Aviation always uses UTC time .

This is from the FAA's AIM, but other countries do the same for obvious reasons: 4-2-12.

Time a. FAA uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) for all operations.

The word "local" or the time zone equivalent must be used to denote local when local time is given during radio and telephone communications.

The term "Zulu" may be used to denote UTC.

This question covers in much more detail why UTC is used in preference to GMT , and this question explains why pilots need to know the time in the first place, at least under IFR (which applies to almost all airline flights).

Does daylight saving time affect local airspace?

Yes

and No.

In aviation Flight plan information, weather, etc.

all use Zulu Time (UTC).

This provides a single time standard everyone in the world can use, and avoids misunderstandings based on various national rules for "Daylight Saving Time", "Summer Time", etc.

The airline / airport / travel agent / etc.

are responsible for properly converting UTC times to the local timezone for passenger convenience.

Similarly active times for restricted airspace, TFRs, etc.

are all published as UTC times to eliminate any possible ambiguity in this regard.

Not everything is based on UTC however:

The (FAA-operated) tower at the field I fly from operates from 0700–2300 Local Time .

When the United States messes with the clocks twice a year the UTC hours of operation/effective hours for the Class D airspace will change to remain aligned with the same "local time" operating period.

Air Traffic Control uses UTC or Zulu time which is the same, all the time, the whole world over.

Local only flights will use local time.

Yes it does, some Major international airports, notably SYD, have a curfew in place.

Commercial passenger aircraft land between 0600 and 23:00 AEST or face sanctions.

This in turn affects patterns in Dubai, Singapore, KL, LAX, DFW etc.

This is a "must depart by" issue for some of these.

This is a politically motivated rule to appease voters in the flight path and is tied to "local" time.

Aircraft arriving early are slowed and fly laps over suburbs, sharing the joy.

It does have an effect, look in St-Hubert, they have to work an hour longer in the summer!

That might be true anyway, but when reading times in the CFS there are always adjustments for the time change.

Essentially the airport (or parts thereof) opens and closes at the same local time but the zulu time changes.

TWR St-Hubert 118.4 352.5

(E) 1045-05Z‡ Apr-Oct; 1045-04Z

Nov-Mar You may think that doesn't happen in Sask., but look- TWR Saskatoon 118.3 244.7 (E) 1200-0445Z

Mon-Fri Mar 11-Nov 3, 1245-0445Z

Sat-Sun

Mar 11-Nov 3, 1245-0445Z

Nov 4-Mar 10 They also have to make adjustments to their times to accommodate traffic from other provinces.

They also work longer in the summer.

This is from an old CFS I found online, don't land and say I said they would be open.

In all air traffic control systems, all time is UTC (called "Zulu time"), which doesn't have daylight savings.

Local time is only used when communicating with passengers (departure/arrival boards, announcements, boarding tickets, etc).

Some class D towers are only open part time based on local time.

So yes, daylight savings time will impact when the tower and class D airspace is active.

Question: Only some countries use Daylight Saving Time. In Canada, some provinces use and don't use DST (such as Saskatchewan). However, in remote and local regions where this is not observed, what would happen?  What happens when areas that do not observe DST are controlled by areas that do. (Cleveland controls parts of Southern Ontario). How does this affect local airspace? Does it affect global airspace as well? What are the safety implications? How does it affect Air Traffic Controllers operating these different spaces?

Does Daylight Saving Time affect local airspace?

Aviation always uses UTC time so it is not affected by daylight saving. However, local airports may be affected and announcements to passengers are made in local time, thus according to daylight saving. However, it appears that some airports work different hours according to the daylight saving.

All air traffic control systems use UTC (Zulu) time, which does not have daylight savings and is the same everywhere in the world. Local time is used on local flights or when communicating with passengers. Daylight savings does affect local airspace, as opening times of airports and towers may differ and some airports may have a curfew.

Local time is used on local flights or when communicating with passengers. There are some class D towers that only open part-time based on local time.


They can climb vertically, but this works best if they are several tons below their maximum take-off mass.

Fighter jet engines need a lot of fuel, and at the beginning of the flight the aircraft will be too heavy for vertical climb.

Also, the landing gear would need to be rearranged if the plane is to take off from any airport.

Even a thrust/weight ratio slightly above 1 at maximum take-off mass will not be enough, because the aircraft needs some airspeed for its control surfaces to become effective.

If no thrust vectoring is installed, the aircraft will be uncontrollable in its initial ascent.

The Harrier VTOL jet uses bleed air which is ducted to nozzles at the extreme ends of fuselage and wing for low-speed attitude control.

It is conceivable that the fighter will hang vertically on a wall, with its wheels locked in clutches which will release it when the needed thrust is reached.

With thrust vector control the aircraft could be controlled over the full trajectory until it transits to horizontal flight, and could even land vertically.

But this would need specially prepared airfields and use much more fuel than a conventional take-off, leaving less fuel for the mission.

Yes, they can accelerate straight up (even at max weight in some cases), but to accelerate straight up from 0 airspeed requires some kind of control to keep the aircraft stable.

All of the aircraft's normal control surfaces only work with air flowing across them, so if you stood it up and pushed the throttles forward it would simply tip itself over.

This is why VTOL aircraft always have more than one point creating thrust, they use thrust to stabilize the aircraft as it rises.

The other consideration (as Peter mentioned) is that it's less efficient to climb this way, meaning less fuel for the mission, lower takeoff weight, or some other tradeoff.

The closest the US ever got to it is the ZEL program for the F-100 Super Sabre.

Basically, put the F-100 on a cruise missile launch rail, strap one hell of a big rocket booster to its arse, and run for cover.

Used to have a 90 minute VHS tape about the project, they got so far as to design underground launch ramps with nuclear blast proof doors to launch the fighters after Soviet bombers.

Never went operational though, by the time it had progressed to where it could work in practice

the Nike SAM system was mature enough the ZEL program was no longer needed.

Well they sometimes do.

A pilot or flight lead can request an unrestricted climb to cruising altitude for the purposes of practicing intercepts or other training maneuvers as this F-22 Raptor demonstrates.

But this does employ a conventional takeoff and accelerating the jet to a pre-determined speed before going vertical.

In regards to an engine thrust greater than 1:1, this applies to static conditions at sea level, generally using full afterburning.

As you increase in altitude, the rated thrust that the engines can produce degrades with decreasing air density.

The idea of a pure VTOL fighter has been explored with the "tail sitter" designs such as the Convair XFY-1 Pogo or Lockheed's entry .

These designs were feasible for a proposed cruiser based fighter interceptor, but the configuration made it difficult to land and the project was abandoned shortly after a series of test flights.

Both the Harrier series of attack aircraft and the new F-35B can take off and land vertically, but at a greatly reduced fuel an dpayload required for hovering; These aircraft prefer short take-off operations from ship with a warlord, then land vertically once this is depleted with completion of a mission.

One other factor to consider: if a fighter with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than one can launch vertically off of a ship, how does that fighter land back on the ship?

Being out in the ocean, there's no where else to land, and if the ship has a flight deck for landing, may as well use it for a much safer conventional takeoff with a much higher combat load.

This was the issue faced with the three tail sitters the US financed in the 1950's, from Convair, Lockheed, and Ryan.

The bottom line: landing on the tail, with the pilot looking over their shoulder in the attempt, turned out to be far too difficult, on stationary land, with a huge landing pad, and no battle damage.

Trying to land a tail sitter on a moving ship after carrying out a combat mission would have been even more difficult.

All three efforts were abandoned as being impractical in military conditions.

Question: I've heard the claim repeated many times that some modern fighter jets have an installed thrust greater than their weight, so theoretically they could accelerate straight up.  I've never actually heard of this being done, however. It sounds useful, though, especially on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Imagine: we could take out the whole catapult system, and replace it with some sort of a system to pick up an aircraft and turn it vertical.  Why is this not done?

Why don't fighter jets take off vertically?

Fighter jets can take off vertically but with a reduced payload. Also vertical take-off requires some kind of stabilizer.  The Harrier and F-35B usually take off non-vertically and then land vertically as the reduced fuel reduces the payload.

There have been designs for VTOL fighter jets. There are also existing aircraft that are able to take off and land vertically but they prefer short take-offs from a ship. Moreover, fighter jets are actually able to climb vertically but they will be too heavy at the start of a flight.

Fighter jets are able to climb vertically but they will be too heavy at the start of a flight. A vertical climb is most successful when the jets are significantly below their maximum take-off weight.

Vertical acceleration from 0 airspeed requires control to ensure stability.


pilots need to be able to do work during turbulence.

passengers don't really like to be fully restrained.

They're required.

ICAO Annex 6, Part 1

states: 6.2.2

An aeroplane shall be equipped with: ... c) 3) a safety harness for each flight crew seat.

The safety harness shall incorporate a device which will automatically restrain the occupant's torso in the event of rapid deceleration

It also confirm's Ben's comment that they are also meant to restrain an incapacitated pilot: Recommendation.

– The safety harness for each pilot seat should incorporate a device to prevent a suddenly incapacitated pilot from interfering with the flight controls.

I recall early in my glider training when I was about 17 before Id gone solo.

My instructor used to keep his shoulder straps loose

so I started doing the same.

On my 1st actual cable snap on the winch tow

I whacked the stick forward and the glider went into -ve

g.

It was an open-cockpit glider with no canopy

and I was half hanging out and only just managed to reach and get fingertips of one hand onto the joystick to pull myself back into the plane.

I stabilised the glider, pulled my straps tight, but then found out my instructor behind me was not responding.

I landed safely and then found out he was unconscious.

He had bashed his head on the wing above him and passed out.

I always had my straps fastened properly after that incident.

There have been some "unusual attitude" instances where the crew have recovered the aircraft but would have possibly been thrown from their seats or unable to reach the controls through excessive G if not fully restrained.

In airliners, shoulder harnesses are not installed for passengers because: it is not not mandated by law

it is too much for average passengers to deal with it requires money to install

it is superfluous in a crash when compared to the same safety from a lap belt Flight crew is required to use the shoulder harness (when installed) as it is the law ( 14 CFR 91.105 ):

(a)

During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall— (1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and (2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.

(b)

Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, keep his or her shoulder harness

fastened while at his or her assigned duty station .

This paragraph does not apply if— (1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or (2)

The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness fastened.

If the plane is in turbulence, and the passenger is jostled about, injured, or even knocked unconscious, well, sucks for him, but he will recover.

The more extreme the situation, the more important it is that the pilot be conscious, uninjured, and stable.

For passengers, while flying I feel fully restrained around the hips by a lap belt fully tightened- it would be more comfortable to have the belt load spread out.

A full car seat belt compared to a lap belt allows you full motion.

Its more likely the cost and difficult of having more anchor points on all seats especially when they spread them across the plane- a place to join the belt to the seat at higher point.

They might also have to design the seat to handle its load being more spread out.

Let alone having to work out if having such "improved" belts actually helps survivability with the greater risk of being unable to unclip.

Question: On airliners, passenger seatbelts are simple lap belts. However, flight crews seem to have at least shoulder straps, and often five-point harnesses. Why do flight crew have more restraints?

Why do airline pilots have shoulder harnesses?

Pilots need to be able to work during turbulence and there have been instances where crew have recovered the aircraft but would have not been able to do so if not fully restrained. Moreover, it is a requirement. Passengers, on the other hand, do not really like being fully restrained.

Flight crew have more restraints because it is a requirement. They need to be restrained so they are not thrown from their seats during turbulence or an unusual attitude. Passengers have fewer restraints because they do not like to be fully restrained.

Pilots need to be restrained so they are not thrown from their seats during turbulence or an unusual attitude.

Passengers don't like to have lots of restraints.


Yes.

Ignoring companies that used to exist but are now bankrupt/merged into Airbus or Boeing, you have companies from countries that aren't historically too friendly with the US and Western Europe.

For instance, Tupolev makes the Tu-204 , which is currently in production and seats over 175 passengers.

The Ilyushin-designed Il-96 is a widebody in current use some places (Russia, Cuba).

Before the Cold War ended, Russia had more indigenous airliners; Aeroflot now largely uses Boeings and Airbuses, but there are still Russian aircraft that see use.

In addition, you have newer manufacturers starting to enter the market:

Bombardier with their CSeries , Comac (in China) with their C919 (in development), and Irkut with their MC-21 (in development).

Embraer makes planes of more than 100 seats (although they're shorter-range, and you might consider them regional jets).

Being used but out of production: Ilyushin Il-62 (up to 195 seats):

last one built in 2010.

Totally built 287, 13 remain in service Tupolev Tu-154 (up to 176 seats):

last one built in 2013.

Totally built 923, 61 remain in service Ilyushin Il-86 (up to 350 seats):

last one built in 1995, since 2011 only in military use.

Totally built 106, 4 remain in service Ilyushin Il-18 (up to 120 seats):

last one built in 1985, but still in use by several airlines.

Totally built 678 (other sources say 850+), 92 remain in service Yakovlev Yak-42 (100/120 seats):

last one built in 2003, still in use.

Totally built 187, 55 remain in service

In production: Ilyushin Il-96 (300/436 seats), the 436-seat variant was never built, but freight variant can be converted to use 436 seats upon customer's request.

Totally built 28 (incl freght variant), 15 remain in service Tupolev Tu-204 (up to 210 seats).

Totally built 76, 46 remain in active service.

Sukhoi

SSJ-100 (98-108 seats).

Totally built 77, 60 in active service Antonov An-158 (up to 99 seats).

Totally built 6 (excluding the An-148 variant which has less seats), all 6 in active service.

Boeing = Historic Boeing, not McDonnell Douglas, or plain Douglas Airbus = Historic Airbus.

Commonly used= ?

A reputable source would be http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/

From there

and comments here

, I have edited the following list of manufacturers, for a concise answer, and below that, a list of the aircraft which I believe have more than 100 seats, or can be configured with 100 or more seats, and are in revenue service today, 2015: Aircraft Manufacturers

Antonov Bombardier British Aerospace/AVRO Douglas, McDonnell-Douglas Embraer Fokker Ilyushin Sukhoi Tupolev Yakovlev Aircraft Type Antonov An-124

Ruslan Heavylift freighter Antonov An-140

New!

Turboprop regional airliner Antonov An-225 Mriya

Extra-Large cargo aircraft Bombardier CRJ-1000 (& C-100, C-300, when deliveries start) BAE Systems Avro RJX100 Regional airliner British Aerospace Avro RJ85/100 Regional airliner British Aerospace BAe-146-200 &-300 Regional jet airliner Douglas DC-7 Piston engine airliner and freighter Douglas DC-8-60/70 Long range medium capacity airliner and freighter Embraer ERJ-195 108 seat regional airliner Fokker 100

100 seat regional jet

Ilyushin Il-18 Medium range turboprop airliner Ilyushin Il-62 Medium to long range medium capacity airliner Ilyushin Il-76 Medium to long range freighter Ilyushin Il-86 Medium range widebody airliner Ilyushin

Il-96-300 Long range widebody airliner Ilyushin Il-96M & Il-96T Long range widebody airliner and freighter McDonnell Douglas DC-10 & Boeing MD-10 Medium to long range widebody airliner

McDonnell Douglas

Short to medium range airliners McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Long range widebody airliner McDonnell Douglas MD-81/82/83/88

Short to medium range airliner McDonnell Douglas MD-87 Short to medium range airliner McDonnell Douglas MD-90

Short to medium range airliner Sukhoi Superjet

Regional jet airliner Tupolev Tu-154 Medium range airliner Tupolev Tu-204 & Tu-214 Medium range airliner Yakovlev Yak-42 Short range airliner Once common, now mostly or all retired: Aerospatiale-British Aerospace Concorde Medium range supersonic airliner

Antonov An-22 Antei

Large capacity

turboprop freighter Avions Marcel Dassault (AMD) Mercure BAC 111 One-Eleven -500.

Short haul airliner Canadair CL-44 & Yukon Medium to long range airliner and

freighter Convair 880 and 990 De Havilland Comet Medium range airliner Douglas DC-6 Piston engined airliner and freighter Douglas

DC-8-10/20/30/40/50 Medium to long range airliner and freighter Hawker Siddley Trident Lockheed 1049 Super Constellation & 1649 Starliner Lockheed

L-100 Hercules Medium range freighter Lockheed L-1011

TriStar 1/50/100/150/200/250 Medium to long range widebody airliner Lockheed

TriStar 500 Long range widebody airliner Lockheed L-188 Electra Turboprop airliner and freighter McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 Short range airliners

Sud SE-210 Caravelle Short range airliner Tupolev Tu-104A Medium to long range airliner Tupolev TU-114 long range airliner Tupolev

Short to medium range airliner prototype

Vickers VC10 Medium to long range airliner

These are the Boeing and Airbus planes excluded: Airbus A300-600 Medium range widebody airliner Airbus A300B2/B4 Medium range widebody airliner Airbus A310

Medium to long range widebody airliner Airbus A318 100 seat regional airliner Airbus A319 Medium range airliner Airbus A320

Short to medium range airliner Airbus

Short to medium range narrowbody airliner Airbus A330-200 Long range widebody airliner Airbus A330-300 Large capacity medium to long range airliner Airbus A340-200/300 Long range

widebody airliner

Airbus A340-500/600 Long range widebody airliners Airbus A380 High capacity, long range, twindeck, widebody airliner Boeing 707 Medium to long range airliner and freighter Boeing 717

Short to medium range airliner Boeing 720 Medium range narrowbody airliner Boeing 727

Short to medium range narrowbody airliner Boeing 737 Short to medium range narrowbody airliner Boeing

747 Long range high capacity widebody airliner Boeing 747SP Long range high capacity widebody airliner Boeing 757 Medium range narrowbody airliner Boeing 767 Medium to long range widebody airliner Boeing

777 Long range high capacity widebody airliner Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner Long range widebody airliner Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter Freighter

The MD-80 series is still in fairly widespread use, and it wasn't made by Boeing or Airbus either.

The MD-11 is getting harder to find in passenger service, although it's still used for cargo.

Bombardier make regional jets but their new C series is a 737/A320 class 80-120 seat aircraft

Yes , of course.

Tupolev, Antonov, Douglas(I thinks at least they made earlier) and Ilyushin have made many.

While Boeing and Airbus are the most common, Russia, China , India etc.

do use (or may be used) other airlines.

Question: Are there any commonly used passenger aircraft larger than regional jets (100+ seats) that aren't Boeing or Airbus?   If so, what are they and where are they used?

Are there any airliners not made by Airbus or Boeing?

There are other companies manufacturing aircraft apart from Airbus and Boeing. These include Tupolev, Antonov, Douglas, and Ilyushin. The MD series aircraft are not made by Airbus or Boeing. Many of these companies are from countries that historically are not very friendly with the US and Western Europe.

Yes, there are airliners that are not made by Airbus or Boeing. Some of these are made by companies in countries that have not always had good relations with the West. Companies that have produced airliners include Ilyushin, Embraer, Tupolev and Antonov. In some cases, a freight model can be converted for passenger use. There are also some models that were previously used for passengers but are now largely used for cargo.

There are airliners made by companies in countries that have not always had good relations with the West.

Other companies that have produced airliners include Ilyushin, Embraer, Tupolev and Antonov.


Modern high-bypass turbofan engines work by pulling in immense volumes of air and accelerating it.

A screen as proposed would make that task far more difficult, which would ruin the efficiency of the engine.

It's also pretty well unnecessary.

Jets worldwide take plenty of birdstrikes every day.

Unless the pilots see it (hitting the windscreen will do that) or hear it (hitting something near the cockpit) or the bird goes into the engine core (which causes the smell of burned bird in the air conditioning), the chance that the crew knows about it before the next walk-around inspection is pretty slight.

The vast majority of birdstrikes are utterly inconsequential.

(Except for the bird -- ruins his day pretty thoroughly!)

Yes, there are a small number of very highly visible events where birds do disable an aircraft -- the "miracle on the Hudson" and the loss of an AWACS in Alaska come to mind, and there are others.

And it's possible for a birdstrike on an engine to cause significant damage IF the bird is large enough

AND it goes into the core, but in the big picture, that is actually pretty uncommon.

Thus, the aircraft manufacturers and operators end up accepting the risk of a catastrophic birdstrike, because the alternative of protecting the engine as suggested is too expensive when the effects on the efficiency of the engine are considered.

One other point, bird flesh is pretty easy for an engine to chop up and digest.

If a big bird hits a metal shield at high speed, there would be the risk that the shield could be damaged enough that some of the metal would break apart and go into the engine as well, and THAT would cause far more damage than just the bird.

Fun video of stuff being shot into an engine during testing

Screens were actually used on the first prototypes of the Me-262 , but soon abandoned when they were found to be more of a burden than a help.

If you look carefully at the picture of the Me-262 V3 below, you can see the spherical screens on both engine intakes.

Today, screens are used only in ground tests.

See the picture below for the Rolls-Royce version: The big surface of the sphere reduces aerodynamic losses, which are small under static conditions anyway, but this contraption would obviously be totally impractical in flight.

A few Russian/Soviet fighters had retractable FOD screens on their engine intakes (MiG-29 and Su-27 IIRC).

The assumption was that they would operate from damaged runways or roads and the engines would need protection against Foreign Object Damage (FOD).

Right air intake of a MiG-29 with main doors closed and louvres on the wing root opened.

There are three problems with this idea: (1) To make a screen strong enough to withstand the body of a 15-to-20 pound bird hitting it at 500 miles per hour, would require thick wire which would significantly block air flow.

Such a screen would be very liable to collect ice, so it would have to be heated to high temperature.

This would be expensive and would increase the maintenance burden for the aircraft.

If part of the screen failed and broke off for any reason and went into the rotors, it would destroy the engine.

When flying any surface that is exposed to the air will generate drag.

That screening, although full of holes, will create significant drag when exposed to the air that is entering in the airplane.

Also, it will distort the air entering the engine reducing the efficiency of the engine and increasing fuel comsuption.

Globally, the extra drag and the higher fuel consumption is more costly than the increase of weight needed for generating extra protection on the engine nacelle.

Question: Why isn't there a protective screen with large diameter holes (approx 2') mounted in front of the jet engine intake to protect the turbine blades? This would  keep larger birds and large ground debris from getting sucked in, which can cause serious internal engine damage.

Would it be viable to install a screen in front of jet intakes to prevent them from sucking in birds?

Most birdstrikes are inconsequential and a screen breaking on impact with a bird may potentially cause more damage. Screens were used on Me-262 prototypes but later abandoned, however, some Russian fighter jets do have screens.

Screens are not generally used because most bird strikes are insignificant. In the event of a bird strike, the damage caused to the shield could be a bigger problem than the bird strike itself. Having said that, there are examples of screens being used on aircraft or on aircraft prototypes.

There are examples of screens being used on aircraft or on aircraft prototypes.


There's no mention that I can find of "landing long" ("landing deep" is sometimes used outside the US) in the FAA's P/CG , AIM or ATC procedures .

So it's fairly safe to say that it's an unofficial instruction (assuming I didn't miss it somewhere).

The main reason for doing it is to avoid a long taxi after landing, but I suppose there could be other reasons too, like coming in too high on a long runway or avoiding wake turbulence.

The point of requesting it - and not just doing it - is that it may mess up sequencing at a busy airport because you take more time to clear the runway, with the result that the tower has to instruct the aircraft following you to go around.

As my first instructor said, "once you're cleared to land

it's your runway".

I've never been asked by ATC to do it

but I have been asked by the tower to "land short", to minimize my time on the runway and let an airline flight take off ASAP.

However, it was clearly phrased as an informal request, not an instruction; something like this: N12345

Clear to land 36L, appreciate a short landing if you can manage it

So I think the conclusion is that landing "short" or "long" is simply an informal way for pilots and ATC to make things work a bit more smoothly.

When you are cleared to land, you own the entire runway until you exit.

Use it all if you must.

(One exception to this is at Oshkosh, during the annual AirVenture when as many as three airplanes are cleared to land on the same runway at the same time:

one short, one medium, and one long as demarcated by colored dots.)

Having said that, at a busy airport you are expected to land reasonably close to the arrival end, and to exit the runway promptly.

This is an important component of keeping traffic moving smoothly at a busy airport, so if you want to land long you should inform the tower of your request.

A good reason to land long:

If the controller has positioned you too close behind a large airliner so that wake turbulence is an issue, tell the controller that you want to land long.

Wingtip vortices stop as soon as the aircraft lands, and you want your touchdown point beyond the large airliner's touchdown point.

I don't think it is documented anywhere that you must inform the controller if you want to land long.

But you should state your intentions clearly as a courtesy to the controller and by effect other aircraft that you share the airport with.

The controller will expect a small aircraft to take the first runway exit.

They plan the arrival stream accordingly.

From experience they know it will take a Cessna 150, for example, 40 seconds between overflying the threshold and vacating at the first exit.

Thus they can space the next aircraft appropriately so that they can give a landing clearance in time after you vacate.

When you unexpectedly fly all the way to the second half of the runway before landing it will take much longer between overflying the threshold and vacating the runway.

This will make the margins for giving the landing clearance to the aircraft behind you much smaller and may even force the controller to order the big jet on your tail to go around.

For screwing up somebody else's plan and causing others to go-around you get shouted at sometimes.

Long landings are requested mostly by GA pilots (although airlines can do it too) on longer runways.

ATC is informed about it.

If the aircraft is parked near the end of the runway, or needs to get there, long landing is used as it is faster to fly at 80 knots than to taxi at a much lower speed.

I'm not sure why ATC didn't like it in your particular situation.

It could be that they were expecting you to get off the runway sooner, which you didn't.

This PDF explains this.

I couldn't find any regulations related to it.

ATC doesn't like unannounced long landings because unless they are informed of what you're doing, they will be concerned that you're just too fast or too high and might run off the end of the runway.

In EASA land, you can also be asked to make a long landing because the controller will want to clear another aircraft to land behind you, although you are still occupying the runway.

This tool is called Reduced Runway Separation and requires the preceding aircraft to be beyond a certain distance measured from the runway threshold, before the subsequent approaching aircraft can be cleared to land.

Related question:

When is an aircraft cleared to land?

Question: I fly in/out of a small international airport occasionally, the runways are quite long. It is not unusual to land half-way or even three-quarters down the runway.  When doing this, pilots request long landings from ATC. I once did not request a long landing and did anyway and got chewed out a bit from ATC.   My question is:  Is it mandatory to request a long landing or is it more of a courtesy? Where is this information documentated?

Why should I request a long landing?

It does not seem to be a requirement to request a long landing. However, there aare a number of reasons for doing so to help the air traffic controller organise other planes. The main reason for landing long is to avoid a long taxi after landing.

Long landing is  usually performed on long runways so that aircraft do not have to taxi for a long time after landing. Although it is not a documented requirement, you should nevertheless request a long landing, as it may affect other aircraft coming in to land behind you.

Requesting a long landing is not a documented requirement.

Long landing is requested on long runways so that aircraft do not have to taxi for a long time after landing.

The reason a long landing should be requested first is that it may affect other aircraft coming in to land.


Yes, Niki Lauda , former Formula 1 pilot and ATPL holder, founded Lauda Air , for which he also worked as PIC .

Lauda returned to running his airline, Lauda Air, on his second Formula One retirement in 1985.

During his time as airline manager, he was appointed consultant at Ferrari as part of an effort by Montezemolo to rejuvenate the team.

After selling his Lauda Air shares to majority partner Austrian Airlines in 1999, he managed the Jaguar Formula One racing team from 2001 to 2002.

In late 2003, he started a new airline, Niki.

Lauda holds a commercial pilot's licence and from time to time acted as a captain on the flights of his airline.

Lauda Air ceased operations in July 2013.

Although not an airline Howard Hughes was a test pilot for some of the Hughes Aircraft planes including the famous XF-11 that he crashed.

I can't find any information on if he ever flew any of the Hughes/Air West planes in a commercial situation or if he had a CPL but its worth mentioning.

Edit: After some searching I did find this article which states

The only real job Hughes ever had also came in 1933.

He signed on as a co-pilot for American Airways.

He applied under the name Charles W. Howard.

The ruse was quickly discovered, however, and Hughes resigned.

So it seems he did at least try to be a commercial pilot at some point although this was long before the Hughes/Air West Days.

Edit 2:

I forgot about it, but Joe McBryan the owner of Buffalo air a small freight and passenger airline in Canada and the focus of the History Channels show "Ice Pilots NWT" fly's some of the flights for the airline.

It also seems that Willie Walsh the CEO of Aer Lingus and then British Airways was a 737 captain however it does not seem that he held these positions while being a captain.

Collett Everman Woolman one of the founders of Delta Airlines (and eventually the CEO) did fly for them when them when they were a crop dusting business (and legally an airline)

but I cant find any info on if he flew passenger or mail flights for them.

Walter Varney

the founder of both Continental and United Airlines was an airmail pilot for United at one point (possibly also during passenger operations.

Leon D Cuddeback another founder of United Airlines is credited as flying the first airline flight in the country

so I'd say he makes the list.

A

Felix duPont one of the founders of Allegheny Airlines (eventually US Airways) was a test pilot for Focker and an aviation enthusiast as well as serving during WWII for the Air Transport Command although it does not seem that he flew commercially.

His brother Richard Chichester duPont was also an aviation enthusiast and founder of Allegheny Airlines although its unclear if he ever flew for them he does hold some aviation awards.

You can find a list of US based airlines here and the rest of the world here if you want to continue cross referencing owners who were also possibly pilots.

It seems that a lot of the early founders/pioneers in aviation were also founders of airlines.

Niels Sundberg, the founder, owner and CEO of EZ (Sun Air of Scandinavia, a franchisee for British Airways) was also a captain for his airline with over 13,000 hours.

He was forced to retire from flying paying passengers at 65 under EU regulations, which he describes as big blow.

(In Danish)

The Discovery Channel TV series Flying Wild Alaska included COO Jim Tweto who would fly some flights as well (as I remember, mostly bush plane flights).

King Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands occasionally moonlights as a pilot for KLM.

Does that count?

The royal Fokker has just been purchased by Alliance Airlines of Australia and replaced by a B737, I presume king Willem will continue to pilot KLM 737s every now and then.

David Eyerly was a cofounder of Surf Air in California.

He was a graduate of Embry-Riddle held multiple ratings, and frequently flew the company's Pilatus PC-12s as PIC.

Bruce Dickinson, Iron Maiden's singer is a qualified Boeing pilot (and a champion fencer).

He co-founded Astraeus Airlines, which was a charting and wet/dry leasing company.

Bruce flew for them, and when Iron Maiden rented one of their 767s (christened Ed Force One), he flew it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Maiden#Ed_Force_One

Question: Do you know any airline company owner who holds ATPL licence and flies one of the company's aircraft occasionally in normal operations just because (s)he likes to do it?

Is there any airline company owner who also works as a pilot?

There have been a number of airline owners who also pilot for their airline. These include Niki Lauda for Lauda Air, Willie Walsh CEO of Aer Lingus and British Airways and Niels Sundberg of EZ.

Yes, there are multiple examples of airline owners who also flew the company's aircraft.

Although not an airline Howard Hughes was a test pilot for some of the Hughes Aircraft planes including the famous XF-11 that he crashed.


In the modern day and age, it is very difficult to put a numerical value to this type of question, simply because the chance of something happening is so incredibly remote.

This is not a clear-cut equation and is dependant on several factors.

A few thoughts:

The impact of loosing one engine will be less significant on a four-engined aircraft than a two-engined aircraft.

You only loose 25% of thrust as compared to 50%.

However, two engined jets are built with greater safety margin and are able to handle an engine failure at any phase in the flight.

Four engined jets are certified to be able to fly on two engines on one side of the wing.

In theory, you are twice as likely to suffer an engine failure with four engines, since you have twice as many engines.

While the lost thrust would be less significant, very rarely damage can propagate to cause damage to other parts (See QF32 and ELY1862 ).

In general, it is easier, cheaper and faster to maintain two engines than four.

Should a complete engine swap be necessary for instance, you only need to do it twice instead of four times.

Every extra step is an step where something could theoretically could go wrong.

The GE90 (Boeing 777) is certified to handle 'large' birds (4kg) as compared to the CFM56 (Airbus A340) only being able to handle 'medium' birds.

Hence, the Boeing 777 engines are likely to be a bit more robust.

From a human perspective, pilot workload will be lower with two engines rather than four.

Should something happen in a time-critical emergency, there will be more systems you need to keep an overview of.

See CAL006 .

Furthermore, not every engine-related incident is spared simply cause you have four engines.

BA Flight 9 lost all four engines due to volcanic ash.

On BA Flight 38 , the engines failed in unison due to ice in the heat exchanger on the engines that were operating in identical conditions.

Despite ETOPS being around for several decades and applying to thousands of aircraft

I have not heard about a single accident involving commercial jets operating in that domain.

From a strictly "engine cut out" point of view in todays day and age you are not getting your self very much.

There is a great article here that talks quite a bit about this point from a GA stand point.

There is of course the simple fact that for some planes you need more thrust to simply fly.

There has also been lots of research done on if servicing an engine frequently makes it safer or actually adds to the problem.

Again from a GA (mainly piston) standpoint there is a case to be made.

The more engines you have, the better off you are if one engine fails; however, the more likely it is that one will fail.

Engines, like many things, are rated in terms of "mean time between failures" or MTBF.

For aircraft engines, MTBF is relatively high (tens of thousands of hours when properly maintained), but they do still fail in relatively unassuming situations.

It's simple probability that, given a nonzero chance for a given engine to fail, the chance that at least one engine will fail is the combined chance for each particular engine to fail.

So if the engine type used on a 747 has a 1/1000 chance to fail on a particular flight (the actual chance is much lower, in the tens of millionths), there is a 4/1000 = 1/250 chance of at least one engine on the plane failing during that flight.

If the two engines on a 737 each had the same chance for failure, the chance of one engine failing on the flight are half those of one engine failing on the 747, because there are half the number of engines that could fail.

In MTBF terms, we can say the mean time between single engine failures on a 747 is half that of a 737.

So, we see that increasing the number of engines, all other things being equal, actually increases the chances of something going wrong.

However, the pilot of a twin-engined craft, though he may be twice as likely to experience an engine failure compared to the pilot of a single-engine craft, is going to have a much better day when it happens than the single engine pilot will.

The big question that really has to be asked is, how many engines can the plane fly on, and how many more than that number does it have?

Jets like the DC-10 and 727 were marketed for their relatively high fault-tolerance; they could maintain level flight at low altitude on only one engine, having lost the other two, and on the 727 it didn't really matter which one was still running as they were all so close to the centerline.

The 747 requires at least two of its four engines to maintain level flight (see British Airways Flight 9 in 1982, during which all four engines quit mid-flight due to ingestion of volcanic ash; restarting one engine slowed the rate of descent but

it took two to level off).

Now, primarily for fuel efficiency reasons, passenger jets are designed with as few engines as they need; engines are most efficient at a specific point in their power curve, and you design the aircraft to cruise efficiently at that power output of its engines.

This is why the 737 (and newer jets like the 777 and 787) doesn't have four engines; it doesn't need them, because the 737 is a fifth the weight and

the engines it does have are more efficient than the 747's.

If an engine fails, the fraction of loss of thrust is smaller for an aircraft with four engines than for one with two.

If other things happen, for example loss of rudder, yaw control is easier with three remaining engines than with one.

So in terms of %-loss of thrust and what this entails, a 4-engine plane is safer than a 2-engine plane.

ICAO regulations allow two-engine aircrafts to fly over oceanic routes (they must have a Ram Air Turbine - RAT)

so such a plane - certified as ETOPS, Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standard - must be safe.

Anyway I can agree with other answers stating that if you have to loose an engine it is better to have 3 other.

Question: For example, the  Boeing 747  has four engines, whereas the  Boeing 737  has 2. Does this means that the Boeing 747 would be safer if one of the engines fail?

Does adding more engines to commercial aircraft increase safety?

It is difficult to answer this question because the more engines you have, the better off you are if one fails. However, the more engines you have, the greater the chance that one of them will fail. That being said, engine failure is very uncommon.

This is not a straightforward question to answer and depends on several factors. Generally speaking, if an aircraft has more engines, it is in a better position if one fails. However, it is also more probable that one of them will fail.

If an aircraft has more engines, it is in a better position if one fails. However, it is also more probable that one of them will fail.


Propellers in some form are really the only option.

It is currently the only efficient way to generate thrust with air as a medium.

Even jet engines are in some sense just a very elaborate system of propellers.

The reason for the turbine is to create an environment to efficiently burn fuel ( suck, squeeze, bang, blow ) to generate as much thrust as possible.

Hence, in an electric aircraft this is irrelevant.

You might be interested in the Airbus E-Fan , which uses ducted propellers increase efficiency.

However, it is still 'just' a propeller with an electric motor in the middle.

You may choose whatever propulsion you prefer, but need to accept the consequences.

An electrical turbine is easy to build, but will need a lot of power for heating the core flow.

Instead of burners you will need to install heater elements, which will necessitate a longer flow path and more volume between compressor and turbine, but by and large

the electric turbine engine will look much like a fuel-burning one.

You can also remove all the turbo machinery and only drive the fan with a big electric motor.

But that would have lower efficiency than turning a propeller instead, so only when your flight speed will cause supersonic propeller tips might an electrically powered fan be a better alternative.

Therefore, at speeds below Mach 0.7 propellers will give you more thrust per kW of power, and their efficiency is best at low speeds .

The much lower energy density of electric storage will demand flight at low speed, or your flight time will be very short.

Therefore, propellers are the best, but by no means the only solution.

A potentially even more efficient method might be ionic thrusters where a high voltage is used to ionize and accelerate air in order to produce thrust.

Designs using ionic thrusters would use the whole airframe for thrust creation and would need to be run at tens of thousands of Volts, but their potential efficiency surpasses even that of low-speed propellers - in theory.

The linked article, however, is an embarrassment to MIT.

A 1 kW jet engine that produces only 2 N thrust has to fly very fast (500 m/s, to be precise) while the 110 N cited for the ionic thruster at the same power mean that it could not had moved faster than 9 m/s.

You do not have hot combustion gases in an electrically powered engine.

The only gas available to you is the air around you, and some form of propeller is the most logical way to accelerate that air.

The nozzle you're imagining can be used to turn a large, slow stream of air into a faster but smaller air stream.

This can't provide thrust by itself as it isn't a powered engine part.

Ducted fans rather than external propellers increase the performance at high speeds, so gets round most of the problems.

You aren't really going to want to carry fuel AND batteries, so some sort of ducted fan is the best solution for a high speed aircraft.

While they do look somewhat like Jet engines, they are basically just prop engines in a tube, so they can better control the air-flow, which at high velocities, can cause issues for exposed props.

For your requirement to use a battery for silent takeoff and landing, electrically driven propellors (or ducted fans) would certainly be good enough.

The requirement you mentioned for 350 mph to 550 mph is really only for cruise, which presumably would use a turbofan (or possibly turboprop) - and recharge the battery at the same time.

So I would guess what you want is a fairly high performance ducted fan which can be driven by either electric motor for silence or by a conventional turbine at cruise - a bit like a turboprop.

The question is then how do you arrange for an exchange between the two power sources.

(I assume two sets of engines wouldn't be possible, though perhaps they could be?)

(Edited to add...

your electric motors still need full power to takeoff.

So why not run the motor all of the time, and use an auxiliary turbine engine to provide the electrical power at cruise?

Not unlike a hybrid car.)

The main difference between air and water is that the second cannot be compressed, while the first can and when you do, you heat it up loosing a cospicuous amount of energy.

The more you compress it and the more time you wait before releasing it, the more energy you loose.

A propeller also compresses the air: this is necessary to accelerate it, but it allows to achieve high air velocities with the minimum amount of compression.

It is also a very simple and light design, moreover one of the motivation to have an internal water compressor is the possibility to filter it, which is not required with air.

Question: This is for an electric airplane (so no fuels for combustion):   Are propellers the only option?   Is there a turbine-jet possible with only air intake, electrically compress, and  a turbine and nozzle and get equal or more thrust than a propeller like a water-jet but then with air?

For an electric airplane are propellers the only option for propulsion?

Propellers are an option for an electric plane. Other options include ionic thrusters and ducted fans.

There is some disagreement here. Some think that some form of propellor is the only viable option whereas others cite alternatives. Whichever form of propulsion you choose, there may be consequences. An electrical turbine, while easy to build, would require a lot of power. Other alternatives include ionic thrusters and ducted fans.

Some form of propellor is the only viable option.

Any form of propulsion may have consequences.

Although easy to build, an electrical turbine would need a lot of power.

Alternatives include ionic thrusters and ducted fans.


I could not find a definite definition of congested area .

As mentioned here : [...]

neither the FAA nor the NTSB has ever provided [...] a precise definition of [...] a "congested area."

Rather, a "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

According to the Board, "the determination must take into consideration all circumstances, not only the size of an area and the number of homes or structures, but, for example, whether the buildings are occupied or people are otherwise present, such as on roads."

The same is echoed here : [For the definition of congested area,] FAA and the NTSB have opted for taking a "case-by-case" approach in determining how to apply certain terms.

AOPA states that : Congested areas .

"Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft." The FAA does not define congested area in the FARs or in the Aeronautical Information Manual.

Interpretations in low-flight enforcement cases are not consistent for purposes of drafting a precise definition.

Such a determination is usually decided on a case-by-case basis, and in the cases that we've seen, congested has been interpreted rather broadly.

For example, a highway with moderate traffic was found to be "congested," as was a seaside area where 200 to 300 persons were sitting on the beach or bathing in the water.

The same can be seen here , and here , and here .

It is not explicitly defined in the FAR Definitions and it seems the explicitly do not define it.

I would interpret ( please keep in mind

this is my interpretation and not law )

a congested area/assembly of people, as anywhere you could not safely land the aircraft in the event of an emergency without endangering others and or yourself.

This may better by explained with an example.

Lets say you are flying low over main street at rush hour, your engine goes and you are forced to make an emergency landing.

You have limited distance and direction to go and can not safely land the aircraft with out hitting either a building, people or vehicles on the road thus endangering them.

With that being said, you are correct that class B generally lies around the big cities in this country, and other cities may reside in class C, you can still have a congested area or open assembly of people (concert, state fare etc) in class G airspace.

If a regulatory authority does not define the word, then by default it is the common definition of the word.

Un-congested vs congested.

Think of the phrase Open space and occupied space.

If flying over occupied homes or businesses it is by definition congested.

If you are flying over open land it is un-congested.

In reality, the FAA uses many words and phrases with out providing what their definition is and leaves it to the common understanding rather than a unique definition.

Simple English...but not to those who push the limits.

While getting my Aerospace Engineering degree a "Regulations and Legal Interpretations" class was mandatory.

As part of that we studied cases against pilots such as flying low over farm houses.

The judges have been persuaded to accept 2 or more people as "Congested" or an "assembly" based on existing automobile traffic laws that fines people for violating speed limits for crowds or people (plural).

For example, "when children (pl 2 or more) are present" .

Take this at face value.

I don't agree with it

but it seems to be a case where the Government feels more successful by being vague then being reasonable.

To me something like "more than 25 people in a 1 mile radius" would be more quantifiable.

You can fly over a city which is congested, by following railroad tracks, etc, those areas are uncontested.

But, you must be in class E or G airspace, unless you have clearance from the controlling agency.

The FAR 103.11(b) is only for flying with strobes, during civil twilight.

You must be in uncontrolled airspace, which is class G, generally, but not always, starting at 700 or 1200 feet AGL.

Where I live ..0

-500 feet is class G and class B starts at 500' ago.

So I could fly my ultralight at 400', 20 minutes after sunset, along railroad tracks thru a major city.

A bad decision is called pilot error, your job is to keep others safe from your stupidity. :)

Question: FAR 103 .15 states:   No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.   I'm wondering what is meant by "congested area".  It sounds like you can fly over a city, town or settlement so long as it's not congested but...how is that defined?

What is meant by a "congested area of a city/town/settlement" in FAR 103?

Congested area is not defined in the FAR Definitions.

Interpretation of a "congested area" is subjective. There is no explicit definition.


Retrofitting is (as the comments to your post have already stated) rather difficult and unusual.

In addition, the quality of service from such an aircraft you could expect to get would most probably not be great.

Analogy:

Try changing your minibus for 9 people into minivan for freight and industrial work.

It is also worth mentioning that the difference in operation is substantial between bombers and commercial jets.

You would be better off using something that is not that complicated, like a Cessna Caravan for instance.

I think that energy, time and money would be better spent on building more dedicated aircraft.

Changing the commercial ones is also not trivial and will require engineered changes.

It is however fully possible to design a military derivative of a commercial jet.

The Boeing P-8 Poseidon is an example of this, being based off the Boeing 737 with the necessary modifications.

The armament is also fairly extensive: 5 internal and 6 external stations for AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, missiles, mines, torpedoes, bombs, and a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system[

It should be noted that some civilian aircraft do have military systems fitted (and not just radars like AWACS).

The Israeli airline has a laser-based missile defense system fitted to its airliners.

(They wanted to use flares

but apparently you can't drop flares at a commerical airport due to fire risk, so they got a laser-based system instead).

The package is slightly different from the one sold to the miltiary as it has to be completely self-contained: it can't use the interfaces - for example to the missile warning systems - on a warplane as the airliners don't have them.

If you were going to use bombs

I suspect you might roll them out of the back of a cargo plane.

During the Falklands War (1980s) there was some talk about Argentina possibly attempting it, but I don't think they ever did.

Converting pretty much any passenger hauler into a bomber would be quite an exercise.

You would have to add pressure bulkheads aft of the flight deck, rebuild the bottom of the fuselage to allow for doors, add considerable structure to hold the (very heavy) bomb racks, and probably remove the floor - rather tricky if the floor is also holding the fuselage together.

Missiles on the wings would be comparatively easy - they are not as heavy and don't require major mods to the pressure hull.

A "serious emergency" indicates urgency, and that gets met with existing aircraft.

The time taken to modify a 777 into a bomber would be fairly close to building a new bomber.

Although if it's a protracted war of attrition* I would expect Boeing would quickly design a new one based around the 777's tooling so they can get them out the door quickly.

It is very easy (and common) to use passenger haulers as troop transport.

Conversion to AWACS is nowhere near as complex, I suspect someone already has plans in a file somewhere to do just that.

And the USAF already uses DC-10 freighters as tankers - the boom is a not-overly-complex conversion and probe-drogue systems are almost bolt-ons.

Before anyone comments about it, the DC-10 used as a water bomber is very different from dropping explosives.

Water is a distributed load, and releasing it doesn't require half of the bottom of the plane to open up - it flows out through ports that can easily have structural members running across them.

* World War II would be a good example.

Evenly-matched belligerents, whoever has more resources usually wins.

If WWIII goes nuclear it will be over in an hour or two.

While commercial aircraft can obviously be used for transport missions (transporting troops or military cargo) unchanged, I believe the question is really about using commercial airliners for combat missions.

I am not entirely sure if light business jets like the Learjet 35 meet the definition of a 'commercial airliner' in the question, but these civilian aircraft have been pressed into service for military missions during the Falklands war.

Learjet also make military versions of 35 series; the primary change being the addition of hard points under the wings allowing the carrying of military payloads including weapons.

Similar conversions include the older turboprop Fokker F27 conversion: http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Fokker/F-27-Enforcer/

So aircraft can be lightly modified to perform combat missions if they have the ability to carry external loads and some avionics to support the loads.

However such aircraft would lack features found in military aircraft such as ejection seats.

For what its worth Air Force One is operated by the United States Air Force and is built on the common 747 airframe.

Although the plane is highly customized and lets be honest only servers a single military purpose it is, for what its worth a civilian plane (in a sense) that has been converted to a military function.

Aircraft development seems to go the other way more often.

Example: the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser was developed (indirectly) from the WWII B-29 bomber.

It's expensive to develop a new platform; military budgets seem to be large enough for such undertakings on a frequent basis.

Not so in the commercial world.

Revolutionary designs like

the B-707

and B-747 come along, but even they were started with military contracts in mind as much as civilian markets.

In the 1980s there was a proposal for a Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft (CMCA) version of the Boeing 747, which could have carried and launched around 70-100 AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.

This was actively considered by the USAF but rejected in favour of continuing development of the Rockwell B1 bomber.

Question: Is it possible that in case of some very serious emergency, a commercial airliner such as the  B777F  could be used for dropping bombs or to serve some other fighting purpose?  I am simply asking about this from a technical standpoint.

Can a commercial airliner be used for military purposes?

It would be a large task to convert a civilian aircraft into a bomber. However, civilian aircraft have been used for transporting military personnel.

There are considerable obstacles involved in converting commercial airliners for military use. A better option would be to build more dedicated aircraft. However, there are some examples of passenger aircraft being used for military purposes, such as transporting troops, and some passenger aircraft are equipped with military systems.

There are examples of passenger aircraft being used for military purposes, such as transporting troops, and some passenger aircraft are equipped with military systems.


In normal operations there are regulations against this sort of thing (as Dave has said).

But there have been a few emergencies where the First Office or the Captain have become incapacitated (due to medical emergencies), and the remaining pilot has declined to ask if there is another pilot on board to help fly the plane.

Here is an example from 2011 of a Ryanair flight having this occur

**, I have heard of others but can't find references.

So, admittedly, that may be the only actual occurrence.

So, to finally answer your questions: Very rarely, in an emergency situation, there can be a single pilot on a commercial airliner.

Granted, there were passengers on board, so I'm not sure it fits your narrow definition of "solo", but it's about as close as it's going to get.

For completeness (though I don't think it counts), there have been a few instances of a single pilot stealing a commercial jetliner.

For example this 727 .

There were actually two people involved, one was a mechanic, the other had a private pilots license (hence the pilot was "soloing").

The aircraft has not been seen since...

so it's assumed it ended badly, and, for the record, it's also assumed the pilot was coerced (if indeed he was even flying the plane).

There are a couple more incidents, namely this Antonov-26 , which was stolen by a mechanic, circled for an hour, then crashed.

And also this ATR-42-320 , which was actually stolen by a Captain form Air Botswana.

He circled the airport for a couple of hours demanding to speak to everyone from his girlfriend, to his boss to the President of Botswana.

They were actually arranging to have him speak with the president when he crashed his plane into two other Air Botswana ATR-42-320s that were parked on the ground.

He was the only one killed.

Again, though, I'm not sure if these fit the criteria you are looking for.

But in that last one, at very least, he was the only person on board the aircraft, it was a commercial aircraft and he was in fact a Captain.

But to say all this an irregularity would be an extreme understatement...

** For clarification:

The reason I state

this is

the only example I could find is because it's the only one where I could find a report where it was specifically stated the remaining pilot had no help.

To quote from the report:

Once the initial Cabin Crew assistance was complete, the Captain indicated that he did not need assistance in operating the aircraft, although this was suggested in the operator’s procedures for pilot incapacitation.

The First Officer took no further part in the operation of the aircraft.

No inquiries as to the possible presence on board the aircraft of either medically trained personnel or qualified pilots were made.

All other examples I saw either specifically stated that a new co-pilot was found, or they skipped that detail entirely.

All of that being said, I somehow doubt this is the only case

, it's just the only one I could explicitly verify.

One more example of a single pilot for at least part of the flight: Discovery Channel did a special that involved actually crashing a jetliner.

I do not recall the crew configuration at takeoff

but I do recall that the bailout was handled in two stages, the pilot only going once everyone else was away.

The plane was being flown by remote control once he abandoned the controls.

This did

not happen in the USA, as others have said it would be illegal.

Mexico allowed it with restrictions, though.

Airplanes are certified to be operated with a particular amount of crew.

From a regulation standpoint there are jets certified for single pilot operations but they tend to be on the smaller size

(Citation Mustang comes to mind).

That being said I cant say that these planes have never been flown in a single pilot situation.

This EU EASA document states that the minimum crew for a 737 is two Minimum Flight Crew: Two (2):

Pilot and Co-pilot, for all types of flight The US type cert for the 737 says Minimum Crew for All Flights: 2 (Pilot and Copilot) which applies to all the following 737 models DATA PERTINENT TO MODELS 737 Original Series -100, -200, -200C and 737 Classic Series -300, -400, -500:

So you could not do it in any kind of regular situation.

It is possible that some of the planes were test flown with only a single pilot

but I dont know for sure.

There has been a televised test crash of a Boeing 727 that took place in Mexico.

The airplane took off from General Rodolfo Sánchez Taboada International Airport in Mexicali, with the flight crew and a small group of passengers, as well as a number of crash dummies, and with a chase plane following close behind.

As the flight progressed towards the Sonoran Desert of Baja California in Mexico, its occupants parachuted to safety.

Slocum was the last one to leave the jet, four minutes before impact.

Shanle then flew the jetliner by remote control, from the chase plane.

This started out fully manned, but ended with the pilot being the last to leave the craft, after handing control over to a remote operator in the chase plane.

There was a precursor to this flight: a crash of a Boeing 720 (courtesy of Peter Kampf from the comments), conducted by NASA in 1984.

However, this likely does not fall into the criteria of your question, since the documentation seems to indicate that the entire flight was remote controlled.

Or at the very least does not explicitly state solo piloting.

In summer 2018, 29-year-old Richard Russell, an airline ground agent, stole a Q400 twin-engine turboprop (which at least USA Today calls an "airliner"), flew it solo, and pulled off some impressive maneuvers before crashing the plane, in an apparent suicide.

British_Airways_Flight_5390 An improperly installed windscreen panel separated from its frame,causing the plane's captain to be blown partially out of the aircraft.

The co-pilot took control and performed an unassisted landing.

Question: As per subject has anyone flown an airliner (737, A319 etc etc or bigger) solo? (meaning only 1 pilot alone with no passengers?) Tried to google search but did not find any reference. Question applies to any of modern airliners era with and without flight engineer.

Have there been any solo flights on airliners?

There are regulations against pilots flying a jetliner alone. However, there are accounts of this happening. Discovery Channel did a special that involved actually crashing a jetliner and, in 2018, a man stole a plane and flew it alone before crashing it.

Regulations prohibit pilots from flying solo on airliners. However, there have been occasions where aircraft have been stolen and flown solo. In addition, a televised test crash was carried out in Mexico, which involved a pilot flying solo for part of the flight.

There have been occasions where aircraft have been stolen and flown solo.

A televised test crash was carried out in Mexico, which involved a pilot flying solo for part of the flight.


The Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) is a modified 747 that has an 5.5 m x 4.1 m door that is opened during flight for the installed in infrared telescope.

But the door is usually closed during takeoff and landing.

But according to this story there are emergency procedures to land with an open door and it had to do so once, when it became stuck half open.

Images courtesy Wikipedia

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 proved that it's possible for a plane to fly with about 25% of its roof missing.

The door, however, appears to have remained closed until landing.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Check out my answer here to a similar question (about what would happen if you open a door in flight).

In short it depends largely on the plane but in the most general way of looking at it.

You could do it up until you would need to pressurize the plane (or you would have wear O2 masks or something to be able to breathe).

UA Flight 811 was able to make a safe decent and return to airport after its door blew out so large planes are maneuverable with out door.

Planes like the DC-3 used in WWII for paratrooping regularly ran with their doors open.

If you consider rear cargo ramps doors, the C-130 can open its rear ramp for HALO jumping at high altitudes .

In typical HALO/HAHO insertions the troops jump from altitudes between 15,000 feet (4,600 m) and 35,000 feet (11,000 m)

There is at least one other powered glider I can think of that can open its doors mid flight...

Since comments mentioned that not all of the outcomes from Aloha 243 were exactly safe, here's another example that actually was quite safe: Southwest 812 had a large hole open in the roof during flight at cruise altitude, resulting in rapid depressurization at 34,000 ft. 2 of the 123 people on board (a flight attendant and a passenger)

suffered minor injuries.

The plane diverted to Yuma, Arizona and landed safely about 26 minutes after the depressurization.

As with the other cases, the doors were technically shut, but I'm not so sure that that made much difference.

Furthermore, this was not the first time this had happened.

Less than 2 years before this incident, Southwest 2294 had a similar incident (though with a smaller hole) and safely diverted to Charleston, WV with

no injuries at all.

What's more:

according to the FAA's registry and airfleets.net , it looks like both of these aircraft were returned to service and are still actively flying for Southwest!

So, it looks like both the "you can walk away from it" requirement and the "the aircraft is reusable" preference were met in both instances.

The Boeing 727 Another case that actually doesn't involve any structural damage at all is the 727 and its airstair.

In the famous case of D.B. Cooper's hijacking , this occurred while the aircraft was pressurized.

According to the wiki on the incident, the result was the following: The crew soon noticed a subjective change of air pressure, indicating that the aft door was open.

At approximately 8:13 pm the aircraft's tail section sustained a sudden upward movement, significant enough to require trimming to bring the plane back to level flight.[33]

At approximately 10:15 pm Scott and Rataczak landed the 727, with the aft airstair still deployed, at Reno Airport.

Additionally, some skydiving clubs even offered dives from the 727 for many years, though these presumably didn't pressurize the cabin.

I'm not sure whether this is still offered.

Yes they can, here's a Convair 880 with cargo door open.

DC-8 with cargo door open.

For the whole flight envelope, maybe not.

Depends on the door design.

Gear doors frequently have speed limits before they fly off on their own.

Large openings create substantial drag, so we may find that the envelope is self-limiting: the aircraft can no longer reach speeds and/or altitudes where the opening is a big problem.

There are too many variables for a simple answer.

Biplanes and ultra-lights don't have any doors at all.

In general, for any plane the wing, the empennage and, to a lesser extent, the surface area on the lower part of the fuselage is all that is important.

If you installed structure-reinforcing crossbars you could remove the entire fuselage wall of a commercial jet and it would still fly.

Question: From another  question  asks about the possibility of dropping bombs from converted airliners. My question: is it possible to safely fly aircraft with a door open for the whole flight envelope? Would the aerodynamics be affected if we did not close the door?  I am not asking about the need of oxygen for the crew, just about the aerodynamics involved. I know the plane would not be pressurized.

Is it possible for an airliner to safely fly with doors open?

Planes can fly with open doors as cases have been documented and some planes are meant to have an opening, for example planes used for paratroopers. It should be noted that large openings create substantial drag therefore speed/altitudes where big openings are a problem cannot be reached.

A yes or no answer to this question is not possible because there are too many variables. One consideration is that a large opening would produce a lot of drag. As a result, the aircraft would not reach a speed or altitude where the opening would cause major problems. Examples are cited of aircraft flying with doors open, either intentionally or as the result of an accident.

There are known examples of aircraft flying with doors open, either intentionally or as the result of an accident.

A large opening would produce a lot of drag. As a result, the aircraft would not reach a speed or altitude where the opening would cause major problems.

A yes or no answer is not possible because there are too many variables.


No . Definitely try more than one CFI and ideally, more than one school .

This is the smart choice and one I recommended regularly when I was an active flight school CFI.

You're about to spend a ton of money - do the due diligence and spend more up front to make sure you don't waste time and money with someone whose teaching style or personality clashes with you as a student.

My first flight instructor was kind of a jerk.

You know the kind: First flight, "Let's take the plane for a SPIN", "How about a BREAKFAST ROLL?

After a few hours into my training, there was a scheduling conflict

and I got a different instructor - a military pilot with many thousands of hours of flying time and a very different attitude.

Professional.

He worked me harder than the other instructor ever had.

The flight school eventually canned my first instructor.

He moved across the field and took on new students at a different school.

Then there was the day one of his students almost ran over me in the pattern.

They were flying a Cessna

and I was flying a Grumman.

The tower had cleared them AFTER me, but they apparently never even saw me and pulled into the pattern on the downwind right underneath me.

Fortunately, both I and the tower realized what was happening, so I just maintained altitude and extended the downwind leg and the tower cleared the Cessna ahead of me.

When I called up the flight instructor to tell him about the near mishap, his attitude was quite cavalier.

He seemed to think it was funny.

Shop around.

If you can find a military instructor with thousands of hours of flight time, odds are you'll find a very serious teacher.

As mentioned it's a good idea.

You will be spending a lot of time with this person in a very confined space, not only should you trust their abilities but should at least get along with them.

FWIW

I would not consider this a waste of time as the hours will count towards your total and you will be learning new things while trying new instructors.

I think many instructors is a good idea, since you see their differentcharacteristics and each has their own sweet spot.

I had at least10 different instructors for my PPL, and learned a lot from the differences aswell as their similarities.

There is no harm trying out different instructors.

Note that instructors have different strengths.

Some may be better at teaching tailwheel and others at instruments.

One problem is that you will not really be able to tell the difference between a good instructor and a better one in one flight, unless it is a personality issue.

From a technical point of view it will be hard to tell.

Better instructors tend to get booked up and are hard to schedule.

If your instructor's schedule looks really full, that is a good sign he is a good one.

Also, look at their flying experience.

I notice that the better instructors tend to have more flight hours.

Once you start flying be sure to get "check rides" from other instructors once in a while.

Different instructors have completely different styles and areas of emphasis, so it can be very useful to get "alternative points of view" from time to time.

A new instructor will usually teach you new stuff.

In this sense, even a bad instructor can be good sometimes because they can teach things maybe your usual instructor does not know.

Beware of "easy" instructors that just soft shoe everything.

They are the nicest instructors, but they are slow teachers and they can be derelict and just "go with the flow" when they should be correcting you.

If one or two instructors tell you that you should not fly and are not cut out to be a pilot, the dumbest thing you can do is to find an easy instructor who will just collect your money, even though he knows you are not pilot material.

Question: My local airport has a Part 61 flight school and gives students the option of selecting among three Certified Flight Instructors. Farhan and others have posted  excellent explanations  of characteristics to look for in instructors.  Other than wasted time and money, is there any downside to doing an "Introduction to Flying" lesson with each of the three instructors and seeing which one I like best? Similarly, am I likely to offend CFI's that I'm "looking around" other options?

Is there a downside to trying multiple flight instructors?

There is no harm in trying different instructores. To get a pilot licence you have to spend a lot of money, best to make sure you are spending it on quality. Different instructors have different styles: finding the one right for you is important as you spend a lot of time with this person in a small space. Moreover, the hours spent flying go towards your total.

It is a good idea to try more than on instructor. Not only will you learn different things from different instructors, you also need to make sure you have an instructor you can get along with. A potential problem is that one flight will not be enough to distinguish a good instructor from an excellent instructor.

Personality is important, as you will be spending a lot of time with this person.

You will learn different things from different instructors.

One flight is not enough to distinguish between a good instructor and an excellent instructor.


It is not only the mass that affects the landing speed.

Wing area plays an important role as well.

A larger wing can lift more weight at the same speed than a smaller wing.

If you compare the wing loading of these aircraft the differences are smaller: A388:

Maximum landing weight:

391000 kg Wing area: 845 m 2 Wing loading: 463 kg/m 2 B744: Maximum landing weight:

295000 kg Wing area: 525 m 2 Wing loading: 468 kg/m 2 F-16A: Estimated landing weight:

13000 kg Wing area: 28 m 2 Wing loading: 464 kg/m 2

Landing speed varies depending on several factors.

For airliners you have to take into account that the wing airfoil is radically different than the wing airfoil from a fighter jet: airliners have flaps that modifies the airfoil and doing so the lift and trail (not sure of this word in English) modifying the speed range of the wing (reducing the stall speed) and so allowing slower speed for landing.

In the case of a fighter jet the wing is in general a delta wing without flaps, so in order to reduce the speed for landing they have to increase the angle of attack to augment the trail without loosing too much lift.

That why in this phase they cannot lower too much the engines and the speed, because their wings are not suited for low speeds.

If you look at the Concorde (a good example of delta wing) they had to put down the nose during landing phase to be able to see the runway because of the high attack angle requested to be at the right speed (about 180-190 kt).

Because they are lighter, they have less kinetic energy

so there is less to dissipate.

This is easier on the brakes.

Remember kinetic energy is $E_k=\frac{m \cdot

Also fighter jets aren't as good gliders as jumbo jets.

This sacrifices lift for maneuverability, so they have better acrobatic performance.

While airliners will spend most of their airtime going straight ahead at high altitude so they benefit the most from being good gliders.

To simplify, the differences are similar to comparing a dart to a glider -- it all gets back to the wings.

The delta wing provides the best overall flight characteristics in terms of lift and control surface efficiency.

A delta wing will allow you to come in low and slow and in control, but is that always what you need if you are flying a fighter jet?

The aerodynamics of fighter jets are designed to provide lift, stability, and control at a much wider angle of attack.

Comparing the wing characteristics between the two planes in a wind tunnel, notice how the wing thickness (airfoil) of the fighter plane is much less (relatively flat) at the leading edge.

Although the fighter plane provides less lift at the same angle of attack and requires a faster airspeed to stay aloft without stalling, the control over a wider range of airspeeds is worth the tradeoff for the fighter jet performance and maneuverability.

Shut down a fighter plane engine, and it will drop like a yard dart.

The intake on a fighter plane is designed to receive as much air as possible, and will cause turbulence at the inlet if the blades are not turning fast enough.

There simply is a minimum speed range to keep the plane in flight and under control as it is coming in for a landing.

The power to weight issue has a downside -- the fighter plane is less efficient in fuel consumption -- it is even less efficient if the inlet has nacelles or ducting to mask a thermal signature.

The power to weight ratio of the fighter plane is much higher than a commercial aircraft, and the answers above from the other posters regarding thrust cover the topic well.

The best fighter jets provide the most maneuverability over the widest range of speeds.

Both types of aircraft would technically benefit from a lower landing (and stalling) speed, but in both cases, other flight characteristics are a higher priority.

Here's another factor in approach speeds -

the military fighter/trainer aircraft I flew used 1.2 Vso (20% above landing configuration stall speed) for approach.

Airliners are required to use 1.23 Vso and each model uses a different multiplier which often changes with different flap settings.

The previous generation 727/757/767 mostly used 1.3 Vso while the newer airliners use 1.25-1.28 Vso.

That difference reduces a fighter's approach speed by 4-8% vs what an airliner would use.

Light airplanes use 1.3 Vso, or 30% above stall speed, for their approach speed.

Question: From my own understanding, the bigger (and heavier) aircraft, the higher approach speed it needs to keep itself from stalling. According to  this site , the approach speed of an A380 is 140 knots, and 160 knots for a 747. In contrast, the F-16's  landing speed  is 141 knots, and 135 knots for the F-35C.  Doing mass-to-speed ratio, it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you explain why do fighter jets land faster while they are lighter than large commercial aircraft?

Why do fighter jets land faster than Jumbo commercial aircraft?

Landing speed varies depending on several factors, not only the mass of the aircraft. Technically, a lower landing speed may be beneficial but other flight characteristics are a higher priority.

Landing speed is dependent on several factors, not just mass. Both types of aircraft would actually benefit from a lower landing speed, but other flight characteristics are deemed more important.


In the early days of aviation it was simply easier to have the gear fixed.

The landing gear adds drag, but so does a second wing and wire braces .

Airplanes generally did not fly very fast or far, so the drag from the landing gear (and that other stuff) was not a big issue.

The first design with retractable gear dates to 1911 .

Since then, retractable gear has been a design decision each airplane must make.

Retracting the gear into the airplane allows for a cleaner form, which reduces drag.

However, this is at the expense of added weight.

The retract system, which is usually hydraulic, must be added, and the plane must be designed to make room for the gear somewhere at least mostly inside the aircraft.

The plane must also be designed to handle situations where some or all of the gear does not extend properly.

For planes that need to be fast and/or efficient, retractable gear is worth the reduction in drag.

The additional drag has to be supported by the structure as well.

Aircraft with retractable gear will have a maximum speed at which the gear can be extended.

Even gear with proper fairings would add significant drag at the speeds airliners fly at.

This would be much more critical at supersonic speeds.

In these cases the weight of reinforcing the gear could be even higher than the weight of the retracting system.

Particularly smaller general aviation planes tend to not have retractable gear.

The retract system adds extra weight and complexity (and therefore cost), which will be fairly significant in a small plane.

Fixed gear is simple and can be designed to minimize drag as much as possible.

These planes do not typically need to fly fast or have large range, so the added drag is less of an issue.

Other small planes do have retractable gear, which will allow for greater speed and range.

The PA-32 type shown in Dave's answer was later produced in a retractable gear version as well.

Short answer: It allows them to fly faster and further.

Long answer: Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 demonstrated this impressively on July 12, 2000.

Destined for Hannover, they did not retract the gear after take-off in Chania, Crete.

The fuel was sufficient for the planned distance plus reserves, but the extended gear increased fuel consumption so much that they ran out of fuel while approaching their diversion airfield near Vienna.

Fuel consumption enroute was twice as high as it would had been with the gear retracted.

Drag is composed of a lift-related component (induced drag, blue line below) and a constant component (zero-lift drag, red line below), and both depend on the dynamic pressure, which is the product of air density and the square of airspeed.

While the lift-related component goes up with reduced dynamic pressure, the constant component will go up with increased dynamic pressure.

Thus, extending the gear will increase the constant drag component, and while flying slower helps to reduce its contribution, it will drive up the lift-related drag component .

In the end, the drag will be higher at all speeds.

Typical drag contributions over speed for a glider.

The physics for airliners is the same, only the numbers are bigger.

In cruise, all airliners try to fly as close to the minimum drag as possible.

The only reason for a fixed gear are cost, weight and simplicity.

Performance will always suffer from it.

Because its a drag to leave it down(pun intended).

Some smaller GA planes (and big planes too) can extend the landing gear through a wide range of their operating speeds and use them as a pretty effective speed break.

The DA42 comes to mind in this regard.

For what its worth there are many general aviation planes that have fixed gear.

Retracting gear in a small plane has always been an interesting topic.

Some older piston singles have manual retracting gear like the early Mooney M20's which used a Johnson bar to retract the gear.

This some what dated system is, by some very sought after for its simplicity.

(the big silver bar in the middle is the gear lever)

Folding gear also has little to do with aircraft size.

The Mooney

M-18 "Mite" which is a tiny plane by anyones standards had retractable gear (also Johnson bar operated).

One way to reduce drag on a fixed gear plane is through the use of gear fairings.

while they do help with speed they can also cause an issue if the plane touches down hard.

In some cases (if the wheel is improperly inflated) a hard touchdown or bounce will cause the wheel to balloon out while also spinning which could chafe or seriously damage the fairing.

Why do all the airplanes have to retract their landing gear, once they reach some specific height?

Why can't they simply leave their landing gear deployed all through the flight?

Both questions are false on their premise: All airplanes do not have to retract their gear; many planes are fixed-gear, and cannot retract gear.

Some planes retract their gear.

Planes can leave their gear deployed all through flight, provided they remain slow enough that the extra airflow drag doesn't damage the airplane and landing gear.

Planes that have retractable gear generally retract their gear for improved performance.

Not having wheels and struts hanging down streamlines the plane, improves fuel efficiency, enables them to fly faster and higher, and makes for a quieter, more comfortable ride inside the cabin.

So, retracting gear is generally desirable.

But, as your question suggested, it is not required, and it is not based on a specific height.

(if anything, it is based on an airspeed)

Simply retractable landing gear is made so as to reduce extra drag which created by the fixed landing gear and hence heavier than air aircraft(airplane)

can improve in speed and travel at high speed at higher altitude

Question: Why do all the airplanes have to retract their landing gear, once they reach some specific height? Why can't they simply leave their landing gear deployed all through the flight?

Why do airplanes have to retract landing gear?

Retracting the landing gear makes the plane more streamlined so it can travel further and faster. It also make the cabin ride more comfortable. Cost, weight and simplicity are the only reasons for a fixed landing gear.

The only benefits of a fixed gear are its cost, weight and simplicity. By contrast, retracting the landing gear improves performance, allowing planes to fly faster, further and higher.

Airplanes retract their landing gear to improve performance. It allows them to fly faster, further and higher.


Zulu means the letter Z in radio communication.

The letter Z designates UTC time.

There is actually a list of time zones for each letter of the alphabet (except J ):

Alpha time zone:

UTC + 1 Bravo time zone: UTC + 2 ... India time zone: UTC + 9 Kilo time zone: UTC + 10 Lima time zone: UTC + 11 Mike time zone: UTC + 12 November time zone: UTC - 1 ... X-ray time zone: UTC - 11 Yankee time zone

: UTC - 12 Zulu time zone:

UTC + 0 However, the other time zones are seldom referenced in aviation.

Why do we use UTC time instead of local time?

Because flights often cross time zones.

Imagine this: the time now is 11:59.

We will takeoff at 12:30 and fly west.

Afterwards, at around 11:48, we will be 15 nautical miles away from the airport.....................

Huh?

Even more confusing

: We takeoff at 12:30 and land at 13:00 ==

> we only need 30 minutes of fuel.

Wrong!

We actually cross a time zone and the actual flight time is 90 minutes.

But we've taken off with 60 minutes less fuel than we need.

What do we do?

Zulu time, as others have pointed out, refers to UTC.

We use this time in aviation (and meteorology and surely others) because it is easier and it is standard.

It's the same time everywhere on earth.

If you are flying along the border between Arizona and New Mexico in the summer and given a hold:

Cessna 1234 hold at FIX, right turns, 10 mile legs, expect further clearance at 1630, time now 1602 If that were local time, you'd have to now determine if that fix is over AZ or NM, because NM observes daylight saving time and is in MDT/-0600 and AZ does not observe daylight saving time and is in MST/-0700.

This is a needless check that is distracting and can cause confusion all due to using a local time.

Instead, we know the times given are Z/UTC time and "1630" has an unambiguous meaning no matter where on earth our plane is located.

It is a similar situation when checking pre-flight weather.

Weather is reported in Z time and this makes it easy to calculate when you will get to your destination and what forecast is valid for that time.

If it were in local time you'd have to know additional information about time zones, which again could be a source of error and is needless.

Adding to potential confusion are regions of earth that keep odd adjustments.

For example, St. Johns, NL, Canada is GMT-0330 in the winter and GMT-0230 in the summer.

There are even a few that are off by 15 minute adjustments (e.g. Nepal).

Combine this with knowing where DST is observed and where it isn't, and more importantly when it is

(USA DST has different start/end dates than other places)

then it becomes very complicated to work in local time.

Working in universal time solves these problems.

Zulu time is UTC time .

The reason for the name zulu is because there is a hour shift of Zero sometimes denoted with a Z and in the nato alphabet Z is Zulu.

Many times a route will cross timezone so to avoid confusion about which timezone a time is in controllers and pilots will use zulu time by default.

It also avoids daylight savings issues.

Zulu time, used in aviation quite often, is another name for UTC (Coordinated Universal Time (French: temps universel coordonné)).

It is the primary time standard by which the world regulates clocks and time.

It is, within about 1 second, mean solar time at 0° longitude; it does not observe daylight saving time.

It is one of several closely related successors to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

For most purposes, UTC is considered interchangeable with GMT, but GMT is no longer precisely defined by the scientific community.

Edit

To answer the second part of your question : Its called Zulu time as UTC does not have daylight savings, hence Zero hour shift.

Now Zero starts with Z and NATO call-sign for Z is Zulu.

Hence the name. Source

Zulu time, sometimes called Greenwich Time or UTC time, is the local time at the Prime Meridian, that is on the 0° Line of Longitude, which also happens to run through Greenwich, England.

This local time has been adopted as International Standard Time and used as the official time on Earth.

Other local times are utilized by local principalities or nations as a relative standard time for that area of the Earth.

It is offset a certain number of hours from Zulu time.

As aircraft may be operating over several time zones during a cross country or international flight, it makes sense to file flight plans with departure and arrival times listed in Zulu time for easy reference.

Question: When reading aviation literature, it's common to find references to  Zulu Time .   What is  Zulu Time ?  Why does aviation use Zulu Time instead of the local time?

Why does aviation use Zulu time instead of the local time?

Zulu time is UTC or GMT. It is used for easy reference as planes often fly across timezones.

Zulu time is another way of describing UTC time. It is used in aviation because it is standard around the world and therefore easier, particularly as flights may cross time zones.

Using Zulu time is easier as flights may cross time zones.

This time is used because it is standard around the world and therefore easier.