also be providing additional drag, so you'll use up more horizontal distance in order to get up to speed for the climb-out.

Your only real gain for all of these trade-offs is that the wheels will have a shorter roll across the ground, so it's just not worth it unless you really don't have the runway to spare.

I used to fly a 4-seater Rallye Minerva, and, if I recall correctly, the recommendedshort field take off involved putting on full flaps (30°) just before liftoffspeed (the flaps were operated by a handbrake sort of affair) and then basically flying level until an appropriate speed was attained.

While no takeoff was relaxing, this procedure was a little unnerving (it tookquite a bit of effort to latch the flaps in, and there wasn't always a secondchance), and certainly not one I would use on a regular basis.

A crosswind added tothe tension as the liftoff speed was fairly slow (something like 42KT).

This was a lot more work than I would want to do when operating from a busyairport, and generally reserved for shorter 'fields' (100m, yep, you read thatright).

Furthermore, you want to minimize the time of full power to the engine to reduce the chance of its failing.

You also want to keep fuel burn down so there's more reserve at the end - or less to be loaded to start, allowing more payload.

A "normal" takeoff improves all the above along with airspeed margins, visibility over the cowling, cooling airflow to the engine and more.

All of which are benefits it offers compared to a short (or soft) field takeoff.

Question: Depending on the airframe, there are a number of techniques to reduce the Take Off Distance required. For example, deploying flaps.  What advantage is there to NOT using short field take offs, even when runway length is sufficient? Surely it's always advantageous to require the minimal amount of runway, thereby adding a larger margin for error?

Why don't we treat all takeoffs as short field in GA?

Normal runway length provides for optimum climb when the aircraft takes off and allows a margin for error in case something goes wrong. A short runway take-off reduces this margin for error and therefor is less safe.

You can always perform a short-field take-off if you prefer, there are no restrictions against it. However, with short-field take-off, climb performance is diminished, so there is less margin against obstacles or stalling. Due to the flaps, there is also additional drag. Short-field take-off is much more difficult and complicated and, as a result, more dangerous.

That is why they are taught later, once you are familiar with normal takeoffs.

With short-field take-off, climb performance is diminished, so there is less margin against obstacles or stalling. Due to the flaps, there is also additional drag.


In the aerobatic community we would call that the beginning of an Aileron Roll .

It's harder than it looks.

You do a roll change maneuver.

In German it is a " Rollwechsel ", and the time it takes to do this from -45° bank to 45° bank is an important measure for the agility of a glider.

The maneuver is meant to teach you how to quickly change the direction of circling, and for most gliders it limits the minimum size of their vertical tail surface.

The European certification regulations for gliders demand in section CS 22.147: Using an appropriate combination of controls it must be possible to reverse the direction of a turn with a 45° bank in the opposite direction within b/3 seconds (b is the span in metres) when the turns are made at a speed of 1·4 V$_{S1}$ with wing-flaps in the most positive en-route position, air brakes and, where applicable, landing gear retracted and without significant slip or skid.

Note the speed (v$_{S1}$ is the stall speed):

The faster you fly, the easier it is.

Since induced drag is highest at low speed, the adverse yaw resulting from the aileron deflection is impossible to overcome if you fly slowly.

Glider designers try to make the tail just big enough

so CS 22.147 can be fulfilled (the condition "without significant slip or skid" is crucial here!).

If you want to start an aileron roll this way: Please don't!

It takes a little more to roll a glider properly.

Here at the University we call it a "Perfect Roll", it is commonly used to assess the turning characteristics of an aircraft.

In Argentina we used to call it "coordinación" (coordination).

It sounds like the process of doing a slow roll, though the pilot usually does the role until they are at the 180 mark, that is inverted.

In addition to being (mistakenly) called a Dutch roll, I hear that maneuver called "rolling on a point" or "rolling on a heading.

" This is probably the most unambiguous description, as you are rolling the plane while using coordinated inputs to keep the heading constant.

Question: My instructor made me do an exercise that consists of banking the sailplane left and right around 30 degrees without moving from the axis. I need to aim for a specific point, and start with the exercise. This is a coordination exercise but does it have a name? It's like a dutch roll but I need to stay in the roll axis without moving.

What is it called when you roll without yawing or pitching?

A roll without yawning or pitching is called a rool change maneuver, Roolwechsel in German, Perfect Roll, Coordinacion in Argentina, Rolling on point or Rolling on a heading.

Although it is often mistakenly called a "Dutch roll", in English it is more correctly called a "roll change maneuver", a "Perfect roll" or "rolling on a point". It is also similar to the "slow roll", though inverted. The German equivalent is called "Rollwechsel" and in Argentina they call it "coordinación" (coordination).


Short answer:

the US government agreed with you 3 years after her record flight.

In the FAA reauthorization act of 1996 , the following clause was added to 49 U.S. Code § 44724 - Manipulation of flight controls: (a)Prohibition.—No pilot in command of an aircraft may allow an individual who does not hold— (1) a valid private pilots certificate issued by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and (2) the appropriate medical certificate issued by the Administrator under part 67 of such title, to manipulate the controls of an aircraft if the pilot knows or should have known that the individual is attempting to set a record or engage in an aeronautical competition or aeronautical feat, as defined by the Administrator.

Per 14 CFR 91 (can't find the exact text right now, but I know this is true from my flight training)

, you cannot obtain a student pilot's license until age 14 (so, no soloing until then, let alone a long-distance trip) and a private pilot's license until age 16 (for gliders).

You can't get a private pilot's license for your typical single engine aircraft until age 18.

A sport pilot's license is possible by age 17, but is limited on the aircraft you can fly (that said, a coast-to-coast trip has been flown in a Piper J-3 Cub, which fits under the sport pilot license) and conditions you can fly in.

Hence, it would not presently be legal to do what Vicki did in 1993.

According to a NY Times article covering another young pilot, Jessica Dubroff (aged 7 at the time of her fatally unsuccessful attempt at a coast-to-coast flight): Jessica was breaking no aviation rules when she flew.

The plane had dual sets of controls, meaning that the flight instructor was legally considered in charge and had the ability to take control instantly, though the plans called for Mr. Reid to take over only in an emergency.

But within hours of the crash, Federal authorities announced that they would re-examine existing regulations on underage pilots.

This would have preceded the addition to the USC quoted above.

I can't give an authoritative answer because I doubt one exists, but one huge difference between cars and planes is that all aircraft used for primary instruction can be flown from either seat.

Both legally, and physically.

It's almost always entirely possible for a pilot to conduct an entire flight by themselves from the second seat, save perhaps some small logistical issues with the location of a switch or two.

To that end, it's not possible to fly in the front seat of a trainer without being at the controls.

Therefore any passenger, in either seat, is sat in a position of being able to take control of the aircraft.

In addition to that, while aircraft are often designed with one primary seat in mind (normally the left hand seat), there are rarely any legal restrictions that say a training aircraft can't be commanded from the right.

This differs hugely from a car which, firstly, is designed specifically to be driven from one side or another.

An instructor in the passenger seat may have a SUBSET of controls, but sometimes not and therefore can't fully control the vehicle from that seat.

Driving requires a much faster reaction time.

Look at how the consensus process works inside a cockpit under healthy CRM.

Just having a brief "My airplane" /

"Your airplane" is far too slow for typical driving events.

Even if we set aside those formalities and simply have the Co-driver "leap in when needed", events don't unfold that way.

Actually what happens is the Co-driver sees the emerging problem (truck pulling into their path) and the first thing she does is presume

the Driver is going to handle it correctly.

If the Co-driver leaps in too soon, 99% of the time she ends up needlessly wrestling the driver for control.

So the co-driver intervenes quite late, only when it's clear the Driver isn't doing the job.

At this point, usually, your goose is cooked.

A classic example of this was the first fatal crash of someone letting the computer drive : the co-driver was attentive and not watching a Harry Potter movie .

Things unfold in rail operations slower than they do in cars, and yet still, discovering the driving mistake happened too late to prevent it.

All this to say... events in an airplane typically happen a lot slower, giving pilots a lot more time to use CRM to work solutions.

Once the solution is agreed, the hard part - the use of judgment is done, and it's down to execution.

aviation.stackexchange.com/users/22864/Harper - Reinstate Monica

Regarding the comparison of the "set of principles that flying has as opposed to driving": It's not necessarily the difference in the principles that matters;both kinds of vehicles have ways to control how fast you go and the direction in which you go, and in both vehicles it is possible to lose control (and sometimes also to regain control).But the principles of flight and the principles of driving are typically exercised under vastly different sets of conditions.

If pilots routinely flew along routes where there were solid obstacles just a few meters from the wingtips on either side (like the trees lining a country road) or if there were typically other aircraft flying in the same direction three seconds ahead of you and three seconds behind, and sometimes someone passing you in the same (or opposite) direction just a few meters away, I imagine the rules of flight would be somewhat different than they are now.

But those are not the usual conditions under which people fly.

A very large part of the population drives, which means that a large part of the population consider themselves authorities on driving, and qualified to tell other drivers what to do.

Far fewer people are pilots, which means that the average person more or less trusts the professionals to know what they're doing when it comes to flying.

This results in different regulatory environments.

Question: I read an autobiography about Vicki Van Meter, who, with her instructor, flew across the United States at age 11 in 1993. Why could someone of that age not drive with the instructor?Does it have to do with a different set of principles that flying has as opposed to driving?

Why does flying not have any age restrictions like driving does?

Driving a car required much faster reaction times than flying a plane. There are more obstacles to avoid, other traffic very close on the road and the errors of other drivers to react to. In general, these issues do not occur during flight. However, there is a younger end age limit as you cannot get a pilot licence until you are 18.

In fact, in 1996 the legal framework changed so it is no longer possible to fly at such a young age. You need to be 18 to get a pilot's license  (17 for sport pilot's license). That said, one reason for this difference that used to exist is that planes can be flown from both seats, so the instructor can always completely take over. Also, when driving, obstacles are much closer and distances are shorter, so faster reaction times are required.

One reason is that planes can be flown from both seats, so the instructor can always completely take over.

When driving, obstacles are much closer and distances are shorter, so faster reaction times are required.


There is a discussion on it here that's worth reading but in short the requirements were just different.

A few of the key points, The black color on the SR-71 offered some night camouflage in addition to its heat dissipation

The Concorde had an Aluminium airframe while the SR-71 had a primarily titanium airframe which could lead to different coating types.

The Concorde was a commercial aircraft many of which are often painted white thermal benefits aside they may have simply been keeping with what they usually did.

The SR-71 flew substantially faster than the Concorde and had different thermal requirements.

The hottest point on the Concorde was the nose 127°C which was actually cooled by fuel being pumped through as a coolant.

The hottest point on the SR-71 was the cockpit window which cooked in at 327°C again, very different requirements thermally.

Concorde's average skin temperature was 92°C (365K).

Calculating the black body radiation using the Stefan Boltzmann law we get 1006W/m².

This the maximum heat flux possible with perfect radiation, and very similar to the heat flux of solar radiation, which is also about 1kW/m² at the earth's surface in the absence of clouds (and a bit higher at Concorde's typical cruising altitude.)

However, as others have pointed out, at these temperatures Concorde would radiate in the far infra red, and it is perfectly possible to have a selective paint that appears white in the visible region (reflecting much of the heat of sunlight) while also radiating in the infra red region.

The Blackbird was black so it could absorb radiation, not so it could emit radiation.

Look at the Blackbird's predecessor, the A-12, it is fairly easy to find pictures of the A-12 with polished or partially polished finish.

The Blackbird and A-12 moved to a radar absorbent black finish for reasons of observability, flying at the edge of space means a darker surrounding than lower in the atmosphere so the camouflage requirement is different than say a fighter jet.

Any thermal emissions that do occur do so well outside the visible spectrum.

To reach the point at which it is beneficial to thermally dissipation for the aircraft to be painted black is to reach the point that the aircraft emits more energy as radiation than it absorbs in the visible spectrum.

At that point the black aircraft would be brighter than a white aircraft.

Good question.

There are two main reasons for the Concorde's specific coloring:

Heat absorption and heat emission.

The key to its color scheme is in the materials used in construction of each plane.

The Concorde was made of aluminum, which emits heat far more quickly and effectively than the SR-71's titanium skin.

Contrary to popular belief, the plane will become ductile and lose structural integrity at far lower temperatures than the metal's melting point, and preventing the metal from reaching these temperatures is a key reason for the paint colors of each aircraft.

Aluminum becomes ductile and unacceptably weak at higher temperatures, but would rarely reach them at the Concorde's cruise speed, as the metal reflects/releases sufficient heat so that the paint can can do a more proactive job of keeping heat absorption at a minimum.

If titanium had similarly good heat dissipation capabilities then I am confident that it too would have been white.

However, titanium at speeds around the Blackbird's cruise range would absorb far too much heat for it to release, so the black paint would actually be superior in terms of heat dissipation to compensate for titanium's natural characteristics.

Short answer shorter, the aluminum on the Concorde didn't get hot enough for the aluminum to lose integrity, so white was the better option in terms of preventing the metal from reaching those critical temperatures.

The SR-71 however could not release heat as quickly as aluminum, so the paint was designed to aid it in that regard.

Hope this helps,

sorry about the formatting I am in a rush so if there was anything conceptual I left out then please comment.

Concorde was a civilian commercial vehicle.

It's mission is not 100% flying, but also embarking and disembarking of passengers, waiting for ATC permission, etc.

This means, it spend considerable time, on the ground, on low power, not heated by the airflow - but heated by the sun.

For this part of the mission, white paint is vastly superior.

SR-71 was a military aircraft and it was optimized for one thing only - the flight.

Sunbathing at the airport was not an issue, it was kept in a hangar for as long as possible anyway.

Question: It's well-known that the stated reason the Concorde was painted predominantly white  was to mitigate heating problems .  However, given that the source of the Concorde's thermal woes wasn't excessive exposure to solar radiation, but, rather, direct conduction and convection of compression heat, I'm confused; in that case, shouldn't the Concorde have been painted black (or nearly black),  like the SR-71 , to better radiate heat away?

Why was the Concorde painted white and not black?

S2: The Concorde had an Aluminium airframe while the SR-71 had a primarily titanium airframe which could lead to different coating types.  The aluminum on the Concorde didn't get hot enough for the aluminum to lose integrity, so white was the better option in terms of preventing the metal from reaching those critical temperatures. Moreover, the Concorde was a commercial aircraft many of which are  often painted white  thermal benefits aside they may have simply been keeping with what they usually did.

The main reason is the heat absorption and heat emission of each material. Concorde's aluminium airframe is favoured by a lighter color scheme. It is more advantageous to paint an aircraft black only when it emits more energy as radiation than it is able to absorb, within the visible spectrum. Another reason is perhaps that the Concorde was a commercial airplane, which are usually painted white.

The Concorde was a commercial airplane, which are usually painted white.


The FAA AIM and ATC (7110.65) documents don't mention the ICAO equivalent.

But I found it in the US AIP : 34.1

At times a clearance may include the word “IMMEDIATE.”

For example: “ CLEARED FOR IMMEDIATE TAKEOFF. ”

In such cases “IMMEDIATE” is used for purposes of air traffic separation.

It is up to the pilot to refuse the clearance if, in the pilot’s opinion, compliance would adversely affect the operation.

Assuming US/FAA: The Pilot/Controller Glossary only has one instance of "no delay": MINIMUM FUEL − Indicates that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay.

This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.

"Immediate takeoff" doesn't exist, either, but we do get IMMEDIATELY − Used by ATC or pilots when such action compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation.

We can cross-reference this with the Skybrary entry for Immediate Takeoff :

When given the instruction ‘cleared for immediate takeoff’, the pilot is expected to act as follows: At the holding point: taxi immediately on to the runway and begin a rolling take off without stopping the aircraft.

If it is not possible to begin taxiing onto the runway at once or if take off performance calculations mean that a standing start is necessary, then the clearance must be declined If already lined-up on the runway: commence take-off without any delay.

If this is not possible for any reason, the pilot must advise the controller immediately.

So that suggests that "immediate takeoff" is more standard.

My experience has always had the clearance be "no delays".

If the P/CG doesn't technically define either phrase then I can suppose that they use "no delays" to avoid the knee-jerk "I must do something" to "immediately".

For "no delays" you can always easily respond "unable" and wait until the next plane lands.

According to the ICAO Doc 4444

14th ed.

(Procedures forAir Navigation Services - Air Traffic Management )

They mention a clearance for "immediate take-off" in section 7.8.3.4: 7.8.3.4

In the interest of expediting traffic, a clearancefor immediate take-off may be issued to an aircraft before itenters the runway.

On acceptance of such clearance the aircraftshall taxi out to the runway and take off in one continuousmovement.

I don't see any reference to "take-off, no delay" or "cleared for immediate take-off" in the FAA ORDER

JO 7110.65W (air traffic control procedures and phraseology).

I believe both are correct with ATC opting to use "Cleared for take-off, no delay.

" to shorten their transmission to save time.

There's also the option of expedite .

EXPEDITE− Used by ATC when prompt compliance is required to avoid the development of an imminent situation.

Here's one from the field ,

TOWER:

Southwest 3828, Midway tower, runway 31C, line up and wait.

Don't plan on stopping .

31C line up and wait, Southwest 3828.

TOWER:

Southwest 3828, traffic holding in position on the crossed runway, traffic on 3-mile final for the crossed runway, no delay please .

Turn left heading 250, Runway 31C, cleared for takeoff.

The wind 060 at 9. SWA3828 and DELTA1328: Heterodyne

What follows the heterodyne is what makes this one famous, but the answer to your question as plays out here, is the controller intentionally used informal language in his advisory "don't plan on stopping" and the admonishment "no delay please".

aviation.stackexchange.com/users/22864/Harper - Reinstate Monica

Question: Just wondering - what's the correct ATC phraseology for a takeoff where a plane does not stop first after lining up with the runway centerline before starting their takeoff roll?   Redwood five-two-six-three, runway three-zero cleared for takeoff, no delay.  Redwood five-two-six-three, runway three-zero cleared for immediate takeoff.

What is the correct ATC phraseology in the US for an immediate - no delay takeoff?

"Immediate", "Expedite" and "minimum fuel" are terms used to indicate a no delay take off.

Usually, "IMMEDIATE" or "IMMEDIATELY" is used by ATC or the pilots for air traffic separation. "EXPEDITE" can also be used when quick compliance is vital to avoid an imminent situation. Finally, in the Pilot/Controller Glossary there is only one instance of "no delay":   MINIMUM FUEL   −   for when an aircraft is almost out of fuel and upon arriving, there needs to be no delay.

In the Pilot/Controller Glossary there is only one instance of "no delay":   MINIMUM FUEL   −   for when an aircraft is almost out of fuel and upon arriving, there needs to be no delay.


The Dunne D.8 used a pair of levers , each controlling one elevon.

The early wright glider (1902) had its rudder connected to the wing warping system.

they connected the rudder control cables to the wing-warping hip cradle, so a single motion by the pilot operated both controls.

They also changed the original double rudder to a single rudder, as shown here.

The wrights also used a hip cradle to move the wing warping system (early aileron system) as well as the cross connected rudder which I cant say exists any more.

The Wrights steered their 1903 Flyer with a hip cradle, which the pilot controlled by sliding his hips from side to side.

Similarly the elevator had a dedicated independent control.

This lever, operated by the pilot's left hand, was connected by a pulley system to the plane's elevator.

Early aircraft that sported a rotary engine , the style where the entire engine spins and the crank remains stationary generally had no effective throttle.

Instead the throttle was controlled with a " blip switch " that grounded the magneto temporarily and cutting the engine out.

This is far different than our modern throttle systems.

See the answers to this question r.e. steering wheels

The Wrights themselves experimented with a variety of frankly scary control arrangements after their elevator-lever-and-hip-cradle arrangement in the original Flyer.

The Flyer III had three levers: the lever on the pilot's outside right turned the rudder, the one to the inside right warped the wings, and the lever on the left controlled the elevator; the first Model A was also so equipped [ 1 ].

Wilbur found this difficult, blaming a crash in the Flyer III on it, and for the Model

A

they took to France

he used two levers:

the left hand controlled the elevator, while the right hand controlled wing-warping with a fore-and-aft motion, and the rudder with a lateral movement.

For a while, you could order a Model A with either 'Orville' or 'Wilbur' controls, though the 'Orville' system was modified to more resemble the 'Wilbur' system by creating a jointed lever, controlling the wing-warping by moving the whole assembly fore-and-aft, and rudder by moving the upper section laterally.

This stick was placed between the seats, while an elevator lever was put to the left of the left seat and the right of the right seat - so if you switched seats, the handedness of the controls also switched (to be fair

, that is also the case today with center-mounted throttles.)

There were undoubtedly other variants wherever experimental aircraft were built.

In 1909, Baron Pierre de Caters was using a foot-operated rudder bar, and the invention of the conventional stick-and-rudder arrangement is generally credited to Esnault-Pelterie and first used by Bleriot.

Then there are helicopters: collective pitch, cyclic pitch, torque pedals, and throttle (this last often twist-grip).

Various near-space aircraft (X-15, NF104A ...) were fitted with thrusters for attitude control at altitudes where aerodynamic controls are ineffective.

In the case of the NF104A (an F104 with a rocket motor added), control was through a separate 'stick' [ 5 ]: Shaped like a pump handle of a yard spray tank, the RCS controller was rotated in the desired roll direction, pushed left and right for corresponding yaw and raised to nose up for increased alpha or down to lower it.

Any and all command combinations were possible.

The rate of rotation around an axis was a function of how long the thruster had been activated, and continued after the control was centered, giving a very different feel than aerodynamic controls.

It was not anticipated that the shut-down jet engine would continue to spin for some time in the very thin air, and would cause gyroscopic precession when the aircraft was rotated in pitch and yaw.

To add to these difficulties, the thruster controller had been miswired for the first high-altitude flight, which nevertheless was flown successfully.

The Wright Flyer used a simple wooden lever in the left hand to control the forward mounted elevator for pitch control.

A sliding body cradle was used to transmit left and right body movements to simultaneously control both the wing warping for roll control, and the rudder for yaw control.

This was the first 3 axis control.

With the Wright Flyer III the roll and yaw controls became 2 separate control inputs and the flight controls quickly evolved into the conventional stick and rudder that is still in use today.

Pre WW2 French Aircraft had the throttle reversed - i.e. Moving the throttle rearwards INCREASED engine power, and moving the throttle forwards DECREASED engine power.

American Curtiss H-75 Hawks exported to France had the modifications made on re-assembly in France - something for any American company test-pilot in France to remember....

Question: Back in the early days, what kind of control schemes were invented for aircraft, other than the modern one? (pedals to yaw, yoke to pitch and roll).  I'm only interested in control schemes that can be done from the cockpit and control relatively small surfaces. So no weight-shifting, no wing-warping.  Hypothetical examples: 2 yokes (1 for each aileron and elevator), a steering wheel?, one-axis yokes?

In the early days of flight, were there any cockpit control schemes other than the modern one?

Various devices have been used for cockpit control in the past. These include levers, throttles, hand and foot operated rudders, hip cradle, pedals and sticks. These can be found on a variety of early planes and helicopters.

First kind of control system referred were levers controlling an elevon on Dunne D.8 and more specifically, three of them controlling the Flyer III. As for the Wright brothers, they were also using a wooden lever. Another example is the connection of the rudder with the warping system of the wings in 1902. Moreover, a hip cradle was used for the movement of the wings by the Wrights. Another independent control system was a "blip switch" controlling the throttle and in 1909, a foot-operated rudder was added. As for the helicopters, pitches, pedals and throttles are added. On the NF104A, the control system was a sort of a stick. Last but not least, a reversed throttle to increase power was used before the WWII from French.

The wrights also used a hip cradle to move the wing warping system (early aileron system) as well as the cross connected rudder which I cant say exists any more.

There was also a hip cradle, a rudder or a wooden lever used by the Wrights seperately.

A blip switch was controlling the throttle.

Pitches, pedals and throttles are added in the category of helicopters.

A reversed throttle to increase power was used before the WWII from  French.


I would want to build in a way for the plane to try and save itself if possible (to save money) by auto-landing

Had the situation allowed saving the airplane the human pilot would definitely have tried that first.

The fact that a trained fighter jet pilot decided to eject from an aircraft knowing that the ejection was a last resort and could be deadly, signifies that the plane was not able to be flown safely anymore.

On top of numerous irrecoverable problems at that point, one of the most significant issues is the fact that ejection destabilizes the flight path and the increased drag (because there is no longer a canopy on top) makes it even harder to safely glide that jet, let alone land it somewhere.

There is nothing much autopilot can do at that point.

There have been two famous incidents that are related to your question but afaik neither of them involve Auto Pilot.

1989 Belgian MiG-23 crash Cornfield Bomber

It's just like saying

I know the airplane can be saved but my computer will take care of it

, I'm outta here.

See you at the Court Martial.

Some commentators have noted that I did not answer one basic question: Don't forget to answer the question "If a pilot ejects, what is the autopilot programmed to do?

", even if the question seems moot This question is too broad: there are numerous models of fighter jets all around the world, built by a number of manufactures and internal details of which are closely guarded secrets.

You are not going to generally find out a manual on the web listing all the actions that the autopilot software will perform after a bail out.

If the OP can narrow down the question to a certain model one can research and try to find something

but I don't believe its going to be an easy find.

Hence I'm sorry I don't have an answer to that question.

I hope someone more knowledgeable goes ahead and posts an answer to that.

To add some context to the other answers...

Ejection is not a safe thing to do.

The two most popular ejection systems today, the ACES II and Martin-Baker, have around a 90-92% success rate...

the definition of success being the person lived.

Most ejections result in some injury to the person, as it is a fairly violent activity, with a brief 20g impact when the seat fires. FALSE

Almost all ejection occupants will suffer some form of spinal compression, typically they'll lose half an inch of height.

If the person doesn't follow protocol exactly, they may lose an arm on the way out.

If the head isn't perfectly in line with the spine, the neck can be broken.

Ejection is a measure of last resort, to be used only if the only other option is certain death.

So it's pretty much a given if the crew member fires the ejection seat, there is no other viable option, and the aircraft is uncontrollable, or will very soon be uncontrollable, by a pilot or an autopilot.

Also, if the aircraft is gyrating wildly, the seat can malfunction, or the occupant can be struck by parts of the aircraft, so waiting until the aircraft is completely out of control isn't a wise move, either.

Whatever it was programmed to do at the moment the pilot ejected.

Ejection seats are complex enough without integrating special processing of the event into the autopilot.

Since the autopilot can't land even an intact plane on its own, there's nothing it could do to save the plane.

Some ejections are indeed performed from aircraft that could potentially be saved, and have been landed with similar damage.

It's a matter of avoiding excessive risks from a gamble for an 80% chance of a safe landing and 20% a violent crash that sets the deck park on fire.

For certain historical reasons, many navies maintain an understandable bias against fires on the deck, and would prefer just ditching one plane.

On dry land, there's more latitude for crash landings.

As for preventing (or causing) collateral damage on the ground, the only way is for the pilot to point their plane somewhere and pray.

The autopilot is a reactive system - it doesn't concern itself with what's wrong or model the aircraft, just corrects what happens, so, possibly counterintuitively, it's often not too bad at controlling a damaged plane.

Since fighter control surfaces are large enough to counteract a lot of damage-induced drag, a working autopilot has a chance to maintain its last heading even with a damaged craft.

And that's as good as you could get with the current level of flight automation.

It generally does nothing.

When a pilot ejects from the plane, that bird is screwed beyond saving.

There is no autopilot in the world which is sophisticated enough to fly a military plane even when it's fully intact, let alone when it's on fire and going down.

However, as I heard, there was a Su-27 model (or some descendant of the Flanker, maybe just a prototype?)

which had a peculiar easter egg: after ejection the onboard voice announcement system (the female voice which warns the pilot to certain things) talked for the last time: "

Good bye, and thank you on behalf of the fleet.

" There was nobody to hear it, and the pilot's helmet has already been disconnected by this time, so it was really just some engineer's idea of a joke.

I don't know if it's an actual feature in current Russian naval Flankers.

I imagine there's probably a switch such that over enemy or unknown territory the plane self-destructs.

But you don't want this over your own training areas such that some kind of controlled landing may be programmed in when in training mode.

Question: If a pilot uses his ejector seat during flight, what is the autopilot programmed to do?  As a developer myself, I would want to build in a way for the plane to try and save itself if possible (to save money) by auto-landing, or at the very least, calculate the nearest least-populated area for a crash-landing. So I'm wondering if anything like this is even written into the software.

If a pilot ejects, what is the autopilot programmed to do?

There is little an autopilot can do when a pilot ejects. It will continue to do what it was programmed to do when the pilot ejected.

According to one answer, at the moment of the pilot's ejection, the autopilot cannot do anything more. According to another view, the  autopilot could only do whatever it was programmed to do according to its software, prior to the ejection.

At the moment of the pilot's ejection, the autopilot cannot do anything more.

The  autopilot could only do whatever it was programmed to do according to its software, prior to the ejection.