Giant Skeleton, like any other Tank is best countered with swarm .

By far the best swarm in the game is the skeleton army.

But I've been countered with, and have been countering with a Witch or Barbarians , the later being quite popular among my enemies.

Pretty much anything that will keep him busy long enough to die, before reaching your towers.

The best strategy I'm aware of is to wait for it to come on your side of the map, and then place the army around him.

Even if the enemy has arrows or something similar, the skeleton would'be dead by the time they react.

Good point worth mentioning is, flying swarm is not good, as the skeleton ignores them and keeps going to the tower.

It will die eventually but not before dealing 1000+dmg to the tower ...

If you're at or above Pekka's Playhouse then including an Inferno Tower in your deck may help you counter this easily if you're seeing a lot of the Giant Skeleton.

Due to its nature this is actually true with any high HP targets, but it works really nicely against the Giant Skeleton because it means you don't have to sacrifice troops to his bomb.

Alternatively, if you can distract him with a low cost building like a Tombstone, attacking him with faster units like minions will allow them to leave the area before the bomb goes off.

The Giant Skeleton will run off the path to attack a Tombstone or other unit that is coming at him, so kite him away from your Crown Towers and isolate that bomb!

My main deck uses Giant Skeleton , so I've seen a lot of defensive strategies.

To summarize: Hordes - Generally Giant Skeleton attacks slow, so he'll only take out one Horde troop at a time, and will get pummeled by the rest.

Minion Horde or Skeleton Horde will take him down in seconds.

Turning - Anything that kills the Giant Skeleton will promptly path right past his bomb.

To avoid this, put troops behind him once in your territory, so that they get clear before the bomb goes off. Kiting -

The best Elixir trade on a Giant Skeleton is to use cheap Horde troops like Skeletons or Goblins to kite him to the center and even across to the other lane.

This is most easily attempted when he is not backed up by ranged Area Damage troops like Wizards/Baby Drags (who will instantly splat cheap troops).

Inferno/

Other Towers - Giant Skeleton will target anything, so Towers/Huts are a great distraction, essentially similar to kiting.

The Inferno Tower is a positive Elixir trade if he is alone, but does need to build up enough DPS to take him down.

If the opponent is using Freeze, Zap, or has Hog/Horde backup watch out for it to be taken down to quickly.

Above all, the biggest priority is to keep the bomb away from your towers and avoid sacrificing too many troops to it.

Honestly, the Giant Skeleton is one of my favorite cards, I think however the giant skeleton can be easily countered as long as you remember these things:

Watch how much elixir you spend.

You want to spend 6 or less elixir to counter him since he costs 6 elixir to use.

Using goblins, valkyrie or even regular skeletons can distract the giant skeleton for a long time, hopefully long enough for you to kill it effectively.

Place troops behind it so after killing the skeleton they can run away

and hopefully you can form a counter-push. Inferno Tower Remember the range of the giant skeleton.

Round-abouts, place a fast, building targetting unit that isn't too fast behind the giant skeleton.

The giant skeleton will actually turn around and usually walk all the way back to the enemy's side to kill whatever (hog rider works well) and this allows you to cycle back to a small troop or save or a inferno tower or something.

Just know the giant skeleton, know it's stats, bomb damage, etc.

What other people have said, kiting, luring, etc.

Wait

until the bomb explodes before placing any troops, otherwise the troop will take unnecessary damage.

Remember, giant skeletons will keep walking if you use only air troops to counter it.

Good luck!

Sources: EXP and pushing to Royal Arena

I typically drop a Pekka and a Prince.

They both have large amounts of damage and decent health.

I typically wipe out the Giant Skeleton before it touches my base with those troops.

A good strategy as mentioned by @h0ch5tr4355 is to drop the troops behind the Giant Skeleton.

Dropping something like barbarians behind it will cause it to turn around to attack them and after the barbs kill it, they can usually get out of the bomb explosion radius as they do not have to walk across the full area that is within the range of the bomb.

It is a good card against a Golem deck.

Otherwise, i think it's a bad card.

Can be pro actively countered with skeleton hut or any hut quite well.

Hordes or skelly army can be countered by the Giant Skeleton user with poison, arrows, wizard, queen, etc, which they'd most have and wouldn't count on as a good defense against the GS. Forementioned points of kiting and placing troops behind it are definitely valid.

He works well against golem because of the elixir swap and that you can't easily compliment that matchup as a golem user.

I've seen it work, but it's due to an elixir advantage that was manifested in an efficient defense gained earlier.

6 elixir for emergency defense is not good.

If you have an inferno dragon, use it, but rage it.

If you don't have one, minion hordes do great damage, under rage.

You need to rage your troops because the giant Skelly can do insane damage to a tower, with it's hit, and it's bomb.

You don't want the giant Skelly to go near you.

When it's paired with valk, send in a mini pekka, and then do all of the above.

Question: I keep facing people with Giant Skeletons and I haven't found a way to effectively deal with them. A lot of the troops have rather low hit points, so I tend to have to use several troops to kill it, but any that are alive after killing it tend to die when the bomb goes off.   So, what are effective cards to deal with a Giant Skeleton?

What troops can counter a Giant Skeleton?

Giant Skeleton is best countered with swarm.  If you're at or above Pekka's Playhouse then including an Inferno Tower in your deck may help you counter this easily. Minion Horde or Skeleton Horde will take him down in seconds.

The most common tactic to beat a Giant Skeleton, is to use swarms.


Each car has various paint jobs that are unlocked as you play the game.

They will not show as "new" with the exclamation point until the appropriate car is selected.

Select each car (equipping it), then move to the paint job tab to see the new paint jobs that are unlocked.

Select every car and go trough all the tabs.

It's something unlocked for another car.

It's a bug, I have all the DLCs that come with the game, and I have everything checked out, just like you.

But the exclamation point is still there.

I still don't know why they haven't fixed it.

Maybe no one has reported it, who knows?

But I know for sure that it is a bug.

Edit

: Check every car and every decal on it, since all cars unlock new decals and it doesn't put an exclamation point on it.

It probably has something to do with the new NBA adds.

Have you tried navigating through all the tabs to see if there's something new that might not have been "marked"?

I had this issue for a while, the problem was that I had unlocked the Royal decal for the Dominus (a DLC car that I did not have).

The way I fixed it was going onto the Manage Inventory tab in garage and scrolling through the items until I found it, then hover over it and the exclamation mark was gone.

It apparently is DLC-related, though the specific culprit seems to vary from person to person.

Some people have had success by doing this:

Close the game (if it's open).

Go into your Steam library and uncheck/disable all the DLC.

Open the game, then close it again.

Re-check/re-enable your DLC.

Open the game.

It should hopefully be fixed by this point.

Disable Steam Cloud Save: Open Steam Click on the "Library" tab Right-click "Rocket League"

then click "Properties" In the Properties window

click the "Updates" tab Under "Steam Cloud" un-check "Enable Steam Cloud synchronization for Rocket League" Click Close 2)

Delete Local Save:

Open

My Documents\My Games\Rocket League\TAGame\SaveData\DBE_Production Delete both ".save" documents *

NOTE: This will remove all customization!

This includes graphic settings, vehicle presets, and any UI changes!

It will not remove any items / vehicles that have been acquired.

Close the window 3)

Start Rocket League Verify that all the customization options have been reset (and the yellow exclamation point is gone).

Exit Rocket League 5)

Enable Steam Cloud using the procedure in Step 1.

Question: When you enter the main Rocket League Window.    You will notice I have a Yellow Exclamation Mark under Garage Menu Link.  But when you enter the Garage Menu, Nothing is there for me to highlight or check???    Am I going crazy? or is this a bug of some kind?   Edit: Issue has been going on for months.

Why do I still have a Yellow Attention Logo on Garage Tab?

It's something unlocked for another car. Check every car and every decal on it, since all cars unlock new decals and it doesn't put an exclamation point on it.

It seems that whenever there's something new unlocked, the yellow attention logo will appear.

Players suggest that there is an unlocked item.

While someone else believes that it's a bug.


Another lesser known use for reverse pickpocketing is to remove the stolen flag from items.

If you reverse pickpocket a stolen item onto someone and kill them it will no longer be considered stolen.

Yes, you can poison people by placing poison into their inventory.

Reverse pickpocketing a poison using the Poisoned perk does not count as a crime, even if the magical effect of the poison (e.g. "damage health") would otherwise be considered a criminal act if applied any other way.

This makes it entirely possible to kill or weaken innocent enemies, right in front of everyone, without incurring a bounty (unless you get caught, as noted @Kevin).

Also, reverse pickpocketing a paralysing poison into your target's inventory and then pickpocketing them as soon as the effect starts to wear off

allows you to take any item without being caught, no matter the chance of success.

If you reverse pickpocket fancy arrows onto an archer (and take his lousy arrows) who regularly practices his archery, you can get an endless supply of that type of arrow from his archery target whenever he practices.

If you reverse-pickpocket equippable items, the NPC may equip them.

This is useful if you have an unarmed follower who refuses to trade with you, like Maurice Jondrelle , who appears in the Blessings of Nature quest.

If you reverse-pickpocket a sword and some armor to him, he has a better chance of surviving the quest.

For that particular NPC, the Elder Scrolls Wiki says that you have to reverse-pickpocket him before you talk to him for the first time, or it won’t work.

You can use this to drop poison into their pockets and stealthy kill/damage them, but only if you have the poisoned perk in the pickpocket perk tree.

see here for a description of the perk

I would like to stress upon the "pickpocketing someone while the paralysis effect has just been weared off for anything(as mentioned by @Exerion)" a bit more: Since Alchemy is quite hard to level up.

Whenever my player levelled up, I used to go to an Alchemy trainer, train 5 levels, and steal the money.

But, as my level grew in Alchemy, the chances of stealing large amounts became 0 no matter what i did(tried all sorts of potions and stuff).

And then I thought of an IDEA.

I put a paralysis potion in the trainer's pocket and as soon as the stealing option became enabled, I stole my money back successfully.

Also levelled up other skills like Archery, Enchanting, Smithing etc the same way.

It saved me a fortune(hundreds of thousands).

Sometimes it is an optional way to complete some missions, like the Quest where you have to put the ring in the guys pocket

If you reverse pickpocket gold onto a merchant immediately after investing in them, you can increase the investment permanently.

There seems to be a 16 bit limit in place where raising a merchant's gold much past 32,500 will cause it to freeze.

You can sell items, but won't receive gold in return.

Also, it may be wise to reverse pickpocket multiple smaller amounts

so you are less likely to get caught.

Question: So in pick-pocketing, you have the option to steal from somebody's inventory, and/or place something into it. Outside of leveling exploits and quests, what function does placing actually have? Can you use for stealth kills or something?

In Skyrim, what is the point of placing items into other people's inventories (reverse pick-pocketing)?

A use of reverse pickpocketing is to remove the stolen flag from items. You can reverse pickpocket gold onto a merchant immediately after investing in them. Sometimes it is an optional way to complete some missions.

Reverse pick pocketing can help a player in many ways such as placing poisons into an enemy's inventory, in order to get affected by that.

The community lists ways that reverse pick pocketing can help.


Some of my friends leave conquered gyms undefended because, at least where we live, gyms are un-defendable.

Trying to defend just leads to a loss of potions.

So, we go out on marauding missions and destroy gyms.

Our calling card is that we leave it undefended (or have Pikachu be the defender).

I just did this last night! :-)

I've heard others do this to maybe send a message to Niantic.

As you said, this is entirely possible.

It could also be: Someone beats the gym with their last available pokemon, and has no way to revive their current pokemon.

Their game may have crashed after taking a gym, and be unable to play May be due to bugs and issues

There is no tactical reason for this.

I don't see a reason to leave a gym undefended either.

There are a lot of factors that could stop you from claiming it though: Public transport: Maybe you can start a fight but move before you are able to claim the gym Running out of potions: The only requirement for a defending pokémon is 100% HP Server, GPS or battery issues...

Another option would be for experience gain.

Having someone else come take the gym, and then you quickly taking it back over to an empty gym can be a profitable way of gaining experience relatively quickly if the gym has a high turnover/passerby rate.

Aside from the previously mentioned, there are also those trainers who: Do it on purpose in order to help newer players take control of the gym, and see their pokemon on top of the podium Lurk/Live near the gym and wait in order to gain progress towards the Battle Girl achievement.

As David Jacobsen pointed out in one of the comments, if you have defender bonus on cooldown then there isn't much to be gained for taking the gym.

Let's try listing some positives and negatives for taking a gym when you have your defender cooldown on.

Positive: If gym is in remote area, hold on to gym to get bigger bonus next day Helping out other members of your team to hold the gym for a littlebit longer to allow them to get bigger defender bonus (nice guy bonus :) )

Creating name of yourself on the local area (having your pokemon onas many gyms as possible) Negative: Loss of health items after pokemon gets beaten (unless using fodder) Possibly have your best pokemon(s) sitting on the gym(s), unusable for your own attacks Leaving fodder pokemon awards almost free experience to opposing team while not contributing to defence if someone else wants to hold on to the gym Currently attacker

has huge advantages over defender (dodging, choosing correct pokemon types, etc.)

In short: you are giving experience to opposing teams while netting only small benefits for yourself (or your team).Of course it's a whole different story if you are only high level person around...

Now that you need to use a Revive to heal your Pokémon who are kicked out of a gym, it's entirely possible that the battler is someone who simply enjoys battling, but doesn't want to waste their revives on healing Pokémon who were holding a gym if they've already gotten their gym-holding bonus for the day.

Particularly as a role player (i.e., someone who plays Pokémon as an RPG, which the original game was)

you could easily see someone defeating the gym to look out for their color but not want to waste resources on holding the gym themselves.

In addition to the above, there are those who don't care about holding a gym, but find it very fun to defeat a gym.

It's not worth leaving a weak pokemon to defend a gym at this point, and they would want to keep their stronger pokemon to take over the next one.

They wait for someone else to take the gym again so they can defeat it again.

It's not always about being king of the hill, but it's fun to knock the current king down.

My first thought for why is experience.

You get more for taking a gym than training it.

I've done this before personally.

My friend also recently had an experience where a game shop's employees were continuously killing the gym (which could be reached from inside the shop).

I think it was mostly to get people in the area to stay in the area (keep the players in the shop).

I cannot guarantee that is the reason though.

People are missing the most obvious answer here: the person who defeated the gym was a passenger in a car/bus/train/etc.

that goes past the gym.

They clicked the gym right as they passed by, which allowed them to defeat the gym, but by the time the battle was over they were way too far away from it to actually put a pokemon in.

This could also be the limit on the number of pokemon you are allowed to put into gyms.

The max is 20 gyms and they could have been not keeping track.

Question: There are 6 gyms in my area and every once in a while I will see that one of the gyms is completely undefended, which allows me to claim it. Why would this happen? In all the cases this has happened I looked around and no one was around, so I don't think anyone was in the process of claiming it before I did. Are people defeating gyms and then just forgetting to claim them?

Why would a gym ever be left undefended?

This is entirely possible but is no reason to leave a gym undefended.

While many people don't see why this happens, it can be a good way to gain experience or progress towards an echievement.

Users don't see the reason why it would be left unattended

Others see it as ways to gain progress or experience


As you might expect, the setup time is designed for the defending team (particularly medics and engineers) to set up defences and prepare for the attack.

Therefore there isn't really much for the offensive team to do other than build Uber and do the conga, but you can always use the time to communicate with your team to plan attacking strategy.

Heavies can even throw down a hidden sandwich for quick health regen on maps where the resupply lockers are far from the gates.

Otherwise popular activities include taunting, repeatedly hitting a teammate with the frying pan, or rocket jumping aimlessly until the time ticks down.

There are many small things that can be done, but Medics building Uber is probably the most useful thing that can be done while on offense.

On some maps, engineers on the offensive team can also begin building up their buildings.

Depending on your level of play, you can attempt to see where some of the enemies are setting up

so you know which chokepoints to use and not use at the start of the match.

A heavy with the dalokahs bar or a scout with the bonk can use it before the gates open at the optimal time to have its effects ready for the match to start.

A pyro could light a huntsman arrow on fire for a sniper should they wanna.

A demo could place a sticky trap by their own gates in case the enemy also placed some stickies down or want to hang out and try to spawn camp.

A spy with the cloak and dagger may want to be cloaked well before the match starts if they wanna try to find a safe place to hide at without the enemies knowing for sure that there is a spy on the offensive team.

If it's not so serious, taunting is also an option, among a quick trade, or even use the time to check on something in real life.

You can jarate people through the gate if they come close enough.

If you have a friend, you can have them damage themselves with the Boston Basher or explosive weapons, and then feed them sandviches for bonus points.

On some maps you can build as an engineer.

(On Gravelpit.

You used to able to build a sentry in Badwater spawn, but they patched that, but maybe there are others)

There's plenty to do while waiting in spawn.

Here's what I generally try to do: 1.

(Attempt to) Communicate with teammates

Say

Hi.

Ask how their day is going.

Establish a rapport, then (in conjunction with point #4) work out some game plan with them (Heavy+Med to exit right door, Bonk scout to distract sentry, and so on).

This won't always work of course - some people just don't communicate, or aren't interested.

That's the nature of pubs.

But you won't know unless you try.

Keep an eye on your team's class composition Look around at your teammates spawning in, and occasionally check the 'class change' screen.

Do you notice a distinct lack of Power classes?

Is your team lacking a Medic?

Are there 5 Snipers?

Consider switching to what your team is lacking, and ask others to do the same* (easier to do if you've established a rapport, see #1).

Also have a look at your loadouts, and ensure that they're what you want to use for the upcoming match.

It's easier to convince others to switch if you give them a reason to do so: "

Hey, if one of the Snipers wants to go Heavy, I'll Uber you out the left door and we can smash up their Sentry Nest.

" is a lot more appealing than "OMG can we not have 5 Snipers?" 3.

(Medic) Build Overheal and Ubercharge Thanks!

You've picked Medic!

You know what to do.

Build up your teammate's Overheal as well as your own Ubercharge.

Then - just like the peacock - find a mate with the flashiest hats* and Uber him out the gate.

* Not always a guarantee that this person is a good player.

In all seriousness, I'm assuming you know the basics of how to play Medic.

If not, start here .

Peek out the gate at the other team Check the other team's composition:

Do they have 3 Engies setting up a nest on the right side?

Are 4 Snipers scoped in on the middle door?

Are Demomen laying sticky traps at the gates/choke/cart/point?

Are Pyros getting into position to roast people as they leave spawn?

Is one or more of your teammates wandering around outside with the enemy team?

(If so, Press X + 2 ) Use this info in conjunction with #1 to formulate game plans with your team.

Help your Engie level up buildings On some maps, it's possible to build inside the spawn area.

If an Engineer is trying to get a Dispenser or Sentry to Level 3, switch over to Engie and whack his buildings a couple of times.

Having a Level 3 dispenser to fall back to will be mighty helpful for everyone.

Teleporters are probably less important before-round, but if you have nothing better to do, why not? 6.

(Heavy)

Ready a deployed Sandvich

As the countdown gets closer, a Heavy can alt-fire a Sandvich (or Banana etc) to throw down a temporary health pack near the spawn exit, then instantly fill the recharge meter by touching a resupply cabinet.

The deployed 'health pack' could provide a welcome source of health for someone retreating back in, including yourself or your medic.

Have Fun!

Participate in (or start) a conga (maybe convince players (on both teams) to go for the Conga Line Taunt achievement ).

Play Rock Paper Scissors or give out high-fives.

Show off your taunts.

Leave animated gifs and memes on the walls.

Adjust your cosmetics.

Taunt at the other team.

TF2 is one of the only games

I know where it's both possible and encouraged to just...chill out and enjoy a moment

Medics can build their ubercharge and that's about it.

You can only wait for the other team to setup defences for you to attack.

Question: Setup lasts a little over one minute in the asymmetric game modes. The defending team moves into positions, but when playing on the offensive side with casual players I'm not aware of any constructive action aside from building  ÜberCharge  with the medic.   The attacking team is locked inside their base until the round starts and the engineer can't build buildings.

What to do during setup as the offensive team?

The setup time is designed for the defending team. There isn't really much for the offensive team to do other than build Uber and do the conga. On some maps, engineers on the offensive team can also begin building up their buildings. Taunting is also an option, among a quick trade, or even use the time to check on something in real life.

There are a number of things you can do on the offensive team. You can of course build Uber and sometimes engineers can start building. You can have a look at how the enemy is setting up and there are also a number things you can do with the particular classes in the game.

Users suggest strategies to prepare while being the offensive team.


The Charge of the Light Brigade glorifies the warriors, not the war.

Throughout the poem, we see exaltation of the soldiers for their bravery.

They are described as brave, bold, and having "fought so well".

However, the second stanza reveals that the poem's writer considered the charge a farce: Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, The poem describes the act as charging "Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell " and describes the reaction to the charge as all the world wondering.

This shows a disdain for the commands leading to the charge.

It does both.

It glorifies the six hundred while criticizing the leaders of the charge.

Here's some quotes highlighting it: '

All in the valley of Death' - Shows the mistake sending soldiers to their deaths 'Someone had blundered.'

- Shows the mistake 'Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of hell' - shows how they were blindly sent to their deaths And glorification: 'Boldly they rode and well,'

- praises them '

While horse and hero fell.'

- calls the heroes 'Honour the charge they made!

Honour the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred!

' - calls for honour and praise

I think this is too black-and-white.

The poem is not about war, but about an event.

The poem praises the courage of the soldiers, who obey even if it means certain death.

It is like a requiem for these brave men.

It also criticizes the failure of the officers.

Forward, the Light Brigade!

Was there a man dismay'd? Not tho' the soldier knew

Someone had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die: Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

Above all, however, it praises the suicidal courage: the opening line of the last couplet is clear about that.

When can their glory fade?

O

the wild charge they made!

The poem appears to glorify war with its talk of bravery and talk of honouring the light brigade.

However, the second to last stanza appears to contradict this: While horse and hero fell.

They that had fought so well Came through the jaws of Death, Back from the mouth of hell, All that was left of them, Left of six hundred.

The poem both honors their bravery, but notes that their bravery got them killed.

To quote this article , "Tennyson's soldiers are bold, heroic, glorious, honourable, noble and dead."

When can their glory fade?

O

the wild charge they made!

All the world wondered.

Honour the charge they made, Honour

the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred.

The last stanza, I think, makes it clear.

While horse and hero fell.

They that had fought so well Came through the jaws of Death, It is also there when they are described as having sabres.

This is a pretty honorable thing, to charge cannons with sabres, and they are a weapon of noblemen.

I think he is glorifying soldiers but not war, as in the end, they do die because of this horrible thing.

According to the Guardian's poetry critic, Carol Rumens, it's neither : I don't think it sets out to glorify war,

but it's certainly not a protest.

It recreates the sabre-flashing excitement of warfare, even in the ironical context of bare sabres against guns.

Question: The Charge of the Light Brigade  is an 1854 narrative poem at the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War.  Does it glorify war or criticize it?

Does "The Charge of the Light Brigade" glorify war or criticize it?

The poem praises the courage of the soldiers. It glorifies the warriors, not the war.

There are a number of interpretations of this, the poem could be said to be appearing to glorify war, however it is more about the event itself. If it is praising anyone it is praising the courage of the soldiers themselves.

It is not about the war but about the event

It appears to glorify war with the talk of bravery


I also travel a lot with paperback books in a bag, and I've managed not to damage them too much by considering the problem as a geometrical/physical one, analysing the shapes and forces involved.

A paperback book is essentially a cuboid, with two faces that can peel away from the rest and keep peeling away in pages until you reach the middle: As long as you can keep it in that cuboid shape , you're all good.

What really damages a paperback book is when the covers or pages start opening inside your bag and then getting bent or folded unnaturally against things.

If you can keep the book safely closed, it's much harder to damage.

So, make sure to pack your bag so that there are no forces tending to push the book open.

Ideally, go the other way and make sure there are forces tending to press the book closed .

If you have a thin flat space inside your bag (e.g. a compartment for a laptop, and you don't have a laptop with you), putting a book inside there might be able to keep it pressed closed.

If you have more than one book with you, lay them flat against each other so that each one can hold the next one closed.

(This doesn't help for the outermost covers of the stack, but at least it's a part of the problem solved.)

Try not to have anything pressing against the 'page edge' of the book, the edge opposite the spine.

Too much pressure

there will splay the pages apart and possibly fold them unhealthily.

There are going to be many different ways of achieving the desired effect, depending on factors such as the size and shape of your bag, of the books, and exactly what else you're carrying in the same bag.

But by keeping the above bold principles in mind, you should be able to minimise the damage to your paperback books while carrying them around.

I carry mine in a sealable freezer bag (ziploc and the like).

Water, food, etc. can't get in and the cover and pages can't separate to be peeled away.

Friction acts on the book regardless of whether it's fixed or not.

If a bag doesn't have a special compartment for books of laptops, it may be beneficial to acquire a book cover.

It can be plastic, paper, or even textile, depending only on one's choice Plastic covers (also called wraps) seem to be available online

(e.g. I took the picture above from here ).

One could fashion a custom book cover from plastic ( here's a tutorial ), or from paper (which is easier).

The advantage here is customisable size.

A cover offers some advantages for book protection:

It is functional even outside the bag It can be customised to be water-proof and grease-proof (depending on material)

Also protects the corners of the book (if one does it right) Can be made as fashionable as one likes (also obscures the title of the book)

Some tutorials on the subject: How to cover a textbook How to make a durable book cover

I use a tupperware/kliklock container, but I if I am short of space, putting the book in with a laptop in its case keeps it flat (not instead of a laotop).

Also if you put a clipboard into the back pack it forms a rigid and flat central divider that is not deformed when you strap it to your back which is the main issue.

Covering a book with a flexible plastic cover in a back pack won't protect the text block or spine, it is the bending that is the problem, you want to stop it flexing.

I only do this for other people's books or library books, my own books I like to drop in the bath and dry out on the radiator because I can, because they aren't kindles.

Part of me takes a not altogether perverse pride in the battered appearance of many of my books; but when I want to protect one from battery in my bookbag, I favor an appropriately sized mailing envelope lined with bubble wrap, available at office supply stores and sometimes even supermarkets in my country (USA).

There are several things you can do to protect paperback books while carrying them around in a backpack.

If you want to prevent books from getting bent or warped , you can carry them in the type of rigid cardboard envelope that some online booksellers use when they mail books.

Or you can buy a cardboard envelope that has the appropriate size for the book you want to take with you.

I have also reused envelopes with bubble wrap padding, but these don't protect you books from bending, unless you put the envelope between other objects that don't bend to easily, e.g. some types of file folders.

A backpack's laptop compartment can also work, especially if your laptop is thin and/or if you have the type of backpack that can actually stand (instead of falling over).

If you just want to protect the book against friction instead of preventing bending, you can wrap it in an extra cover.

For pocket books, I normally reuse discarded printouts; it's better for the environment and you can discard the cover afterwards: For larger books, I have even reused gift wrapping paper, though usually "inside out".

I try to avoid plastic covers, even though they have the advantage that you can see the book's original cover through them:

You can put the book into a neoprene laptop sleeve.

However, this is only really useful if you don't need to take your laptop with you or if you have a spare laptop sleeve.

I have never bought premade book covers or wraps (regardless their material).

I have many books

and I usually carry at least one book in my backpack, so

the keyword is reuse !

Question: I like to carry paperback books with me in a backpack. I've noticed that this puts a lot of wear and tear on these books. I can't not carry these books in my backpack, but what can I do to better protect them?

How to travel with paperback books without damaging them?

You could make a custom book cover from plastic or keep it in a freezer bag. You even try a laptop case or a rigid envelope.

If you consider a book as a geometrical problem you can find ways to stop it from getting damaged. Other ways include putting it in a plastic bag, keeping it closed, putting it in tupperware, envelopes lined with bubblewrap, or cardboard envelopes can help.

Users suggest ways to protect the books.


No, you should not*.

In my opinion, you should limit your logbook to records of your own flight experience.

This would include any time spent training, as PIC, or as required crew.

The time you can log as PIC is that which you spend as the sole manipulator of the controls , the sole occupant , or as the pilot in command when the required crew is >1 .

Here's an article from an FAA FSDO describing the logging of PIC time in more detail .

Rod Machado has some good coverage of this as well.

If you're just hanging out in the airplane, it doesn't matter if you're in the front seat or the back seat.

If you're receiving instruction, you should get an entry and a logbook endorsement from the instructor you're flying with.

Most General Aviation aircraft don't require a type rating, so I'm unsure what the context of your final question is.

It's worth noting that you can technically put whatever you want in your logbook, though it's not a great idea; when it comes time to fill out an FAA 8710 form for later ratings, it can get confusing.

In my opinion, you still shouldn't log any time , but if you're just wanting to record flights that you took with friends, that's fine.

As an instructor who's had to slog through some weird logbooks, I'd really, really encourage you to track that elsewhere, though.

Your logbook is exactly that - it's your logbook, for the logging of your flight time, and a record of your flight experience and training.

Yes, log it.

Your logbook is your record of your flight experience.

Use a line in your logbook to remember a flight with a friend or a warbird flight you took at an air show.

If I'm a passenger in the right seat of a small aircraft and I'm paying attention I am probably learning something.

If I'm currently working towards my instrument rating and I'm sitting in the backseat of a friend's instrument rating lesson

then I'm almost certainly learning things that I wouldn't get while actually flying the plane.

Record those experiences for yourself.

However, the numbers columns for that entry are going to be empty.

No landings, no flight time, none of that.

You wouldn't want to accidentally use those flights for currency or ratings.

AOPA has a good article interpreting the FARs rules on logging time .

But you can use an empty column for passenger numbers or just use your comments section.

Adding to what egid said, you can only log flight time as a crew member if you're filling a role as a required crew member.

There was an enforcement action many years ago against a pilot who was flying right seat in a small cargo plane because his employer's rules required two people in the cockpit.

He figured that since his employer required him to be there, it made him a required crew member

and so he logged the time.

However, the FAA regs did not require him to be there, so in their view, he was not a required crew member

and they took action against him for falsifying his logs.

To answer the original question no, you cannot log flight time as a passenger in an aircraft.

AOPA's website has a pretty good answer.

The PIC is, by Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), responsible for the safe operation of the flight (FAR 1.1, 91.3).

At any given time, there can only be one acting PIC on a flight, no matter how many pilots are on board the aircraft.

To legally act as PIC, a private, commercial, and airline transport pilot must have a current medical certificate and have all required endorsements, ratings, and recency of experience for the type of aircraft being flown and the flight conditions under which the flight is conducted (FAR 61.3, 61.31, 61.56, 61.57).

Sport pilots can act as PIC with a valid and current driver's license in lieu of the FAA medical (FAR 61.23).

Before a flight is initiated, an agreement should be made to determine who is to be acting as PIC.

So you'll have to hold a current medical certificate for the type of flight operation being undertaken, the appropriate pilot certificate for type of flight operation being undertaken, and have sole manipulation of the flight controls of an aircraft you are properly endoresd or type-rated for.

Yes, join a frequent flyer program and log " passenger miles ".

This will make you a better passenger with additional benefits.

Of course, these logs document the passenger loyalty, not some needed experience.

Should you log flight time as a passenger?

Pro:

Logbooks represent many things, including a record of time and training to be used toward future certificates and ratings, as well as currency to comply with various regulations.

What you write in your log book is up to you as long as you record the flight information for those flights needed to substantiate your time Contra:

It is important that airmen are aware of regulations related to logbook records to avoid undue fines , or even suspension of their certificate/s!

you cannot log flight time as a passenger in an aircraft.

I know this is an old question

but anyway:

In previous answers it has clearly been stated,

that one can not log flight time as a passeger.

What puzzles me is why would one do that anyway?

Passenger does not fly the plane, but merely observes what is going on.

Two very different things.

Yes some things can be learned just by looking at how other people do them, but flying is fundamentaly a multitasking excercise (although multitasking does actually not exist at all), and by simply looking at someone operating a plane, you get a dangerously simplified picture of what it's all about.

Even if you already had a license.

So there is actual danger in logging passenger time (or even just flights):

You will build yourself a false sense of competence.

The only hours and minutes that matter are the ones that you fly the plane.

Question: If I only have a private pilot license, and am not the pilot in command, should I log my flight time?  If so, what are the limits of this? i.e. is that as true in the backseat as it is in the front seat? Must I have that type rating?

Should I log flight time as a passenger?

You cannot log flight time as a passenger. You can only log it as a crew member.

Opinion is pretty split on this topic, some say you should not, however others support it saying that you can log it if you are filling a role as a required crew member.

Users say not to do it
Users say it is alright to


This might take a few seconds longer, but it's math-free:

On your kneeboard, draw a quadrant (like this: +).

Draw a line through it for your runway(s).

Draw an arrow to represent the wind.

The answer will be apparent.

Do it enough times, and you'll be able to visualize the drawing without actually doing it.

It's also a great technique for calculating holds.

Is there a trick to determine best runway quickly without doing the math?

Aside from "Asking the other pilots in the pattern / UNICOM", none I'm aware of.

The closest thing to a "trick" I can offer you if you're going in to a completely unattended field are the following suggestions: If your directional gyro (DG) has a heading bug, set the heading bug to the wind direction.

Now find the runway alignment closest to the bug.

That's the runway you want.

(If your DG doesn't have a heading bug you may still be able to do this visually easier than doing math - of course this relies on you flying in a plane with a DG or a vertical card compass...).

Break out your E6B , dial in the wind direction, and find the closest runway heading.

Same logic as (1), but for when you're stuck in a Piper Cub with only the wet compass.

One drawback - it only works with mechanical flight computers...

If you have your sectional out, lay your pen or ruler on it to show the wind direction.

See which runway alignment is closest to the ruler.

That's the runway you want.

Count on your fingers.

(Seriously, this is what I do most of the time.

I'm an engineer, I can't add and subtract!)

In uncontrolled airports I've avoided problems simply by asking on CTAF which runway is in use when 10-7SM out.

This has worked out well because often times there are aircraft in the pattern on the wrong runway (from the perspective of crosswind) because conditions changed and traffic has been busy, or someone is just doing their own thing.

I've even had a unicom station respond with a recommendation when nobody in the air responded.

It doesn't hurt to ask and if you get no response a quick glance at the heading indicator can save you the math by just visualizing the runways over the indicator and choosing the one that's closest to the wind.

When I arrive at an uncontrolled airport, and there's nobody there to tell me what everybody else is doing, I overfly the airport to get the lay of the land and to look at the wind sock.

This should be SOP for everybody.

One glance at the wind sock will tell you which runway the winds favor.

No math or diagrams required.

You should also be looking for a tetrahedron .

This will also give you information about the pattern.

Nominally, this is the authoritative answer about landing direction, but I've known airports where the tetrahedron was inoperative.

If the wind is strong and the wind sock contradicts the tetrahedron, consider trusting the wind sock instead.

Or better yet, consult the locals.

The only way you can avoid doing the math is if someone else has already done it for you and you have the results of their work available.

Towered airports, of course, will control the runway direction from the ground, and will handle any lighting systems.

At non-towered but fairly busy airports there will be an accepted pattern in use, and when anyone notices the windsock is pointing the other way the pilots can coordinate to "turn the airport around"

(I'm actually curious how that happens; for strips that always have a left-hand or right-hand pattern, the answer is simply to not turn to final and instead just circle to the other end, but for airstrips where, for instance, powered planes must always stay to one side of the airport to avoid a residential neighborhood, you can't circle that way, and must instead make a 180 away from the airport to reverse the pattern direction).

However, your question infers that no radio chatter or other traffic is available to follow, and you have to determine it for yourself.

You can still get some help in these cases.

Non-towered airports can still be lit; end lights and the LDI tetrahedron can be controlled from a simple automated weather station, and activated on request (to save energy) by pilots tuning to a station and clicking the mike.

If the pattern is truly empty, you can maneuver around the strip, look for the windsock, and approach in the direction closest to its tail.

Use a compass card; any will do, you have several in your cockpit, or you could even have a literal "compass card", a rose drawn on an index card on your clipboard or the inside cover of your notebook (whatever you're using for quick reference or shorthand notes on your flight).

You know wind is from 225* and your options for runways are 13(0) or 31(0).

A quick look at the dial will show you which runway choice is closer to the wind.

Just remember not to get confused by the numbers on the rose; to land on runway 31, you have to go around to the southeast end, even though 310* is marked on the northwest quadrant of the compass rose; runways are labelled according to the heading you'll be on while using them.

Rather than calculating off the wind direction, start with the runway headings.

13-9=4 and 13+9=22.

If the wind is 040-220 use 13, otherwise use 31.

I have an HSI

so I set the bug to the wind heading and the CDI to the runway, then press vectors-to-final to get an extended centerline.

Both easy peasy

Question: Let's say I call up Wx and have the wind direction and I know the runway headings from my charts and the pattern is empty. I can do the math, but it's tedious and slow and even worse when there are multiple runways. This is what I usually do:   Runways are 13 and 31  Wind is 253° which rounds to 25  $25-13=12$  $31-25=6$  I'm going to use Runway 31   Is there a trick to determine best runway quickly without doing the math?

What's a quick way to determine which runway to use?

Draw a quadrant and a line through it for your runway. Draw an arrow to represent the wind and the answer will be apparent.

Draw a quadrant, draw a line for the runway, draw a line to represent the wind and the answer will be apparent.


It really depends on the state, though you can't land in National Parks (the National Park Service regulates that, not the FAA).

The FAA doesn't care where you land it, though if you ball it up due to poor choice of landing area then they'll have something to say.

Some states don't really care where you land (like Oregon), others don't let you land anywhere (like New Jersey).

You should contact your state and get the regulations from them.

This is handled on jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.

While sea plane "bases" are marked on the sectional, this only means that the location has been registered with the FAA.

The air space over the water is handled federally.

The water itself is handled locally.

When the aircraft is on the water, it is generally considered a boat under the law, except where a jurisdiction has chosen to single out sea planes.

Unfortunately many jurisdictions have done just that.

Any little mud puddle can potentially be banned for sea plane operations by the local community.

There is an association of sea plane pilots who involve themselves in advocacy to keep waters available.

They publish some useful materials on this subject.

If you plan on going for your sea plane endorsement, your instructor will give you the pertinent details.

If you would like to fly locally, you will need to check out your local codes.

If operations have not yet been banned, it would be sensible to join the association, and take an active role in keeping local waters open to sea planes in your area.

States with coastlines often manage this through a "port authority" association, like Massachuesetts.

Sometimes it is a joint association, like in the case of the PA-NY-NJ Port Authority .

According to my research.

It comes down to the owner of the body of water.

Please read this link as it will explain everything in detail.

When it comes to landing a plane and a body of water the FAA has Little to no say.

There are some inspections that have to be performed.

You have to consider the zoning, other traffic, possible hazards, neighborhoods and flightpath, The amount of traffic and whether or not there is a viable airport within 5 miles.

Of course it also depends on the state. https://www.seaplanepilotsassociation.org/resources/faq/facilities-landing-areas/

Drawing on some personal observations, many float-plane sites around Seattle are marked on maps.

Kenmore Lake Union Rosario

But I've also observed float planes taking off and landing at sites that are not appropriately marked on the map.

I cannot cite regulations, but my eyeballs suggest that any safe place may be legally okay.

Question: What are the rules with regards to landing a float plane on a body of water?  Can I land anywhere (non-emergency, obviously) that would also accommodate the take-off?  If not, how do I determine which bodies of water would allow it and which would not?

If I have a float plane, can I land on any body of water?

It depends on the state, though you can't land in a National Park.  You should contact your state and get the regulations from them.

General opinion seems to be that it doesn't really matter where you land, and that this is regulated on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. If however something goes wrong, the FAA will have something to say

General opinion seems to be that it doesn't really matter where a pilot lands.


ICAO Class F airspace is a bit of an odd duck (and the US FAA is apparently not the only agency that thinks so - from a quick check on Wikipedia

it seems more jurisdictions ignore class F than implement it.

They only mention Class F as being in use in Germany and the UK).

From a functional/regulatory standpoint Class F is a sort of hybrid between "Class E" controlled airspace and "Class G" (fully) uncontrolled airspace: Class F airspace is designated as "uncontrolled", but you can get ATC clearances in Class F airspace just like in controlled airspace.

The catch is they're "advisory only" (so you don't have to comply with them, and all the weight is on the pilot's shoulders ).

Similarly ATC will provide separation services to IFR flights in Class F airspace, but they do so "where possible", which means they might tell you they can't provide that service and you're on your own with see-and-avoid.

The general use case for Class F airspace seems to be allowing IFR flights to operate in "uncontrolled airspace".

As a US pilot (and thus having no experience with Class F Airspace), it sounds like the services provided in Class F airspace are effectively the equivalent of VFR Traffic Advisories ("Flight Following")

: Controllers can give you advisories and make suggestions , but all responsibility is ultimately still on the pilot's shoulders, and you can politely tell the controller to get stuffed if you don't like their suggestions (without needing to declare an emergency to vest yourself with that authority).

In the US we already have the Flight Following system and culture set up for VFR folks (and generally speaking

it's available nationwide, irrespective of airspace class, as long as the controller can get you on radar and isn't overworked).

We also have a pretty robust Class E airspace nationwide.

Because of this the FAA probably sees no need to designate specific "Class F" regions where IFR flights can get the equivalent of "Flight Following": If you're VFR you can usually get flight following if you want it, and if you're IFR you should have no trouble staying in controlled airspace (Class A, B, C, D, or E) for your entire route of flight.

Class F airspace is often used in the UK as a kind of "GA airway.

It designates preferred paths with a advisory ATC service that GA traffic can use.

For example, there is a class F route defined between the north west of England and the Isle of Man.

Having a preferred route and an ATC service makes sense for that route as its an expanse of open water.

It simplifies search and rescue operations.

As voretaq7 said, it's a bit of an odd duck, and I don't know how it works in the UK

but in Germany F is only to allow IFR approaches/departures for uncontrolled airfields.

So basically, as soon as an airfield in G has an IFR approach, they get a F airspace around them, which in turn is usually only active when there's an IFR approach in progress.

As soon as it's completed, it reverts to G (depicted on the sectional as "F(HX)", meaning it's not always active).

So in order to determine if F or G rules apply, you need to ask FIS or AFIS (or approach, but then you're probably IFR already, so you don't need to care).

VFR "flight following" is not related to the airspace and is provided by FIS in E, F and G airspace, as long as radar coverage is available pretty much.

In D and C

it's called CVFR and is provided by approach (or "Radar" as they like to call it).

It works the same way when shooting an approach into a G airfield in the US, you're only cleared for the approach, as soon as you enter G, it's up to you to see and avoid, as far as I know.

The point of having an F airspace is that the visibility requirements are different for VFR aircraft, where you have to stay a mile away/thousand feet from clouds, whereas in G they only need to stay clear of clouds.

Allowing IFR approaches in G has the potential of allowing an IFR aircraft pop out of a cloud and not have even a mile or thousand feet separation from the next VFR aircraft.

Note that these extra VFR requirements are specific to Germany and deviates from the ICAO definition of airspace

F. Update Germany is in the process of discontinuing the use of airspace F for IFR approaches into uncontrolled fields, in accordance with EU regulation 923/2012 "Standardised [sic] European Rules of the Air", or SERA.

Once SERA is in effect, IFR approaches will be allowed within airspace G in Germany as well.

Current airspace F will be replaced with airspace G and a so called "Radio Mandatory Zone", or RMZ.

In Canada anyway according to the CARS (Canadian Aviation Regulations)

Class F airspace is "airspace of defined dimensions within which activities must be confined because of their nature, and within which limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities.

" Basically it's airspace dedicated to a certain activity and you better make damn sure you're not going to be getting in the way of that activity before you enter.

Canadian Class F is better compared to U.S. Special Use Airspace, if you read the regs for it, it covers the Canadian equivalent of Warning, Alert, Restricted, Prohibited, Military Operation, and Controlled Firing Areas.

Interesting that in the U.S. we do not depict,or inform about controlled firing areas, Spotter aircraft, and controllers, prevent non-participant aircraft from being harmed.

But they are depicted on Canadian charts, and basically treated like prohibited, or restricted areas as needed.

Question: I've read that ICAO defines Class F airspace but the FAA has chosen not to use the airspace class in the US. What is the ICAO definition of Class F airspace and how does it differ from other airspace classes? What countries use Class F airspace? Why does the FAA only use A-E and G?

What is Class F airspace, and why is it not used in the US?

It seems more jurisdictions ignore class F than implement it. Class F is a sort of hybrid between "Class E" controlled airspace and "Class G" (fully) uncontrolled airspace. It designates preferred paths with a advisory ATC service that GA traffic can use.

Most countries ignore Class F I think. It is a hybrid class, a cross between E and G, used in the UK for example a GA gateway. In general it designates preferred paths.

Users suggest that most countries ignore it


See AC 90-66A - RECOMMENDED ‘STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND PRACTICES FOR AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS AT AIRPORTS WITHOUT OPERATING CONTROL TOWERS for information about uncontrolled airport traffic patterns.

It includes the following which says that while the FAA recommends using the full pattern, it is not required: 7.

GENERAL OPERATING PRACTICES.

a. Use of standard traffic patterns for all ‘aircraft and CTAF procedures by radio-equipped aircraft are recommended at all airports without operating control towers.

However, it is recognized that other traffic patterns may already be in common use at some airports or that special circumstances or conditions exist that may prevent use of the standard traffic pattern

And then: e.

The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern.

However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic.

Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in approaches.

f. Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern SO as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic.

Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot’s intentions upon completion of the approach

I'd like to answer your question with a short example.

A few days ago I flew to Venice (untowered) and decided to make a teardrop entry to set up for the 45.

My calls were 10 and 5 miles out, both ending with "any traffic please advise.

" Guess what I saw overtaking me on my 4 o'clock position only a few hundred feet away at same altitude (500 feet above pattern)?

It is legal to make a straight in, but before you think about the time or fuel you waste please think about your own and even the guys who's not on CTAF and obviously heads down safety.

If you fly the 45 and the continue the pattern (it's not always left, check your sectional and the A/FD)

everybody knows what the other one is doing and if necessary can act accordingly.

It is legal.

The left downwind pattern entry at a 45 degree angle is recommended in the AIM to standardize operations and is therefore not regulatory in nature.

However, the reason it's not a particularly good idea is that not all aircraft are required to have radios at a non-towered airport.

A traffic pattern is quite small compared to the en route phase or an instrument approach, there's not much time or fuel to be wasted.

Nobody on the radio does NOT mean no traffic.

You have IFR Arrivals not yet released by approach to tower frequency, and you have 100% legal no radio aircraft.

Fly the pattern so that they know where to look for you!

There are a few airports out there with this line in their AF/D page: STANDARD TFC PATTERN REQUIRED OF ALL ACFT.

Such as KMBT, as seen here.

Not sure how legally binding this is, but it is written.

It is recommended in the AIM and elsewhere that you use the traffic pattern.

However, the FAR requires only that you make any turns in the proper direction, not that you fly the pattern or enter the pattern on downwind.

Straight in approaches are not prohibited.

(91.126) "Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section....

When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace...

Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right;" "Otherwise authorized or required" applies to circling approaches, in which turns may be made in any direction (opening up a whole new set of risks).

Safety and common sense may dictate that you fly the pattern as a matter of practice.

It is also safer to announce your position, and to announce "left (or right) downwind" and "left (or right) base", in case you or the plane you don't see happens to be going the wrong direction.

Question: If there seems to be very little traffic at an untowered airport, and no one's replied to any of your radio calls, is it acceptable to just fly a straight-in approach to the runway, or should you still fly the full traffic pattern to final? It just seems like it would be a waste of time and fuel when it's not really necessary. Is there anything wrong with doing so?

Is a full traffic pattern required when there is no traffic at an untowered airport?

Use of standard traffic patterns for all ‘aircraft  and CTAF procedures by radio-equipped aircraft  are  recommended at all airports without operating  control towers.

While it is legal not to, all advice points towards doing a full traffic pattern.

Users suggest that it is necessary
Users suggest it is legal not to


Yes, and no.

FlightAware

(and I believe FlightRadar24) will show General Aviation aircraft (I panned around a bit and found N802AF , a Pilatus, buzzing around over Bethlehem, Pennsylvania just now).

The catch is most of these systems are fed with ATC data, and generally only pick up flights that are either on an instrument flight plan, or which have picked up flight following & been entered into the ATC system by the controller who set up the strip.

Most light GA aircraft are flying around VFR (transponder code 1200), and don't show up on these flight tracking sites.

Similarly if you're assigned a "local" transponder code rather than a system-wide one you typically won't show up on the tracking sites either (this is often the case when you're flying VFR and go through Approach/Departure for Class C or Class B transitions/arrivals).

As more of the fleet is equipped with ADS-B this coverage may improve, as anyone can set up an ADS-B receiver and skim the traffic data.

That data is currently only broadcast when a "participating aircraft" (ADS-B Out equipped) is in the area though...

TL;DR

To properly track GA aircraft, one needs to operate professional equipment or an ATC datastream, both which are not available to most websites.

Flight radar 24 shows GA traffic in some occasions, but in general it cannot track these aircraft.

FR24 works primarily on ADS-B, which is a surveillance technology that transmits aircraft information including position.

Strictly speaking, ADS-B messages are not responses since they are unsolicited transmissions.

General aviation equipped with only a Mode A/C (/S) transponder will not transmit ADS-B data.

Mode A/C radar replies do not contain position information encoded in them so even if the receiver receives these responses, the position cannot be determined from them.

Only if a message is received by 4 receivers which are carefully synchronized in time, it is possible to determine the position that the message was sent from by analyzing the times of arrival at each receiver.

The travel distance of the signal to each receiver is different and even though the signal travels at the speed of light, the time difference of arrival is measurable.

Using the 4 times of arrival the position can be revealed using a process called multilateration.

FR24 is using this method for aircraft that transmit Mode S replies but for Mode A/C

it is difficult.

Firstly there is no aircraft identifier the A/C messages.

If a lot of aircraft are flying with the same Mode A code (e.g. 1200 VFR)

the arrival times quickly become ambiguous.

To add to the difficulty there is no difference between the Mode A and Mode C message formats, so you might easily be comparing the time of a Mode A message from one receiver to a Mode C message from another.

Professional multilateration systems used for ATC make use of transmission antenna's that interrogate the aircraft transponders (like radar) to remove any ambiguities.

This is not allowed for hobby systems.

Additionally FR24 works on 1090 MHz ADS-B messages.

In the USA, an additional ADS-B technology is in use on 978 MHz (UAT).

So even if GA is ADS-B equipped, in the USA

they might not be detected by FR24.

So to properly track GA aircraft, one needs professional equipment or an ATC datastream, both which are not available to most websites.

The FAA provides 5 minute delayed radar track of aircraft, but only of those aircraft that fly on an IFR flight plan are included.

Also aircraft owners can opt-out of that system for privacy reasons.

There are some websites that show GA movement.

One that I like is the monitoring website for residents living near Amsterdam airport Schiphol .

The website is fed by ATC data, with a delay of about 1 minute.

It shows all traffic except military.

FlightAware picks up GA traffic, but only if it is on a flight plan (which sometimes includes VFR aircraft receiving flight following) or if the aircraft is ADS-B Out equipped and within their ADS-B coverage areas .

Either way, you're not currently going to get a full picture of the environment from any source - not in the way that ATC does, at least.

Public sources aren't going to show the many, many aircraft not squawking unique codes.

The remarkable Skylines project offers tracking based on data transmitted from your smartphone, e.g. using the great and free XCSoar software.

Quite glider-centric, though.

You are right @Force

the information presented on flightradar24.com are based on transponder outputs and completed with information stored in a database.

Unfortunately a "simple" mode C or S is not sufficient for this.

Flightradar24 gets its data not from ATC radars but from private suporters who run a receiver for so called ADS-B outputs from the aircraft.

These are more advanced digital information then only the squawk, registration/callsign and altitude of an aircraft used by airliners.

But more and more private owners use this technology and that's why you can look foreward to track more and more G/

A traffic on flightradar24.com.

I know that flightaware.com also uses this data and additionally uses data provided by the FAA (with a five minute delay) as well.

But you won't be able to track any aircraft with a VFR flight plan - unless he is ADS-B equipped - becuase in the US these flight plans are only used for SAR.

A little additional remark: If you observe the German airspace at flightradar24.com you'll sometimes find some microlights on the 'scope' - sometimes I think these aircraft are 100kg aircraft and 250kg avionics.

Question: As far as I am concerned, FlightRadar24 reads out transponder responses.  As most engine driven aircrafts have at least a mode C transponder, is there a site that displays such traffic as well?

Is there a website similar to FlightRadar24, but showing general aviation?

Most of these systems are fed with ATC data, and generally only pick up flights that are either on an instrument flight plan, or which have picked up flight following & been entered into the ATC system by the controller who set up the strip. To properly track GA aircraft, one needs to operate professional equipment or an ATC datastream, both which are not available to most websites.

While there are a number of website available like FlightAware and FlightRadar24, these will not display all GA plans, and only planes that are on a flight plan. For the full picture one would need to run an ATC datastream.


If a pilot is already speaking to ATC (or monitoring a frequency)

they should continue to use that frequency for any emergency or abnormal situation.

If they are not currently receiving ATC services or on an ATC frequency, attempt to use 121.5.

Many ATC providers and enroute airliners monitor this frequency and can relay or provide assistance.

The FAA's AIM (6-3-1) describes emergency use of 121.5 in the United States: h.

Although the frequency in use or other frequencies assigned by ATC are preferable, the following emergency frequencies can be used for distress or urgency communications, if necessary or desirable: 1. 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz.

Both have a range generally limited to line of sight.

121.5 MHz is guarded by direction finding stations and some military and civil aircraft.

243.0 MHz is guarded by military aircraft.

Both 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz are guarded by military towers, most civil towers, FSSs, and radar facilities.

Normally ARTCC

emergency frequency capability does not extend to radar coverage limits.

[emphasis mine]

If an ARTCC does not respond when called on 121.5 MHz or 243.0 MHz, call the nearest tower or FSS.

Yes, the aircraft emergency frequency (which we often call "guard") is 121.5 MHz.

This is monitored by many control towers and flight service stations.

It is also typically monitored by airplanes on cross-country trips (especially airliners).

You will occasionally hear ATC ask an airplane to try to contact another airplane "on guard" in an attempt to relay a message to an aircraft which they have lost communications with.

However, if you are currently in communication with ATC on another frequency, or there is a frequency where you know you can communicate your distress and it will be heard, you should use that frequency instead, because there is no guarantee your message will be heard on 121.5 in all parts of the country/world.

Older ELT's (emergency locator transmitter) also transmitted a siren type sound on this frequency when activated which sounds like this .

In addition, it is used as an intercept frequency.

In other words, if you get intercepted by a fighter jet, you better be listening in on 121.5 for any commands they give you.

As a general rule, declaring an emergency should be done on the frequency you are currently communicating on.

However, there is a dedicated emergency frequency as Bret said (121.5 MHz), which is the same all over the world.

It's generally used if there is no response from the ATC facility the pilot was communicating with.

On many glass cockpits there's even a shortcut to tune to the emergency frequency.

For example, on Garmin equipment like the G1000

and G530/430

you have to press and hold the "flip-flop" key for 2 seconds and it will automatically tune 121.5 for you.

Canada has similar procedures to the US.

From the Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual , in the COM section: 5.11 Emergency Communications

The first transmission of the distress call and message by an aircraft should be on the air-to-ground frequency in use at the time.

If the aircraft is unable to establish communication on the frequency in use, the distress call and message should be repeated on the HF general calling or distress frequency

3 023.5

kHz, 5 680 kHz, 121.5 MHz, 406.1 MHz, or other distress frequency available, such as 2 182 kHz, in an effort to establish communications with any ground station or the maritime service.

If you have two radios it is a good idea to monitor 121.5 on your second radio.

You can set the volume slightly lower than the primary radio you are listening to.

Doing this allows you to hear ELT's (remember the old ELT's are not monitored by satellites anymore - just the 406 elt's)

So if you hear an ELT you can notify ATC and they can investigate it.

This has helped more than one downed pilot.

Also, if you are flying VFR and nearing a TFR, or other restricted airspace, you may get a call in the blind on 121.5 giving your position, direction of flight, and altitude readout along with a warning that you are about to enter, or have entered restricted airspace.

This call may keep you from having a violation.

If you are in the restricted airspace, the call will include a direction to exit the airspace and usually a frequency to contact for directions.

We all need to help and watch out for each other.

If you do this long enough you will make a call on 121.5 in error.

At that time all of the people who never make mistakes will point it out to you.

Just remember, by monitoring 121.5 you can keep yourself stay out of trouble and help someone else who has experienced trouble.

121.5 MHz is the international civilian distress frequency.

It has been designated for emergency communication by an international agreement.

ICAO Annex 10, Volume V, § 4.1.3.1.1 states that frequency 121.5 MHz “shall be used only for genuine emergency purposes” broadly covering the following activities: The handling of an emergency situations; air-ground communication with aircraft with airborne equipment failure; search and rescue operations and the operation of emergency locator transmitters (ELTs); and air policing/interception action.

Question: Coast patrol has a dedicated frequency for emergency that must be watched at almost all hours, and even if I recall, it had a "dead silent period" to prioritise whatever emergency might be reported. Is there a dedicated frequency for aviation? Or shall MAYDAYs just be sent to the standard ATC frequency?

Is there a dedicated emergency frequency?

Attempt to use the aircraft emergency frequency, 121.5 MHz. It is a good idea to monitor it on your second radio.

It is generally  agreed that in the US it is 121.5 and in Canada it is 5.11.


For (modern) gliders with highly optimized laminar flow airfoils , bugs (or dirt) are a non-negligible factor, especially in competition gliding.

There are some older laminar airfoils that are notoriously allergic to bugs (and rain), but all are to a certain degree.

This is also the reason why any glider pilot worth his or her salt will painstakingly clean their ship each afternoon and before each competition flight.

Sufficient bugs will degrade your performance by a noticeable amount - most gliding computers even have a special "bug" factor to include that into glide path calculation (even though the measuring and correllation of that is quite subjective).

I´ve had a few flights in somewhat biblically bug-infested conditions (summer, hot, low thermals) that more or less painted the leading edge black (like in this picture from an article on the DG Flugzeugbau website ).

Bug wipers are quite common on high-end and competition gliders and can be found e.g. at http://www.storka.at/ .

Or try to google for "Mückenputzer".

Of course bug wipers are not without drawbacks (concerning cost, installation, ease of use, drag etc.).

A friend of mine once stuck a banana peel on his wing and tried to remove that with the wiper, resulting in banana and wiper being stuck in the middle of the wing.

It took some creative maneuvers to clear that mess, by which time probably a lifetime aerodynamic benefit of cleaning had been spent.

As for the comparison with cars, their aerodynamics differ in a lot of ways.

In comparison to a wing there is no laminar flow to talk of at higher speeds (most of it is turbulent), which drastically reduces the influence of the surface smoothness on the drag produced.

One of the main reasons why it's not a good thing to have dead bugs on the windshield is that it becomes very difficult to spot other traffic.

Other planes are just little specks at a distance and when your windshield is covered with specks from dead bugs it becomes very difficult to spot another aircraft in the distance.

Bugs or other dirt can have several effects on a (light) aircraft: It will have some effect on airflow, however slight It may affect the paint or surface by corroding or leaving stains It can block pitot tubes or other openings

It can build up on windows and obstruct the view A heavy buildup of dirt could make the brakes less effective The effect of dead bugs on airflow is probably negligible (frost or ice would be a different story), but a blocked pitot tube can be very dangerous because the airspeed indicator will read incorrectly.

Dead bugs on the windscreen may seem like a minor issue, but even a small blind spot could hide another aircraft and prevent the pilot seeing it.

A lot of bugs on the leading edge of a wing does significantly degrade performance.

Years ago I gave a lot of float plane instruction in a J3 with an 85 hp engine.

If the student was heavy and there were a lot of bugs, it wouldn't fly.

Clean off the bugs and it would.

Mud dauber wasps are credited for at least two total losses: Birgenair Flight 301 and Florida Commuter Airlines Flight 65 .

Airfoil soiling can make a large difference to performance.

I don't operate aircraft, but I have operated wind turbines.

Older stall-regulated wind turbines can take a performance hit of 20% if they're not kept clean.

The first thought is possibly that a build-up of dirt/bugs on the surfaces of the aircraft would affect the smooth flow of air and thus affect the amount of drag produced.

This could, albeit quite slight, affect the flight characteristics of the aircraft.

There is a secondary thought, certain substances - especially bird poo - are quite corrosive and could therefore lead to more structural damage which is extremely hard to spot.

You should keep your car clean for much the same reason - however on a car

the worst you're going to get is a little rust spot on your bodywork.

In the wrong place on a aircraft that could be a corroded rivet or bolt.

A rough surface on the leading edge of the wing has a surprisingly large effect.

I tried to answer a similar/related question on the Skeptics site: Can a sandpaper-thick layer of ice reduce lift by 30 percent and increase drag up to 40 percent?

The worst thing is a perfect flat surface, as you get a bond of static air to the surface.

The flowing air has to pull away from this.

The best I have seen is when the wing surface has millions of small features which make the air turbulent

- this is all on a macro scale at the surface.

The above flowing air rides over the turbulent air more freely. Like a stack of steel plate on thousands of ball bearings.

Imagine taking the bearings away and trying to slide the steel across the floor!

Sharks do this, their skin has details which stop the flowing water sticking.

Another way is the repel the air molecules at atomic level from the wing surface - reduces sticking.

You use a high voltage electrode on leading edge to charge the airSo

the wing and the air now share like charges and repel each other - less sticking.

Thx for the opportunity to share odd memories of random facts from decades ago.

I have ran out of skill now and will probably not bother you again,, Steve

I know that the Supermarine company painstakingly blind riveted the leading edge of the spitfire wing as it proved faster.

They did a series of experiments some involving gluing split peas in rows to mimic domed rivets!

Question: It's noted in many POHs to keep your aircraft clean all the time, but is there a reason to this?  Dirt hardly add any sort of weight to the aircraft, bugs are extremely small and other things such as cars easily move even when dirty as a mud pig.    Does having dirt or bugs on your aircraft seriously affect the structure or performance signficantly? If so, why?

Why are dirt and bugs on an aircraft so bad?

Sufficient bugs will degrade your performance by a noticeable amount.  It will have some effect on airflow and will corrode the paint.

In light planes and gliders it is indeed a factor that will affect performance, especially on the leading edge.


For the purposes of air pressure inside aircraft, they are broken down into two broad categories: Unpressurized - These aircraft are typically piston powered and can't go very high, so do not even attempt to regulate the air pressure inside the fuselage.

Pressurized -

These aircraft do maintain pressurization in the fuselage, but it isn't constant beyond a certain point.

The category determines the answer to your question: Unpressurized Aircraft Unpressurized aircraft are not built air-tight for a couple of reasons:

It is very hard to make something as large as an airplane truly air-tight, and keep it that way.

Over time, seals will start to leak, fittings will loosen, etc.

The fuselage would have to be much stronger to withstand the pressure difference between the inside and the outside.

This would make them heavier and more expensive.

There isn't much need.

These airplanes don't fly high enough to really require a pressurized fuselage and a person can breathe more or less normally even though you aren't at sea level.

(Think of people that live on mountains.)

Pressurized Aircraft

Without going into the details of how an aircraft is pressurized (which isn't really relevant to your question), the air pressure inside the fuselage of a pressurized aircraft is usually maintained at sea level pressure up to a certain point.

However, the fuselage is designed to withstand a particular maximum differential air pressure, so in order to protect it (basically keep it from "popping" when the air pressure outside the airplane drops too low), the pressure is allowed to decrease when needed.

In typical jet airplanes, the pressure inside portions of the airplane (typically the passenger compartment, some of the cargo holds, and maybe an avionics bay) at cruising altitude is maintained at a pressure which corresponds to an outside air pressure at an altitude of about 5,000 - 8,000 feet (referred to as " cab in alt itude "), depending on the cruising altitude and the design of the airplane.

Many aircraft are not pressurized and therefore not airtight.

The occupants would suffocate, if nothing else, and most unpressurized aircraft do not regularly operate at altitudes requiring pressurization.

In the case of pressurized aircraft , it's actually necessary that the cabin is not airtight .

They are, instead, nearly airtight and can withstand significant pressure differentials.

Cabin pressurization works by bleeding high-pressure air from the engines, which is then run through packs (heat exchangers and air cycle machines ) to cool it.

After conditioning, the air is fed into the cabin.

This is what creates the lower cabin altitude relative to the outside atmosphere.

Because more air is constantly being added to the fuselage, a pressure outflow valve is required and it is constantly dumping air from inside the aircraft .

In normal operations, it's automatically controlled, but can be manually overridden in emergency situations.

Pressurized aircraft are not airtight, and neither are they constant pressure.

One key facet that would make being airtight impossible is the need to change pressure in the cabin.

To change pressure in the cabin, air is pumped in via the packs (covered in another answer), and air is let out via outflow valves.

The input is fairly constant flow and pressurization is modulated by how open/closed the outflow valve is.

Cabin pressure must change because the airframe has a maximum pressure differential between the cabin and outside (7.8 PSI in the EMB-145) and as you climb the pressure in the cabin must be reduced.

The cabin is generally 8000 ft pressure altitude at during cruise.

Subsequently the cabin pressure is increased to the landing airport during descent.

Accompanying these changes in pressure are temperature changes naturally occurring as result of the pressure change (see: ideal gas law).

You may notice this during descents in regional jets as they tend to get very warm as the cabin is compressed.

To regulate the temperature, you need air conditioning, and so you have packs and air cycle machines to deliver air at the proper temperature to the cabin.

Now that you have to provide air into the cabin, its not worth even thinking about CO2 scrubbers and O2 tanks, because the packs take care of that with fresh air.

That should cover airplanes not being airtight, why they aren't airtight and that the also are not constant pressure.

The answers so far have talked about the differences between pressurized and unpressurized airplanes, however to answer your question why they're not airtight :

The answer is two-fold, first as egid pointed out, the pressure differential would probably be too great for the hull to withstand.

Second, and in my opinion, more importantly, humans consume oxygen and output carbon dioxide (and water).

Having your ship airtight, would cause everyone inside to slowly but surely suffocate from carbon dioxide poisoning and lack of oxygen as the little oxygen carried within the aircraft slowly gets breathed away.

So you need to keep replacing that air, and the easiest way to do that is to let the old air out, and put new air in.

Edit

As Dan Pichelman points out, people in Subs aren't dropping like flies.

True, they're not, but they are in fact also replacing the air.

Almost.

They're removing the CO2 (using Scrubbers) and adding Oxygen (from oxygen tanks).

It would probably be possible to solve it this way for aircraft as well.

The question remains whether it is feasible weight wise, and if it's easier to just pressurize the aircraft using bleed air and dump the old air overboard.

In many General Aviation aircraft (small planes that don't go above approximately 12,000 ft.), the air pressure in the fuselage is the same as the outside air.

Most people have no difficulties at altitudes up to 12,000 ft, so there is no need to maintain a pressurized environment.

Specific rules state that unpressurized airplanes have supplemental oxygen available, depending on how high the plane is, for how long, and whether its flying during the day or night.

Question: I just heard it somewhere but I'm not sure about it.   If it is, then why don't they build airtight fuselages?

Is constant air pressure maintained inside the fuselage?

For the purposes of air pressure inside aircraft, they are broken down into two broad categories:   Unpressurized, These aircraft are typically piston powered and can't go very high and pressurized.

Aircraft can be either pressurized or unpressurized.


Normally, an airfoil is optimized for best lift/drag (L/D) efficiency for a certain flight profile (usually a compromise).

Since most of the time for most aircraft inverted flight is not an issue, you get an airfoil that is optimized for upright flight, and this is best achieved with asymmetric geometries.

However, depending on the angle of attack any airfoil can (and will) generate "negative" lift, only much less efficiently so, than for the optimized regime, resulting in increased drag.

The desired angle of attack for conventional aerodynamically controlled aircraft is maintained by the elevator.

For symmetric airfoils commonly used for aerobatic planes, the performance for upright and inverted flight is quite similar.

For 99% of all other airfoils inverted flight will work up to a certain point, depending on the available power, CG, the maximum lift and rudder forces availabe before stall.

As a result, for some aircraft, a stable inverted flight cannot be maintained, while for others it could be (but with varying penalty to performance, stall speed etc).

The aerodynamical possiblity of inverted flight is of course limited by structural and other considerations.

This relation between a wing's curvature and a pressure difference on both sides is often part of the 'equal transit time' explanation; air on the curved side has to traverse a longer distance in the same amount of time, therefore goes faster, which leads to a lower pressure.

This explanation is very common and completely wrong.

In normal flight, pitching the nose up causes the aircraft to climb because the wings meet the air at a steeper angle; the lift increases.

It makes sense that rotating the wings in the opposite direction decreases lift.

In fact, point the nose down far enough and the wings will produce no lift at all.

Beyond that, the generated lift becomes negative and the wings will start to pull the aircraft down.

During our hypothetical manoeuvre, our attitude has varied by about 10°.

That's not exactly flying upside down yet, the curved side of the wings were on top the entire time.

Whether or not the lift was pointing up as well, depended on the angle at which the wings meet the air, the angle of attack.

The same is true for inverted flight.

If we find ourselves at an attitude where the wings are pulling us down, we raise the nose.

At first, the downward lift will disappear and at higher angles of attack, start pointing up and grow larger.

At sufficient airspeeds and angles of attack, we have enough lift to maintain altitude upside down.

So why do wings need to be curved at all?

They don't.

Flat wings also provide lift at non-zero angles of attack and are perfectly usable, but not very efficient.

Properly shaped airfoils create more lift and less drag.

To find out why, consult a more accurate explanation of how planes really fly.

Short answer is that explanation is wrong .

How planes actually generate lift is far more complicated.

Bernoulli's Principle (airfoil shape) is only one of the lifting forces.

Equally important is deflection (Newton's law), and on propellor aircraft, accelerated airflow.

'Newtonian' lift is the upward reaction of the wing to its downward deflection of the air-stream.

The most efficient way to deflect the airstream is a gradual acceleration, accomplished by a concave lower surface.

The upper surface shape must prevent premature 'separation' (chaotic vacuum eddies) of the upper airflow.

A symmetric wing can still deflect the air-stream, depending on its angle-of-attack; it has the same lift and drag whether right-side-up or inverted, which is not as efficient as a right-side-up normal wing, but better than an inverted normal wing.

Question: I'm simplifying here, but every introduction to flying shows us that the profile of a wing leads to lower pressure on the upper side of the wing, hence the wing and the plane attached to it will be pulled up.  All right.  How does that explain a plane flying inverted? If the explanation was right, the plane would pull itself towards earth.

If the profile of a wing pulls a plane up, why can planes fly inverted?

an airfoil is optimized for best lift/drag (L/D) efficiency for a certain flight profile. The desired angle of attack for conventional aerodynamically controlled aircraft is maintained by the elevator. As a result, for some aircraft, a stable inverted flight cannot be maintained, while for others it could be

Some aircraft can do it and others cannot due to their characteristics, and the elevetaro plays a major part in this

Users suggest that some aircraft can do it and others cannot due to their characteristics


The brakes are much more effective than anything else, at least for the jet I have experience in (EMB-145).

Our landing performance data typically assumes full braking application, spoilers deployed and no reverse thrust.

The airplane will most certainly stop without using reverse thrust, just not as fast.

I never tried not using the brakes, and if I were to I would want a light airplane and a very long runway.

As Lnafziger pointed out in the comments, the brakes are part of redundant systems so that they are always available.

In the EMB-145, the brakes were serviced by two independent* hydraulic systems.

The inboard brakes were on one system while the outboards were on the other for a total of four wheels each with big carbon fiber brakes.

To address the comments on slick runways, assuming braking action allows an attempt to land in the first place, you have to be careful.

With reverse thrust alone you may not be able to maintain the runway centerline and directional control may become difficult through uneven deployment of the reversers and other factors.

In this scenario the spoilers are helpful to increase traction and brake effectiveness.

In short, if the runway is slick then the only way I'm attempting a no-wheel-brake landing is after declaring an emergency.

Finally, to address the question in the title, the wheel brakes are always the primary means of slowing the airplane.

You could transfer fluid between our systems through the parking brake.

Perhaps instead of thinking of a single primary means of slowing a large jet, we should think about a primary means for a given set of conditions, the combinations of which are numerous.

To mention a few: What is the weight of the aircraft.

Passenger aircraft are typically nowhere near max landing weight when they land.

Freighters are often loaded such that they may be very close (or even over truth be told) to max landing weight.

Is the aircraft going to be on the ground a sufficient time for brakes heated to their max to cool?

Was the leg from which you are landing long enough to allow the brake and tire energy from the taxi and takeoff to dissipate?

Is where you're landing used to having to handle hot brakes and thus can be expected to have a huffer readily available to cool them and people who know how to do it?

Do you have a reverser locked out for maintenance.

Does your next departure allow for safely leaving the gear down for awhile and thus gave you more leeway on heating the brakes when you landed.

Just some thoughts.

This video on YouTube shows a 777 in certification trials, accelerating at maximum gross weight from standing start to $V_R$, then stopping with maximum brake pressure and no reverse thrust.

The brake discs are also ground down to the minimum thickness permitted by the maintenance manual to simulate the worst case scenario.

The brakes get white hot!

Then the plane has to taxi for 5 minutes, before having the fire department cool the brakes.

The test is to ensure that the brakes can handle the maximum load as certified, and secondly that the brakes do not catch on fire and incinerate the airplane.

If the runway is slick it just takes longer to stop.

Thrust reverse will help significantly in this case.

Thrust reverse is prohibited below a certain speed because the reverse thrust will kick up FOD which the engines may suck in, causing expen$ive damage.

However, in an emergency, thrust reverse will stop the plane.

While landing you want to reduce speed for which you need spoilers and to have more lift and drag

you have the Flaps deployed than just when you touch down on runway ground spoilers are deployed.

If want to land with short runway length then you go for reverse thrust (nice to have in normal scenario but

in case of emergency it can be a life-saver).

Then we need wheel brakes to stop the plane.

Effectiveness: When in air/near ground: only spoilers/Flaps and airbrake (ground spoilers) are effective to reduce speed of aircraft but not to stop it

Flap are required to keep the aircraft in a configuration such that you don't crash on ground When on ground: you still have airbrakes/spoilers effective when aircraft speed is high but its effectiveness decreases at low speed.

So, are other control surfaces useless @ low speed (Flaps/Spoilers etc).

Reverse thrust and wheel brakes are the one you can rely on.

Failures:All critical systems on aircraft have redundancy so the probabilty of failure is around 1e-8 /flight

-hr

but still you never know.

I think you will be able to land

but you need more runway length in case of two fail scenario.

Yes, I believe you can land without wheel brakes by using reverse thrust but purpose of reverse thrust is only to reduce aircraft speed such that we land on short runway.

so, its not recommended to not use wheel brakes and use reverse thrust.

Slick runway/rain or snow on runway has same effect as it has on other land vehicles..

Aircraft will take more runway length than usual.

plain and simple: the brakes.

Reverse thrust is much less effective than brakes.

And that's just talking about the force to slow down, not even taking into account that jet engines need a few seconds to spool up (6 or more) and brakes are effective immediately (perhaps 1 s delay).

Question: I understand that a large(r) commercial jet slows down after landing using the following methods:   Wheel brakes  Reverse thrust  Spoilers/flaps/airbrakes   What is the effectiveness of each compared to the others? What if one of the first 2 fails? Can an airliner usually be stopped without using wheel brakes or without using reverse thrust?  And what if the runway is slick because of rain, snow or ice? Does that change the equation?

For large jets, what is the primary means of slowing down after landing?

The brakes are more effective than anything else. Our landing performance data typically assumes full braking application, spoilers deployed and no reverse thrust.

While reverse thrust and spoilers deployed do help to slow the plan down, it is the brakes that do the most work.

Users suggest the brakes play the most important part