It's for keeping the boundary layer flow from entering the intake, it's called a splitter plate .

I think it's done to prevent turbulence inside the turbine (prevent compressor stall) and to make sure the intake doesn't ingest slow air, to maximize efficiency.

EDIT: I'd just finished writing out my own answer when I stumbled across this answer to a different question, which nevertheless explains the function of the small intake in greater detail.

I've included my answer below anyway.

A couple of people have mentioned the splitter plate, but failed to address the smaller intake set between it and the fuselage.

It's very difficult to find any references to this in particular, but my first instinct was that it's probably to do with either engine cooling (Concorde has additional intakes beneath the engines for this purpose) or engine bleed air.

After a bit of reading I resorted to Wikipedia, and found the passage below: ...

the Hornet uses bleed-air vents on the inboard surface of the engine air intake ducts to slow and reduce the amount of air reaching the engine.

So it seems to be a simple intake for bleed air which has the additional effect of slowing the air entering into the main intake.

Incidentally, this bleed air is redirected to a slots just above over the wing, to improve the performance of the aircraft.

The intake is for the primary heat exchanger.

secondary is on the other side, Same location.

The ambient air flows across a large rectangular heat exchanger.

Basically a air to air radiator for the Bleed air system used for most functions on the F/A-18.

Air conditioning,

Wave guide pressurization, cabin pressure, avionics cooling, Gun,Etc.

It cuts the air temperature in half and water is sprayed on the face of the heat exchangers that is extracted in the cooling process.

Aids in cooling especially while sitting on the deck at idle.

Otherwise you get a AVAIR hot code.

The ACACS system has a water separator in it.

That's where the water comes from.

The Spent air and water exits on top of the aircraft.

Basically without this system the Bird wont fly!

If you ever see a F/A-18C throttle up on the deck you will see the water exit on top.

It appears to be smoke but it is a water mist.

I hope that answers some of the questions.

The rectangle in the center is the housing for the primary heat exchange.

There is another heat exchange on the right side.

The two "ramps" on top and bottom is to bleed off air during transonic/ supersonic flight.

If I remember correctly, bleed air from those tiny intakes is used for defogging the cockpit, blowing air across the front of the canopy to increase visibility under heavy rain, and pressurising the external fuel tanks.

As suggested above it not an intake but rather a aerodynamic plate that keeps the boundary layer out of the engine.

This is normally required for supersonic flight since the engines have to carefully manage the shock waves entering the engine.

Most engine designs are not capable of operating under supersonic conditions and require that the inlet is carefully designed to create a series of shockwaves that slow down the air to an appropriate Mach number before it reaches the compressor.

Question: I think I read once that they served to cool the on-board computer systems, but I'm not sure.

What is this F-18 Hornet "air intake" for?

It's for keeping the boundary layer flow from entering the intake, it's called a  splitter plate . The intake is for the primary heat exchanger. It cuts the air temperature in half and water is sprayed on the face of the heat exchangers that is extracted in the cooling process. iT Aids in cooling especially while sitting on the deck at idle.

The air intake questioned is made for preserving the boundary layer flow from entering. According to another view, The intake reduces the temperature in half and cools the area. Finally, the intake reduces the temperature in half and cools the area.

It defogges the cockpit and improves visibility.


Placing the top wing ahead of the bottom wing in biplanes is called (positive) stagger.

It is mostly used in small biplanes and improves pilot vision.

In order to accommodate a variation of pilot weights and to reduce accelerations in maneuvers, it is advisable to place the pilot very close to the center of gravity.

If the upper wing were in the same lengthwise location, it would obstruct the forward and upward vision of the pilot.

Why is upward vision so important?

Because of the bank angle, in turns you need to look up in order to see what is ahead.

A high mounted wing right at the center of gravity would rob the pilot of forward vision in turns.

Therefore, in small biplanes the top wing is moved forward while the bottom wing is moved back correspondingly, so lift is created close to the center of gravity, but the top wing is out of the way.

Large biplanes do not need this arrangement because the pilot sits ahead of the wing.

The Antonov 2 below is an example ( source ):

In many designs, the center wing has a cutout at the rear in order to give the pilot a better field of view.

Even more interesting is what had to be done to improve pilot vision in parasol monoplanes.

The Focke-Wulf 56 used slight wing sweep in combination with a reduced root chord in order to reduce the obstruction to the pilot's field of view of the rear wing center (picture source ).

It's called a staggered wing and is done to reduce aerodynamic interference between wings in certain circumstances.

A wing with positive (forward) stagger is most common because it improves both downward visibility and ease of cockpit access for open cockpit biplanes.

Wing efficiency.

Here is an analysis of biplane wing efficiency relative to separation as a percent of chord.

The reference states that positive stagger (upper wing ahead of lower) by 0.4 chord gives 5% better efficiency, so advancing the upper wing 0.4 chord would be beneficial compared to the vertical stacking shown.

In the case of the agricultural plane, pictured, the stagger increases the nominal CG range, a bit.

Finally, the upper wing will have a slightly greater angle of incidence, enhancing its stall and stall recovery characteristics.

Remember that a wing works by having high pressure below it and low pressure above it.

So, looking at the top wing, it has low pressure above it - OK.

And it has high pressure below it, BUT... that high pressure is then affected by the low pressure of the bottom wing.

Now looking at the bottom wing: it has high pressure below it - OK.

It has low pressure above it, but that is affected by the high pressure below the upper wing.

So the high/low pressure areas of the two wings interfere with each other if they're mounted vertically above each other.

But if you move one wing foreward or aft of the vertical, then the high/low pressure areas affect each other less.

You can move the top wing forward, which is normal.

Or you can move the top wing backwards as on the Beech Staggerwing.

Either way works.

Question: In most of the biplanes, the top wing is located a little forward of the lower wing. What is the use of this? Also, how does this affect stability of the aircraft.

Why do most biplanes have their top wing slightly forward of the lower wing?

The top wing is forward of the bottom wing for wing efficiency. It's called a  staggered wing  and is done to reduce aerodynamic interference between wings in certain circumstances. A wing with positive (forward) stagger is most common because it improves both downward visibility and ease of cockpit access for open cockpit biplanes. Finally, the upper wing will have a slightly greater angle of incidence, enhancing its stall and stall recovery characteristics.

The slightly forward position of the top wing location is explained because of its usefulness to dicrease aerodynamic accelerations and to impove the efficiency if the wings, because of the improvement of visibility and cockprit access that it offers and the enhancement of stall recovery. Finally, the desired lift of the biplane comes from its center and this offers greater safety.

It is useful so as to dicrease aerodynamic accelerations and to impove the efficiency if the wings.

The desired lift of the biplane comes from its center in a safer way.

Improvement of visibility and cockprit access.


Not likely.

Consider how food products normally make it to you.

Any competent US maker of soda or chips will design their product to be shipped on Interstate 70 or 80, via Sherman Summit (8650') or the Eisenhower Tunnel (11,158') or more likely by rail , via again Sherman Summit (8015') or Moffat Tunnel (9239').

Aircraft are pressurized to a pressure altitude of 8000'

typically, so Sherman Summit (rail).

If a food manufacturer were to botch their packaging, they wouldn't have your problem of a soda can bursting, they'd have an entire container load of sodas or chips burst and ruined for sale.

That is simply unacceptable, so manufacturers have a big incentive to get this right.

Other markets will have similar issues - the EU has the Alps, and China and India have the Himalaya.

It does not apply to regional sellers in flatland areas, so

a regional/indie Florida chipmaker, all bets are off.

It does, however, apply to soda manufacturers, whose cans must endure extreme temperature (e.g. solar loads in a car) also in high places.

Tennessee Pass (10221') doesn't count, it is weedgrown, rusty and cut in several places, being held for future capacity needs.

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

I can confirm that bagged snacks can pop from the pressure difference.

Climbing through 7,000 feet (on our way up to 9,000) in an unpressurized PA32

we heard a quite loud POP.

In and out of clouds at the time we were busy in the front seat, didn't observe any flight control or systems issues.

Fortunately had a person in the back that looked around there for us.

After trying to look outside at airplane surfaces for awhile

she turned her attention inside and found a bag of popcorn (the already popped, snack style) had exploded...

I brought a bag of chips on a Quantas A380 flight recently and it ruptured during ascent.

Sitting very close to the bag, I thought the sound was quite loud.

Nobody else noticed it.

Results may vary from bag to bag.

Chip bags are pressurised relative to the atmosphere.

As the plane climbs, the pressure in the cabin drops, which increases the pressure difference.

This pressure difference may exceed the strength of the bag, causing it to break.

Soda cans are designed to withstand much larger amounts of pressure from the inside.

Ever tried to squeeze a soda can that has just been shaken?

Taking away outside pressure can only increase the inside pressure by 1atm - and that would mean placing the can in a vacuum.

Simply shaking a can will increase the inside pressure much more than that and a can is supposed to survive even more than just shaking.

You can make a soda can burst by heating it up, but that'll require quite a bit of heat.

Bags of chips are not designed to withstand large amounts of inside pressure because chips to not generate any pressure like a carbonated liquid does.

Depending on the pressure at the time of packaging and the packaging itself, they usually do "inflate" a bit on a flying aircraft and in rare circumstances they may even burst.

[edit]I decided to dig out some numbers, so here we go: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SeemaMeraj.shtml

A cooled soda can have an internal pressure as low as 1atm (~100kPa) up to more than 2atm.

At room temperature this goes up to around 4atm.

So taking a can out of the refrigerator and putting it on the table increases the pressure more than placing a (cooled) can inside a vacuum .

As has been pointed out in the comment, shaking may not significantly increase pressure.

(I was expecting a more than minor increase because a bottle that has recently been shaken certainly feels "harder", but OTOH you need to be really careful when it comes to "feeling" things like pressure!)

Temperature, however, does increase pressure significantly and I would expect a soda can to be designed to withstand the pressure of a hot summer day in the shade - i.e. 40°C/100°F.

(It's not trivial to predict the pressure at that temperature, so I'm not trying.)[/edit]

I have never had a bag of chips pop in a commercial flight (although I've had bags that seemed to be right on the verge).

On the other hand, in a single engine non pressurized Beechcraft Bonanza we had a bag of chips explode in the cabin as we were climbing to our cruising altitude.

It's been too long for me to remember our altitude, but it can and does happen.

Scared the crap out of me as it was near me when it happened and

it was quite loud.

Can of soda?

Haven't had one explode in the air.

I have had cans of soda explode due to heat though in the summer in the trunk of my car, on several occasions.

Luckily in my case they were all seltzer water.

The only reason it might pop is if the cabin pressure were to suddenly disappear.

That's explosive decompression and if it happens you've more serious problems than having some soda or crisps soil your clothes or whatever is in the bag it popped in.

I did once get the advise to open any cans or bottles containing carbonated drinks I was planning to consume during a flight before takeoff, but that was on board an old Soviet era aircraft with a faulty pressure cabin.

In such cases the sudden release of pressure can cause the liquid to spill out, similar to shaking a bottle of soda violently before opening the lid would do on the ground (or, as my aunt once did mistakenly, freeze cans of soda so they'd be nice and cold for next day's road trip, then leaving them out in a hot car where they built up so much pressure they ruptured).

Definitely.

I have seen it on older aircraft at medium altitude chips bags can pop easily.

Altitude at which no cabin pressure is even required.

Question: I've heard some conspiracy theorists claim that if you were to bring a soda can or a bad of chips onto an airplane, they would pop?   Is this true? If so, why?

Is it true that a soda can or a bag of chips will pop in a plane at high altitude?

There is debate as to whether a can of soda or packet of chips will pop at high altitude. Some observers claim it has happened while others do not think it is likely to happen.

Some support that chip bags can definitely pop on a high altitude and that they have seen it happening. However, some support that an explosion of this type is not possible and they have never seen it happening. On the other hand, some others say that this phenomenon is quite rare, but it could happen depending on the pressure standards while packaging. Finally, there is the view that if the cabin pressure could totally disappear, only then cans and bags could pop, that is an impossibility.

Some support that an explosion of this type is not possible to happen and they have never seen it happening.

Some others say that this phenomenon is quite rare, but it could happen depending on the pressure standards while packaging.

If the cabin pressure could totally disappear, only then cans and bags could pop.


Qantas Flight 32 Enroute to Sydney, Engine Number 2 of the A380 disintegrated explosively.

The shrapnel of the explosion destroyed many systems, including a hydraulic system, the anti-lock braking system, flaps and electronic controls.

After emergency landing, the pilots were unable to stop engine number 1, because the controls had been destroyed by shrapnel.

Emergency services had to douse the engine until flameout was achieved.

Source

Cathay Pacific flight 780 on 13 Apr 2010 Fuel contaminated by super absorbent polymer jammed fuel valves caused engine control problems.

The aircraft eventually landed with one engine at about 70% N1 at significantly higher than normal airspeed, burst some tires from the increased braking necessary and was evacuated.

Etihad Airbus A340-600

This famous crash happened on the acceptance engine run-up test.

The causes were unrelated to engine problems, but after the crash, due to damages, two engines couldn't be shut down.

One of them ran for 9 hours (!)

after the incident, until it ran out of fuel, creating obvious hazard for the emergency crew.

(Luckily, there were no passengers to evacuate).

There is this business jet with two engines that didn't quit for 20min after it overran the runway and splashed around in a Bay.

Investigators found it attempted the landing with a 10kt tailwind on too short of field and the touchdown too far beyond the threshold.

May 15, 2005, in Atlantic City, NJ , USA

Air France 72.12 Sept 1993.

Aircraft (747-400) went off the runway in Papeete.

Due to electrical damage (aircraft nose was in the water)

the engine could not be shut down from the cockpit and AFRS had to 'drown' the engine by hosing a lot of water into the inlet.

My understanding is that the failure mode of engines is to be fail-safe, ie to minimise the impact of failure.

With FADEC (full authority digital engine control) the problem is what would be the best action if signal were to be lost from the control box to the engine?

It was explained to me that the lesser of two evils will be to have the engine running rather than shutting down so the protocols were designed accordingly.

While this does not answer your question on backup..

It is more sense if you look at it from a different angle..

"what is the backup in case control of engines is lost".

In this case the backup would be the engine would continue to run rather than shut down..

If this happenned in the air you would be better off with a working (albeit uncontrollable) engine rather than a dead one.

What sort of backup systems are in place to avoid this kind of scenario?

As I understand it airliners normally have a "fire handle" for each engine which is independent from the normal engine controls.

This handle can be used to cut off fuel to the engine and optionally discharge the fire extinguishers.

I can't seem to find an official source but

from what I can gather the fire handle did not work in the Quantas case, likely due to the severe damage from the uncontained failure of the other engine on the wing.

In addition to the posts above, it is worth pointing out that this exact scenario is part of the flight testing of any new aircraft.

If you can find it, there is a whole episode of the PBS show on the B777 that shows this test being carried out.

It was an especially odd one, because the aircraft had P&W engines and brakes designed to handle that, but they wanted to test the performance as if it was equipped with the more powerful RR engines.

The chief pilot originally said no, but as the engineers at the various companies said ok, he relented.

The test required the aircraft to go to maximum power, in this case higher than the official rating so they could test the RR case.

After it reached a certain speed, they put on full brakes, with the engines still at max power.

When it finally came to a stop, the brakes were bright yellow.

It then had to sit for a time (5 minutes IIRC) to simulate the emergency vehicles arriving, which then sprayed the brakes with water.

It was quite impressive.

As they were careful to say, the idea of the test is not to pass some requirement, but to simply give future pilots an understanding of what to expect in the case it happened.

Question: I read many items on the avherald.com site where it says "engine shut down during flight" or words to similar effect.  I'm wondering if there are any instances where an engine could not be shut down or the pilots had trouble shutting down the engine when commanded. What sort of backup systems are in place to avoid this kind of scenario?

Have there been any incidents caused by an inability to shut down an engine?

There have been a number of incidents when engines could not be shut down: Qantas flight 32, Etihad Airbus A340-600 a business jet with 2 engines that wouldn't shut down and Air France 72 on 12 Septemebr 1993.

An incident that provoked the explosive disintegration of engine, was the one on Qantas Flight 32. At another case, evacuation was needed and tires were burst after the aircraft was landed with one engine still working partially. Moreover, another example of relevant crash was the Etihad Airbus A340-600.To add on the question, a business jet overrun the pathway and its engines were working for 20 minutes before the final crash and a relevant incident happened on 12 Sept 1993 with Air France 72.Finally, a strange case was the one when The engine of the aircraft had to be drawn in water, because it could not be shut down.

Explosive disintegration of engine on Qantas Flight 32.

Evacuation and tires burst after the aircraft was landed with one engine still working partially.

Another example of relevant crash was the Etihad Airbus A340-600.

Business jet overrun the pathway and its engines were working for 20 minutes before the final crash.

Another relevant incident happened on 12 Sept 1993 with Air France 72.

The engine had to be drawn in water because it coul not be shut down.


I will take this from a more general perspective.

A Cessna 172 is part of the CS-23 category (in EASA land, see the equivalent Part 23 for FAA land).

In the relevant document , point CS 23.143, we find the maximum forces a pilot might be required to exert on the control columns so that the aircraft can be certified.

As the Cessna 172 is certified, we then know that it respects these requirements, so the maximum forces required to pilot a Cessna 172 (and any other CS-23 aircraft) are: \begin{array}{l|c|c|c|}\textrm{Values in Newton applied} & & & \\\textrm{to the relevant control} & \textrm{Pitch} & \textrm{Roll} & \textrm{Yaw}\\\hline\

\ \textrm{For

temporary application –} & & & \\\textrm{Stick} & 267 \textrm{ N} & 133 \textrm{ N} & \\\textrm{Wheel (two hands on rim)} & 334 \textrm{ N} & 222 \textrm{ N} & \\\textrm{Wheel (one hand on rim)} & 222 \textrm{ N} & 111 \textrm{ N} & \\\textrm{Rudder pedal} & & & 667 \textrm{ N}

\ \ \textrm{For

prolonged application –} & 44.5\textrm{ N} & 22\textrm{ N} & 89\textrm

{ N} \\\end{array}

It depends on what you mean by "strength".

In general, it is "not much".

I've flown a lot of sims and also flown a real Cessna 172.

It is true that most sim controllers (especially joysticks) require almost no effort to move at all.

In that perspective, then yes, flying a real airplane takes some strength, especially if you compare the force required to achieve max deflection (not recommend in flight!!!).

The flight controls of a light aircraft are still light enough that a healthy adult can manipulate them very easily.

In fact, the correct technique is to use two or three fingers on the yoke.

Most first-time students grab the yoke firmly in their hands, this is wrong because you cannot feel the airplane.

If one has the strength to drive a modern-day road car, one can certainly fly a light airplane.

I have also spent some time in a B737 training simulator (not PC simulators -

I mean the real sims used for training).

I was surprised to find the controls much heavier.

I would describe the feeling as solid and fluid.

They are still easy enough to manipulate such that my mind can focus on elsewhere instead of the physical movements of the control.

I've never flown a 172, but I fly a Piper Warrior which is in the same ballpark.

You definitely need to apply a lot more force than with a flight sim yoke and provide positive pressure (Remember, you're fighting the airflow ultimately), but you don't need to be "strong".

I'd imagine anyone who can drive a car would have the strength to fly a plane.

Remember, most flying is one handed and most pilots will use their less-dominant hand (Left hand)

so it can't be that bad!

I do find the Warrior needs a lot of backpressure to rotate and flare.

I've struggled to find any mathematics to add to this, but I've found a few quotes which imply you need approximately 1lb of backpressure to hold the plane level for every 6kts without trim

(The whole point of trim is to avoid this and make life easier)

So, at 100kts that's 16lbs / 7kgs.

I taught people of all sizes to fly for about 30 years.

I taught my commercial students how to take off and land without even touching the yoke.

So it is possible to control a c- 172 with no yoke force whatsoever.

Just rudder, throttle and trim.

So by the use of proper trim use, one can control the aircraft using the yoke with only ounces of force.

Don't let people discourage you.

I have several hundred hours in a 172, while it's a bit heavier on the controls than a 152 it isn't much.

If you have normal movement then you can likely fly a 172.

A benefit to control force in real aircraft vs Sims is the feedback you get through the controls with renders Sims largely ineffective in many cases.

OK for some stuff mostly instrument related but it will never replace actual flying.

The 172 was a lot easier to fly than the turbine modified Grumman Goose I flew, that thing was like trying to fly a dump truck with manual steering.

The amount of physical exertion required while flying a 172 depends largely on what you're trying to accomplish; for example, cruising in a trimmed attitude requires almost no effort whatsoever.

However, purposely inducing an aggravated stall/spin action then recovering requires considerably more effort.

Since recovering from all situations is important while flying as a PIC, one should give it a try before pursuing training in earnest.

Personally, the most exertion required is climbing up to manually check the fuel levels in the wing tanks.

But once I got the hang of it, it became quite easy.

I fly both Cessna and piper aircraft.

The flight controls on a 172 require a lot less force.

The flight controls on a piper feel much heaver..

you feel like your flying a much bigger airplane.

So to answer your question it does not take a lot of strength to fly one.

Question: I have heard a number of folks tell me that one needs a certain amount of physical strength to be able to control the Cessna 172. Is that true? I'm flying sims now, just wanted to know.

How much physical strength is required to control a Cessna 172?

Flying a 172 requires only the same amount of physical strength as driving a car. Any able-bodied adult should be able to do it.

For some people, it does not take a lot of stength to fly a Cessna 172, but only a normal amount is needed. More specifically, it needs as much stength as to drive a modern car. According to an answer, the calculated result of the strength is 16lbs / 7kgs. While more force than when using a flight simulation yoke is required, it is still not a difficult task. Finally, for some people the strength needed depends on what the pilot tries to accomplish during the flight.

So, at 100kts that's 16lbs / 7kgs at at 100kts.

Generally, it does not take a lot of stength to fly one. A normal amount of stength is needed.

It needs as much stength as to drive a modern car.

The strength needed depends on what the pilot tries to accomplish during the flight.

The calculated result of the strength is 16lbs / 7kgs.


It depends on the final product presented to the airline.

If an airline had two candidates, one of whom soloed in 10 hours and did well in a Sim Eval but was self absorbed, didn't like to follow procedures if he/she knew better, and didn't work well with people, and a candidate who took 30 hours to solo but was a team player, can get along with anyone, was an eager learner and was emotionally mature, and did a passable job in the Sim Eval

, they'd take the "slow learner" in a heartbeat if they were confident the candidate could get through the type course.

In the airline world, raw flying skills are an important baseline, but big picture personality related issues are just as important and personality problems with crews are a bigger long term problem than how long it took someone to catch on at the start.

The honest answer: nobody cares or would even ask you that question during a professional pilot interview.

Aside from a military pilot job where they can wash you out during pre-solo training, it doesn’t matter.

Primary checkride failures can be dings against you if you have a long string of them without a solid explanation.

But everyone fails a primary checkride now and then.

Now they will care about initial and recurrent type rating checkride fails for part 121 work.

There are a couple of exceptions these days.

Many Chinese airlines who send new pilot recruits to flight schools in the states set time limits for soloing.

Exceed those and you will not become a pilot with them (that

and you’re

obligated to work in another role within the airline for ten years or so) but the majors or regionals here in the states?

They don’t care.

What will kill an airline career are: Part 121 checkride failures DUIs Felony or drug convictions Bad driving records History of aircraft accidents or incidents FAA violations, certificate suspensions or revocations Cheating on FAA exams or logbook doctoring or Lying about any of the above on a job application.

Basically the airlines want to see that you’re a safe, trustworthy, reliable individual at the controls of an aircraft or other motor vehicle.

They’re also looking to see if you can fit into company culture and fly the way they want you to fly.

Similar to school, the airlines look to your last employer.

Each subsequent increase in responsibility will be what matters.

If you have 3000 hours PIC in a ERJ175 with a good reputation and references from the firm you work for, do you think they will really care that it took you 30 hours to solo in a 172?

Great question as it illustrates how the job applicant can improve their chances of employment by knowing what the employer wants.

Years ago some flying schools were advertising 10 hours to solo courses.

I took 40, but had no previous flying experience.

The major concerns were thoroughly knowing the slowflight characteristics of the plane, building confidence, learning and following landing check lists, handling cross winds, and go around procedures.

While it seemed easier to grease a plane in modulatingthe throttle, I was always worried about the turn base to final under power.

More time was taken learning tocome in high and land by adding drag to the plane with flaps and forward slipping.

This seemed better because the runway could always be made.

I also liked it because it was similar to the engine out emergency landing procedure.

Everybody has their own comfort level.

But now nearing retirement, my advice would be to not worry about what is on the resume, but how you would answer a question about it.

"I took the time to practice until I could safely do it" might be worth considering.

Although they give some good information, neither of the two answers actually answer your question.

would the person who soloed in 10 hours have an advantage?

Yes.

All other things being equal, soloing after 10 hours shows on paper you are either a faster learner or just a more focused learner to me if I was looking at potential job applicants in a hiring manner.

John K makes the point there are other factors we look at too (obviously) but to answer your question, 10 hours is more impressive than 30 hours (this kind of difference is significant).

It's like college GPA on your resume.

Yes extracurriculars, and how well you get along in the interview is definitely important, but if two candidates are pretty much identical in all other factors, why would anyone choose the lower GPA candidate.

It's not a factor, to be honest, unless your time to solo was extraordinarily long.

Solo endorsements vary a lot based on the instructor in addition to the student.

You could have an overly careful CFI that won't let you solo until 30 hours, or maybe you have some crazy cropduster type that'll sign you off at 10.

If an airline is comparing two pilots that have very similar backgrounds, and they start comparing times to solo, they will surely take a step back and figure out a way to see each pilot from a bigger picture perspective.

I am speculating on this, but I see a major airline asking an extra personality question before looking at time to solo.

One guy said time to solo is like GPA on a resume.

It's more like a fine detail on your transcript showing you took Math 1, 2, and 3 while the other guy skipped 1 and just took 2 and 3.

Sure, he was better at math than you at one point, but you could also argue that you understand the underlying concepts better than him.

Don't fret about time to solo.

Fret about which tie you're going to wear.

If an airline pays too much attention to such difference, I would be worried.

Very few accidents are caused by improper handling of the controls; the majority are due to poor pilot's decisions and discipline, so I expect airlines to focus on the latter.

Question: I've heard that on job applications for airline pilots that they ask the question: "How many hours to Solo?".  If it took someone 30 hours to solo but they had more logged flight time than someone who took 10 hours to solo, would the person who soloed in 10 hours have an advantage?

Does a long time to solo hurt your chances of becoming an airline pilot?

It seems that the only airlines that are concerned about time to solo are Chinese airlines who set a time limit for this for the students they send to flight schools in the US. Nobody else seems to care except maybe the military.

There are different perspectives on the issue. First of all, there are those who support that the answer depends, not so much on the actual time of the solo, but on your presentation and on the explanation that you give to the company, taking for granted that the referred time is not extraordinary long. Secondly,others say yes and the confirming example is that most chinese companies that recruit according to the solo time. Finally, there are those who believe that time to solo is not an important factor for companies to hire you as a professional airline pilot.

The answer is that it depends: not so much on the actual time of the solo, but on your presentation and on the explanation that you give to the company, taking for granted that the referred time is not extraordinary long.

The answer is yes and the confirming example is the one of most chinese companies that recruit according to the solo time.

The time to solo is not an important factor for companies to hire you as a professional airline pilot.


Normally with aircraft there is a sensor called a weight on wheels switch.

This tells the computer that the aircraft is on the ground.

The computer (or a system of relays for older air frames) will prevent any system that was designated by the owner, or required by regulations, from activating while in the ground.

Also as a secondary preventative measure certain mechanical systems are also pinned in place after landing to help prevent ground actuation.

However if it happened during maintenance it is very likely these systems were disabled to perform system maintenance on the cannon.

The article quoted implies that there is a sensor in the F16 to detect when the undercarriage is lowered, which functions as a a gun safety switch, but there is presumably provision for overriding this in order to perform gun testing.

A variety of technical and procedural measures are designed to ensure safety with aircraft gun armament, the details varying with the specific type of weapon.

The M61 20mm cannon will not function without electrical power, it is electrically rotated (when internally mounted) and fires electrically primed ammunition, so switching off the power should prevent accidental firing with this gun.

Other types of cannon with reciprocating mechanisms, such as the 30mm DEFA 550 series have to be cocked or armed before they will fire, a common procedure is to prohibit pilots from doing this until the aircraft is airborne.

There are also physical safety switches, that date back to when weapons were first mounted on aircraft.

Still present on modern armed aircraft.

On the F16, a switch on the joystick controls selection of missiles or gun.

One of it's positions is 'safe'.

Obviously, that switch on the Belgian F16 wasn't in the safe position.

During WW2, there was a real problem with aircraft landing on a carrier, and the guns being discharged accidentally when the jolt of the landing and arresting caused the pilot's hand to hit the trigger on the joystick.

Consequently, landing on a carrier with the gun switch not in the safe position was a serious transgression that would land a pilot in real trouble...

you could kill a lot of deck crew if you discharged six .50 cal machine guns across the deck.

Even so, accidents can happen.

On July 29, 1967, the USS Forrestal was seriously damaged when a Zuni air to ground missile was accidentally discharged from an F4 Phantom, striking an A4 Skyhawk waiting to take off.

Piloting that Skyhawk was a young navy Lt, John S McCain.

While the missile didn't detonate, it did tear open the Skyhawk's fuel tanks, starting a major fire, which led to a 1000 pound bomb detonating.

134 sailors died as a result, and hundreds were injured.

It is believed that a short circuit of the firing mechanism led to the missile being discharged.

Aircraft carriers in particular can be quite dangerous.

They combine high performance aircraft, high speed takeoffs and landings, plus all the fuel and munitions that the aircraft will carry, in a fairly small space.

The fact that aircraft carriers don't blow up more often is a testament to the quality and discipline of

it's crew.

Since the Forrestal incident, there have been no repeats of missiles being accidentally discharged on a carrier deck.

Whatever measures were put in place after that, appear to have been effective.

According to the article you linked: the use of the onboard weapons (including the gun) is usually blocked by a fail-safe switch when the aircraft has the gear down with the purpose of preventing similar accidents.

It seems it isn't quite so "fail" or "safe", at least in this instance.

A lot of fighters have some kind of a "Master Arm" switch that brings the weapons live as well as activates some other related functionality.

As discussed by this former F-15 pilot in the podcast 224 – Flying the F-15 Eagle its flown in the off position 99% of the time .

There is also some discussion about HUD functionality related to the master arm options in this thread (but its Reddit so take it with a grain of salt).

In this article about refueling the F-15 As the fighters approach, they will be asked to “check nose cold andswitches safe.”

That simply means that all emitters are off, toinclude the IFF system, any ECM pods, and the radar is placed instandby mode.

If the approaching receivers were in a fight prior tothe rejoin, it’s critical for them to have their Master Arm switch tothe OFF position and thereby safing any remaining stores aboard .

Depending on the airframe, they may slo simply unload the ordinance to prevent accidental discharge.

Question: Recently the 20mm cannon of an F-16 was accidentally fired on the ground by maintenance personnel at Florennes Air Base in Belgium, resulting the the destruction of another F-16 and damage to a third.  https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/14/f-16-completely-destroyed-by-another-f-16-after-mechanic-accidentally-fires-cannon-on-the-ground-in-belgium/  What measures do  military aircraft have to prevent their weapons from being fired while the plane is on ground?

What measures prevent a military aircraft's weapons from being fired on the ground?

A variety of technical and procedural measures are designed to ensure safety with aircraft gun armament, the details varying with the specific type of weapon. There are also physical safety switches, that date back to when weapons were first mounted on aircraft. The crew also ensure weapons are not fired.

To begin with, a typical measure taken is a sensor on the aircraft. Moreover, techical, procedural and mechanical measures are taken depending on the weapons that are carried by the aircraft. As for some specific types of weapons, switching off the power of the military aircraft is enough, while for other types of military aircrafts there are physical safety switches in the form of  joysticks or "master arms". Finally, an important measure of protection is  the quality and discipline of the aircraft's crew, since the pilots are prohibited to arm cannons that work with reciprocating mechanisms.

A typical measure is a sensor on the aircraft.

Techical, procedural and mechanical measures are taken according to the type of the weapon.

Switching off the power of the military aircraft is enough for some cannon types.

Physical safety switches in the form of a joystick or a "master arm".

An important measure of protection is  the quality and discipline of the aircraft's crew,  since the pilots are prohibited to arm cannons that work with reciprocating mechanisms.


There are two main factors.

The law One, as other answers have mentioned, is the law .

There are strict regulations that cover everything in aviation, from the way people speak to the training they must have and the specifications and audit trails of almost every piece of equipment they use.

Now it's true that people, especially unscrupulous ones who are keen to save money and might be willing to take a few risks in order to do that, don't always obey they law or follow regulations to the letter.

And after all, there are laws against murder with much more significant penalties than for (for example) flying with a bit less fuel than the regulations say you should, and yet people persist in murdering.

The culture

However, the other factor is the culture .

A low-cost airline exists in the culture of aviation, not independently, and the culture puts safety first.

Each person working for the airline will have trained and may have worked outside the airline, and will already have acquired attitudes and ways of thinking that prioritise safety and adherence to regulation.

Each person working for the airline will be working with and encountering aviation industry individuals from outside the airline, on a daily basis - if they didn't share similar attitudes and ways of thinking, they'd stand out a mile, and so would a corporate culture that similarly failed to embrace the industry's culture of safety.

Why can't low-cost carriers compromise for the safety of their passengers?

Because there are laws and regulations which keep passengers safe, and low-cost carriers are not exempt from those regulations.

Beside all the regulations that require certain maintenance action to be done on aircraft in order for the aircraft to remain air worthy, the simple answer is if LCC compromise safety in order to cut cost no one will want to fly with them and they will lose business.

An airline will need to have an 'Air Operator Certificate' (AOC) or something similar issued by the state.

In order to have such a certificate it has to show that its operations are in compliance with the national laws of the country.

There is also an 'Operations Specification' which details the type of operations the airline can carry out.

The respective manuals will need to be checked by the authorities and the actual operation will be audited.

For operations into other countries, the other country may require you to undergo a 'foreign operator air license' which will require a check of the manuals and possibly an audit.

The list of checks is endless and usually in the long run it is easier to follow than try to cut costs related to safety and security.

The airline can have its AOC suspended for unsafe operations until they fix the operations.

Other countries can ban certain countries from operating in their airspace if there are security concerns.

The EU, for instance, maintains a blacklist of airlines banned from entering their airspace.

Along with being illegal and potentially looking bad, generally, people's lives are in the balance but historically this has not always stopped the more unscrupulous airlines in the past.

Arguably Alaska Airlines cut corners that ultimately lead to the fatal crash and deaths of 58 people on flight 261 .

From the NTSB report: Alaska Airlines' maintenance and inspection of its horizontal stabilizer activation system was poorly conceived and woefully executed.

The failure was compounded by poor oversight...

Had any of the managers, mechanics, inspectors, supervisors or FAA overseers whose job it was to protect this mechanism done their job conscientiously, this accident cannot happen Cutting corners on training, improper cargo loading and generally poor handling of hazardous materials also lead to the fatal crash of ValuJet Flight 592 killing 110 people.

There is some interesting info on it in this paper from the FAA There has been push from various low cost carriers to introduce what is effectively standing room only aircraft or sections of aircraft for an even lower fare.

However this does not pass the seating requirements that the FAA/EASA generally have so no one has yet to actually bring it to market.

It will be interesting to see if they can ever push the regulation through.

What prevents low-cost carriers from cutting corners that might compromise the safety of their passengers?

Airlines are required by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to implement formal aviation safety management systems (SMS) .

This mandate came from November 2006.

It is up to each member state's civil aviation authority (FAA, Transport Canada, CASA, EASA, etc.) to provide oversight of all airlines' SMS.

Oversight is provided by audits that follow an industry-accepted SMS audit checklist .

When there are audit findings coming from their civil aviation authority (CAA), the airline has a limited number of days to return to compliance else their operating certificate may be revoked.

Fines may also be employed to urge the airline toward compliance and to reduce the chances that the operator will return to non-compliant behavior.

While not technically an answer: I just want to point out that (most) LCCs do not have the financial means and public image credit to survive even a single minor incident or crash.

A simple runway overrun or engine fire might be enough to literally bankrupt the company within days, and (most) LCC managers are painfully aware of that.

The incentive is therefore quite high to avoid any incidents and keep safety levels way above the minimum required by law.

Question: I was reading an article about LCCs and here is an excerpt that got me thinking.    While budget airlines cut other corners to keep fares low, they do not  — actually cannot — compromise the safety of their passengers in the  process.   What prevents low-cost carriers from cutting corners that might compromise the safety of their passengers?

What prevents Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) from cutting cost that compromise safety?

The two main factors stopping Low Cost Airlines from undercutting to the extent they compromise safety are the law and aviation culture. The law ensures safety standards and countries can refuse airlines if they believe they are undercutting safety standards. Moreover, there is a culture of safety in the aviation industry and staff would not accept a situation where safety was compromised. An additional factor is that even one incident could be the end of the airline, as nobody would fly them anymore.

The first reason that restricts LLCs on this matter is the law. Moreover, LLCs' reputation and the fact that people will not want to travel with them constitutes another reason. Suspension of AOC and frequent audits could also restrict them. Another possible reason is a possible ban from other countries, as well as the fines imposed that could put LLCs financial sustainability in danger. Finally, the culture of respect towards human life could also prevent LLCs from doing so.

First reason is the law that restricts all airlines.

LLCs reputation and the fact that people will not want to travel with them.

The culture of respect towards human life.


Presuming you're referring to the ICAO Alphabet* , (alpha, bravo, charlie, delta, echo, etc.)

the easiest way (in my experience, from learning it as a disambiguator for phone work) is repetition, same way you learned the alphabet as a child, or the same way you'd memorize a poem. Get a written list of the letter names, read them through several times a day, and over time, start reciting without reading.

Do this several times a day for a week, you'll be close if not there.

A second week

and you should start to think in phonetic alphabet.

A third week

and you'll wonder why everyone doesn't think in phonetic alphabet.

*corrected from comments, originally International Phonetic Alphabet, which is a whole different thing.

Study like it's schoolwork!

I've found that quizzing yourself in a similar way to studying for a test is the best way to learn.

I've had to learn a few different alphabets for different reasons, but there's always good resources online.

I'd recommend two tests that I always give to beginners.

Beginner Quiz: https://www.sporcle.com/games/g/alpha_en Intermediate Quiz: https://abg.ninja/alphabet

Ignoring the childish UI, these are actually great ways.

Begin with the first link, and type in all of the letters that you know.

This will very quickly show you which ones you know, and which you don't.

Once you've figured out the ones you don't know, check a chart, attempt to memorize them, and try the test again.

Rinse and repeat until you've memorized it fully, and can do it an hour after looking at the chart (so the information isn't remembered solely for being fresh in your mind).

After you've done this, use the second link I sent you to improve your usage, and to string multiple letters together.

Continue until you're comfortable.

It's incredibly helpful to read the letters out loud while doing these tests.

My favorite method for memorizing that kind of stuff is to create flash cards with a picture that can be associated with the word.

You might have to use your imagination for find a suitable image for each letter, but once you do, the memorization efficiency goes way up.

Another option is to make flash cards with the letter and its phonetic word in a huge font so it takes up an entire page.

You will find you are able to recall the "image" of the word more easily than just the information itself.

I use that method for memorizing operating limitations where it's just a numerical value you have to store in your head.

I can recommend the (free) site http://radioalphabet.com/ , specifically the Flash Cards tab.

It provides you with a word, listed vertically with an input box besides each letter, and requires you to write the second and third letter of the word for each letter (which are unique amongst the words).

It then automatically jumps to the next box, allowing you to practice quickly recalling the words for each letter.

After you have used it for a little, the Statistics tab provides you with hit and miss rates for each letter, so you can know which ones to focus on memorizing.

I personally schedule repetitions in my calendar, using the principle of spaced repetition learning mentioned in insysions answer, so I increase the time until next repetition if I get everything right.

Make drawings (it doesn't matter how good you can draw).

Use whatever comes to your mind first.

For example: for Charly I think of Charly Brown.

For Mike its another comic figure called Mike, but unlike Charly he is very tall, so these two side by side look very funny.

They together (funny view remember) are visiting Quebec in November... ... where they meet Romeo and Juliet who are dancing Tango.

Take just a few at a time.

Make each of them tell a little story.

Stick them where you can see them several times a day.

Bathroom for example.

If your brain has something to visualize its more likely that you will remember.

I had the same problem.

The easiest way to me to remember all the letters is with the car plates.

It's fun and also keeps you practice the alphabet without a specific order, that's important too.

Question: I want to learn the  aviation alphabet , and when searching the Internet on how to, I see a plethora of approaches, so I thought of asking here!  If it's primarily opinion based, let me know.

Best way of learning the aviation alphabet?

A number of methods are siggested for learning the airline alphabet. These include constant repetition, quizzing yourself, reading the letters out loud, using flash cards, making drawing and making little stories.

Some of the best methods proposed in order to memorize more easily the aviation alphabet are: study repetitively, study it like a homework after school, check a chart and memorize it, read each letter out loud, create flash cards with each letter, draw each letter and vizualise the alphabet, create a brief story with the letters or finally, use car plates.

Draw each letter and vizualise the alphabet.


You don't have to have permission to fly in IMC in uncontrolled, class G, airspace.

However, you must have an instrument rating and be in an IFR-certified aircraft.

In uncontrolled airspace, you may fly into IMC as you like and perform whatever maneuvers you want.

It's a very good idea to get flight following in order to receive traffic warnings from ATC if you decide to fly within IMC in uncontrolled, class G, airspace.

You do need to get permission to fly in controlled airspace (all classes except for G) if you are operating under IFR , regardless of actual meteorological conditions.

Note:

Classes A-D require permission under both IFR and VFR; classes E and G do not require permission under VFR.

If you want to practice in IMC within controlled airspace, you must explain your mission to ATC and obtain a clearance to operate under IFR.

If ATC has the space and the time, they may give you a clearance for a specific area and perhaps a block altitude if you want to climb and descend.

There aren't officially designated areas for practice, but if you ask local instructors, they will tell you where they usually go.

Most of the time, the preference is to get out of controlled airspace if possible; it's just easier.

Yes.

You can requests a local IFR, or quadrant clearance and then receive a clearance for a region, such as: CLEARED TO FLY (general direction from NAVAID)

OF (NAVAID name and type) BETWEEN (specified) COURSES TO/BEARINGS

FROM/RADIALS (NAVAID name when a NDB)

WITHIN (number of miles)

MILE RADIUS, And an example:

“Cleared to fly east of Allentown VORTAC between the zero four five and the one three five radials within four zero mile radius.”

Both are from FAA Order JO 7110.65W 4-1-1

"Maneuvering at will" within a particular area is called "work".

This is particularly common for news/police helicopters, which often need to wander around above some event in class B/C airspace.

I've only heard it done as VFR, but I don't see a reason why ATC wouldn't allow it for IFR if there's nobody else around.

Be clear about the horizontal and vertical boundaries you want in your request, and let them know when you're done working and want to resume normal control.

You may want to call the relevant ATC unit ahead of time to see when/where will give you the best chance of approval and what exactly to put on your flight plan since this is obviously not a standard request.

You might have better luck working with a controller at a Class D tower near you, or maybe Class C. Find an intersection or something identifiable from an approach plate that's in their airspace, request the maneuvers you want.

They can have you report in as you maneuver, and yet still have control if they need room for some one actually landing, or keep you clear of transiting traffice, etc.

I have done this while operating under IFR in IMC several times.

Just ask for a block airspace and tell them what you want.

I've found ATC to be very accommodating.

Question: In the US, is there a way for a pilot to legally "maneuver at will" in actual IMC?   Let's say you want to practice a series of reversing 360-degree turns and not have to communicate every change in heading to a controller or follow a controller's step-by-step instructions.  For example, is there such a thing as an IMC "practice area" where only one aircraft at a time is allowed to operate under IFR?  Also, is there a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled airspace in this regard?

In the US, is there a way for a pilot to legally "maneuver at will" in actual IMC?

If you want to practice in IMC within controlled airspace, you must explain your mission to ATC and obtain a clearance to operate under IFR. However, you must have an instrument rating and be in an IFR-certified aircraft. You might have better luck working with a controller at a Class D tower near you, or maybe Class C. Find an intersection or something identifiable from an approach plate that's in their airspace, request the maneuvers you want.

In order to maneuver in an actual IMR, a pilot should not have permission as far as he is in an uncontrolled airspace. Another answer claims that an instrument rating and a certified aircraft is needed. Finally, the pilot should contact ATC to give the details of his flight and ask for permission or should contact a local IFR and get clearance or  should contact a controller of a class D tower, closeby.

A pilot can maneuver at will without permission in uncontrolled airspace.

An instrument rating and a certified aircraft is needed.

You should contact ATC to give the details of your flight and ask for permission.

You should contact a local IFR and get clearance.

You should contact a controller of a class D tower closeby.


When it comes to the AME, you must disclose everything fully and completely.

Failure to do so may void any license and insurance and expose you to extraordinary civil and criminal risk.

When it comes to your flight instructor, who is not a medical professional, you do not need to disclose the specifics of your situation.

Saying, "

I have concerns about passing a Class III Medical Exam due to certain conditions" is sufficient, and is not the same thing as lying.

Do not claim you are healthy when you know you are not.

Your instructor may decide not to continue training until a physical is passed, or he may decide just to be a little extra vigilant during training, and delay certain elements or maneuvers depending on the information you choose to provide.

For example: If you choose to disclose vertigo problems, he may avoid steep turns until medical clearance.

If you choose to disclose vision issues, he may avoid night-flight.

Regardless, you will need a medical before your first solo flight.

Do not lie to your instructor, but that is not the same thing as disclosing full details of your health with a non-medic.

There's no legal or regulatory obligation to tell your instructor about medical conditions as others have said.

There may be rare cases where there are insurance considerations the flight school must take into account, in which case they should explain that.

There's good reasons to be open, however: -

Not disclosing a medical condition could increase the risk to both you and your instructor, depending on what that is.

The more the instructor knows about you the more they can look out for the specific issues a medical issue may raise - Training works better if there is a rapport and trust between the instructor and student.

Lying to an instructor is a breach of trust, and could damage the relationship.

Think of it this way

: how would you like it if you were an instructor and found out a student wasn't telling you

he/

she was prone to panic attacks?

And you found out on final approach when the student suddenly went rigid, or worse pulled back on the controls and put you both in a life threatening situation?

You'd want to know

so you could make an informed choice on whether to take that student on, and if you did you'd probably elect a different training regime, one with more gradual steps.

There is no obligation to disclose anything to your CFI, just your AME.

That said, your CFI may have useful advice about common problems, if you're willing to talk about them, and they may suggest delaying relevant parts of your training until thosr problems are resolved by your AME.

If a CFI (or anyone besides your AME) asks a question you don't want to answer, then tell them that , rather than evading the question or lying (even if only by omission), and they should respect your privacy.

Just knowing there's something they don't know is good enough.

If your flight school requires medical forms, then IMHO, find a new one.

All they need to know is whether or not you have your medical certificate.

At this stage, when you are just talking about maybe starting to learn to fly, this person is not acting as your flight instructor.

He's just a person giving you information about a process.

You aren't under any legal obligation to disclose anything to him.

On the other hand, flight instructors often have a decent knowledge of the medical requirements to fly, and might have been able to give you a good opinion on whether any particular condition is disqualifying.

At a later stage, when you are actually taking instruction, it's probably a bad idea to withhold useful information from your instructor.

It is likely that a flight school will make you fill in a form which asks about medical conditions, and lying on that would be a very bad idea.

The reason he asked that is because he thinks you asked an XY question, and thinks the "X" is "I have a medical problem that I fear might fail me on my medical ".

So he is asking only to answer your query , and he's not wasting time on the Y, and taking the shorter path to X. Not his first rodeo...

As such, he's listening for relevant medical concerns likely to fail you, i.e. That could affect your safety to fly.

It would be an "overshare" to mention your excema, HIV status, enlarged prostate, well-managed cancer, eidetic memory, gluten allergy, or need for Viagra.

So answer the X

: say why you think you'd have trouble with the medical.

You can always trot out the old "asking for a friend"...

But then, expect to have an instructor who takes precautions against you having that problem in flight with him.

Really, a lying relationship is not one you want to have in the cockpit of a plane.

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

Question: When talking with a local flight school about my interest in starting training, I started asking questions about how the AME process works. The flight instructor then asked me if I had any specific medical issues. Are you required to disclose any health information to your flight instructor? What about if the issue(s)  could  be disqualifying? Would you get in trouble for lying to the instructor (to avoid judgement or maintain privacy) but NOT lying during the AME?

Are you required to disclose medical conditions to your flight instructor?

There is no need to give details of your medical condition to your flying instructor. What is needed is a medical certificate stating you are fit to fly. However, it is better not to hide things that may affect your flying as that might pose a safety risk to both you and the instructor.

The first point of view is that one is not obliged to disclose any medical conditions to his flight instructor, since he is not a medical professional. However, it is underlined that one has to avoid lying to him regarding his medical condition. Last but not least, do not overshare private medical data since all the instructor needs to know is if you have a medical certificate.

You are not obliged to disclose any medical conditions to your flight instructor, since he is not a medical professional.

Avoid lying to your flight instructor regarding your medical condition.

Do not overshare private medical data since all he needs to know is if you have a medical certificate.


Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times.

This ensures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) of what needs to be done in a critical situation.

It also standardizes these criticalities across different aircraft and aircrew cultures.

"Bail out, bail out, bail out" "Eject, eject, eject" "Abort abort abort" " Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan ."

I was 27 years a USAF pilot, and this is how the training has worked for over 50 years.

I only saw these terms used 2-3 times, but it certainly gets your attention and amps up the sense of urgency.

A little history:

back in the day of very poor radio communications, it was necessary to repeat to "get someone's attention" or in the event

a single "mayday" didn't come across when the transmit button was pressed.

Procedure calls for the mayday distress signal to be said three times in a row so that it won't be mistaken for another word or phrase that sounds similar under noisy conditions.

The use of Mayday dates back to 1923 when it was first used because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “Help me."

In those early days of radio it was necessary to repeat things sometimes because of interference on the frequency from various potential sources.

The "rule of three" is rooted in research conducted in 1890 by Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist.

Ebbinghuas studied how many rehearsals were necessary for his test subjects to memorize a list of nonsense syllables.

He came up with three as the optimal number, and that became a rule of thumb in many other things, such as advertising.

Here's a cool video that adds information on Mayday and Pan Pan .

There are no instances in normal conversation where the same word is repeated three times consecutively.

In order to prevent a critical command or order from being issued or heard accidentally, a command is given three times in order to verify that it is being given intentionally.

Going to the moon?

“Launch!

Launch!

Launch!”

I assume it's for redundancy.

Assuming the voice signal is very noisy, the listener might hear two different things, the first and second time.

The third repetition can then be used to decide which of the two versions heard is more likely to be the correct one.

Majority voting with three signals is very common in redundant systems.

In computing it is called TMR (triple modular redundancy).

Because human brains are slow and easily distracted?

The first time you heard it - you started listening.

The second time you heard it - you started listening properly, because you know it's important

The third time confirmed you heard what you thought you heard?

This is just my unresearched perception of what's going on, and why we naturally settled on saying thing 3 times when it's imperative that it's heard properly.

Question: Repetition is a key characteristic of communication in the control tower, cockpit, and control room.  Some phrases, like "Mayday" get repeated. The speaker says the same thing three times. We know this is for redundancy.   Why exactly  three times ?    Why not twice or four times? Is there research suggesting three is the most effective number, or is there a historical reason for the convention?

Why do we say certain things three times (e.g., "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday"), rather than two or four?

Repeating a command three times is for redudency. If a command was misheard the first or second time, the third acts as confirmation. It is also a standardised practice across airlines and aircrew cultures.

The 3 times repetition works in order to eliminate any possible doubt. It is also  for redundancy and reassurance. Another practical reason was for certainty due to the quality of radio transmission back then. And finally, it works as a manner of intercultural standardization.

In order to eliminate any possible doubt.

It was necessary for certainty due to the quality of radio transmission back then.

It works as a manner of intercultural standardization.


Because wings work on air moving past them, not ground moving below them.

Heck, in a 35 knot headwind, the Antonov-2 could be rolling backwards at 2 knots and still take off!

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

Because what determines the amount of lift generated is the indicated airspeed, not the ground speed.

As usual, it is always easier to think about an extreme case.

If you have an aircraft with V R (speed at rotation for takeoff) of 90 knots, and there is an 80 knots head wind, in theory it will rotate with ground speed of 10 knots even though the indicated airspeed will be 90 knots.

Airspeed is always important as it determines lift which keeps you in the air.

At the moment of take-off or landing, airspeed is critical because it is the point at which you transition to or from flight; you need to be going fast enough but not too fast so that the transition is positive without being abrupt or overly stressful on aircraft components.

This is why there are specified take-off and approach speeds.

Ground speed matters in navigation because it determines flight time which affects fuel required to get from A to B. Ground speed is a consideration for take-off and landing (ideally kept to a minimum), which is why it's always preferable to do so into the wind, but ultimately it is airspeed that matters and ground speed is what it is at the moment of take-off or landing.

The Wikipedia article on indicated airspeed has a good description.

An airspeed indicator is actually more of a "dynamic-pressure" meter, with the dynamic pressure converted to airspeed.

Dynamic pressure is $q=\frac{1}{2}\rho V^2$ where $\rho$ is density and $V$ is airspeed.

The Wikipedia article on the lift coefficient explains that lift is proportional to dynamic pressure, the area of the wings, and the lift coefficient, which in simplified terms can be considered a function of the angle of attack.

$L=\frac{1}{2}\rho V^2 S C_L(\alpha) =

qS C_L(\alpha)

The takeoff speed is the speed at which you will have enough lift to get the airplane off the ground at the angle of attack that the airplane will have post-rotation.

So, for a given aircraft at a given weight, wing area, post-rotation angle-of-attack, and lift curve, you will be able to take off at a particular dynamic pressure.

In fact, all the aerodynamic forces on the aircraft are proportional to the dynamic pressure.

So that's why stall speed, never-exceed-speed (above which the aerodynamic forces could start damaging the aircraft structure), etc.

are all given in indicated airspeed - because it's a proxy for dynamic pressure.

True airspeed is the speed of the aircraft relative to the air mass it's flying through and can be calculated from indicated airspeed by correcting for density and temperature.

Your ground speed is then the true airspeed added to the wind speed.

The IAS includes factors such as Wind Component (Tail, Head or Cross), Pressure and Temperature.

All these have an influence on your takeoff.

The takeoff Speed Vr is calculated as Indicated Airspeed.

Imagine you have a Headwind Component of +50.

You Groundspeed would be way lower than your Airspeed.

What counts is the amount of air that flows over the wing in order to takeoff, not the speed relative to the ground.

Question: My instructor asked me this question during my lesson and I couldn't come up with any answers. He asked why do I need to look at the indicated airspeed rather than ground speed when in takeoff roll or as soon as we touchdown?   It would be great if you could give me the reference to back it up.

Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?

At the moment of take-off or landing, airspeed is critical because it is the point at which you transition to or from flight; you need to be going fast enough but not too fast so that the transition is positive without being abrupt or overly stressful on aircraft components.

The lift is ultimately determined by the amount of air moving past the wings, not the speed of ground moving below the aircraft. Therefore, airspeed is more important because it will determine how smooth the lift will be. Ground speed determines flight time and the amount of required fuel, and whileit myst be taken into consideration, it is airspeed that matters for the take-off.


That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude: although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel

it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most.

You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have to descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb up again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.

Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.

The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative -

now you know why.

Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes.

You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.

But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive.

You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc).

You have to combine cargo into parachute loads.

You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.

You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp).

Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).

And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.

You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction , but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes .

The main advantage of landing is that the plane can then carry another cargo on the return journey.

Flying an empty plane back home is extremely inefficient and halves the range of the plane.

Air dropping might make sense for a large number of relatively small but urgent packages with lots of destinations along a route, but even then the plane would be mostly empty towards the end.

Dropping a load by parachute is fairly difficult, but loading a plane in the air is a real challenge!

Outside of any of the difficulties associated with dropping cargo out of a plane at altitude, the answer is still 'it depends'.

For long distance flights, a large part of the initial weight of the plane is due to the fuel load, not the cargo.

This fuel weight imposes a penalty on both climb- and cruise performance.

It may be beneficial to land halfway and refuel, so that on both legs of the journey, less fuel has to be carried.

This is also why refuelling is typically done at every stop (unless poor availability or high fuel costs forces 'tankering' - landing with enough fuel left to do a return flight or the next leg as well).

The only use case for commercial cargo drops seems to be if you need to deliver cargo at a number of closely spaced airports (in which case the short hops would be fuel-inefficient).

However, in that case you might as well use road or rail transport.

The only remaining use case, which is unsurprisingly the only use case in reality, is to drop cargo if no other means of delivery are available - for example, conflict zones, disasters, etc.

Depends entirely on the constraints.

So: "Sometimes" or "maybe".

There are a few effects that make landing more fuel efficient: On long trips refueling midway

is fuel efficient, even if it involves landing.

Saving a second trip by loading new cargo midway is even more fuel efficient.

Having lower weight cargo due to absence of air drop packaging is fuel efficient.

Saving a trip due to tightly packed cargo is fuel efficient.

Related: Dropping a parachute over a runway from high altitude can disrupt air traffic for a significant amount of time.

Dropping a parachute over a runway from low altitude means having to climb again, which is not fuel efficient.

There are many (contrived?)

scenarios where none of these arguments come into play - in those scenarios air drop is indeed more fuel efficient.

These scenarios would usually involve short distances, inherently air droppable cargo, runways that see very low amounts of traffic, and machines that will stay at relatively low altitude during most or all of the trip.

Question: Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a runway from the air en route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?

Is it cheaper to drop cargo than to land it?

Dropping cargo is really only useful in areas where it is the only option, i.e. in conflict zones and zones with difficult terrain. If cargo is dropped the plane canot pick up new cargo and therefore becomes continually emptier. Flying empty planes is not cost-effective. Moreover, the plane would have to descend to drop the cargo and then climb back to cruising altitude, hence burning a lot of fuel and thus another disadvantage. There are also problems related to the cargo itself: preventing it from being damaged, returning parachutes after the drop, preventing incidents on the ground from dropping loads, etc.

Air-dropping is considered more efficient only under certain circumstances: e.g. for a lot of small, urgent packages to aiports within short distance. Other than that, it is discouraged. Having to descend low to drop the cargo more accurately consumes a lot of fuel. Although some would argue that strictly speaking, it is more efficient, they need to consider that flying an unloaded plane back is much less fuel efficient all in all. The cargo becomes more expensive due to the measures that need to be taken to ensure its safe delivery during a hard landing. Also, you have to use a specific kind of aircraft and type of cruising.


They do have temporary liveries.

This is very common in wet lease operators, where an aircraft is flown for an airline during a peak period or when their planes are down for maintenance.

Airlines want customers to feel they are getting the brand-name product they are paying for; they don't want customers to board a generic white jet.

An airplane will be painted and decals applied only for several months.

Just like motor vehicles, 3M makes aircraft film wraps, including models specifically for short-term use .

It is also common to have a livery for a special event, say the Olympics.

You can expect ANA's jet for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics to be returned to normal shortly after the Olympics are over.

You can see Lufthansa and Egyptair dressed their planes up for the World Cup.

Egyptair's photographic livery can only be done by printing onto a decal.

This video shows Alaska Airlines paint essentially an ad for Disneyland and the Cars movie franchise.

They paint the simpler parts like the clouds and the large solid areas, but at 1:28 you can see them apply decals of the characters' faces.

They say it took 29 days to paint.

This is another video where they're simply applying a decal to advertise another movie.

So, no, there is no technical reason not to have a temporary livery and such schemes are done regularly.

It's merely an issue of marketing and customer impressions.

The time needed to apply and remove the advertisements would cost too much money.

As long as the aircraft is on the ground, it cannot earn revenue.

Better to forgo the small profits from ads for larger profits from operating the aircraft.

For a typical urban bus, that plastic foil has to stay on at maybe a max of around 60 mph.

For a commercial jet, it'd have to stay on at 600 mph.

And suppose it starts ripping off and gets tangled in the elevator... 2)

You could repaint the plane at a cost of $50-200

K

How much does it cost to give an airliner a fresh coat of paint?

but the ad would only be seen by the small number of people at the airports, so hardly cost-effective.

Building upon jamesqf answer, I'd like to add: 3)

The number of people seeing bus on the streets while moving between stops could be simplified as sum of traffic size + population working and living along its route.

For every bus you get a very rough estimate of a thousand potential advertisement targets every minute.

And who sees the plane?

Only its passengers when they're boarding.

People waving their goodbyes usually are too far to read the advertisement, not to mention ppl seeing the plane inflight.

That amounts to one to several hundred advertisement targets per several hours, or even whole day in case of longer routes.

The increased cost leads to a fraction of market penetration.

Totally not worth it.

They have been using temporary liveries for decades.

Rock group Yes famously had one produced on film for their US tour in 197x and half way across the Atlantic it started peeling off and flapping towards one of the engines.

YouTube for Rick Wakeman telling this story as he does it so well in his inimitable style

Part of the reason is branding.

A city bus is a city bus, but an airline wants to advertise its own brand with its own livery.

Some people dislike ads, so that could create a negative perception of the airline.

Part of the reason is cost.

An airplane is much larger and more expensive to have out of service.

There's also lower benefit.

Buses with advertisements spend most of their time in the city and on roads, surrounded by people they can advertise to.

Airplanes spend most of their time in the air, where nobody else gets close enough to see them very well for very long.

They do get some exposure near the airport as they are landing or departing, and to people in the terminals.

However, some airlines do put advertising on their planes.

It's usually something with a connection to a flag carrier's country, as with Air New Zealand and The Hobbit, or a partner of the airline.

Airlines will commonly have some aircraft painted in a livery of their alliance.

ANA has had many special liveries, such as Star Wars and Pokemon.

The airline tries to make it as appealing as possible, because in addition to advertising something, they are also drawing attention to their own brand.

There are certainly outliers, though.

Ryanair is famous for eking out every bit of revenue that they can come up with, and advertise throughout the cabin.

They have a history of advertising on their planes , and did announce in 2013 they would be selling advertising space on their planes,

but I couldn't find any recent examples other than partners.

Question: For buses, it’s quite common to have plastic foil with advertisements on them, but I’ve never seen that on an aircraft. Looking at how aggressively some airlines try to save money, they probably already came up with the idea to sell the space on the side of their aircraft for advertisement purposes – so why did they not do it? Is there any technical reason to not have temporary liveries?

Why don’t airliners have temporary liveries?

There is not technical reason why advetising cannot be put on a plane. In fact some airlines do carry advertising for special events like the Olympics for example. However, advertising on the side of a plane is not cost effective. Planes need to fly to make money not stay on the ground being painted. Moreover, planes do not have the visibility of buses as they spend most of their time in the air.

Painting the airplane takes a lot of time, so advertising is often avoided because it is more profitable to keep the plane operating rather than take it out of service to apply the decals. The airlines are also very picky about what they advertize, because it reflects heavily on their brand image. Another reason is that not that many people will be able to see the ad on the plane, so it is not worth the cost on a marketing level. Dispite all this, many airlines put advertising in them, there is no technical reason to forbid it. Sometimes they are painted with their alliance's livery, sometimes they have a special event's or a brand's livery.

Not that many people will be able to see the ad on the plane, so it is not worth the cost on a marketing level.

Many airlines put advertising in them, there is no technical reason to forbid it. Sometimes they are painted with their alliance's livery, sometimes they have a special event's or a brand's livery.

The airlines are very picky about what they advertize, because it reflects heavily on their brand image.


TACA Flight 110 made a deadstick landing on a grass levee.

Engines got replaced and it took off using a nearby NASA facility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

Sure!

An Ex-Interflug Ilyushin Il-62 was landed on the 900 m runway of Stölln/Rhinow airport (EDOR) in the German countryside in 1989 to be turned into a tourist attraction.

Here is a short video of the event.

As can be witnessed from the clouds of dirt, the pilot Heinz-Dieter Kallbach wasn't too concerned about using reverse thrust -

the engines were not meant to run ever again.

If the Dornier Wal counts as a large aeroplane (it certainly did in its time), the two Amundsen airplanes N-24 and N-25 qualify also, one even twice: Both were used in 1925 for an attempt to reach the north pole by air but had to make an emergency landing on ice near the 88th parallel.

Since N-24 had suffered damage during take-off (it had sprung a leak), it was left on the ice when Amundsen and his crew flew back with N-25 after having built an emergency runway in weeks of hard work in which they moved an estimated amount of 500 tons of snow.

N-25 went on to make a historic East-West atlantic crossing in 1930 and was again landed successfully in a location from where it could not take off in 1932 - this time on the snowy banks of Isar river in Munich in order to be put on display in a museum (picture source ).

Another memorable example is the Spantax pilot Rodolfo Bay who in 1967 mistook the Finkenwerder airport for Hamburg Fuhlsbüttel airport.

He landed his Convair Coronado 990 on a runway (1360 m) which was technically too short for the landing (1650 m according to the flight manual).

He even managed to fly the empty bird to Fuhlsbüttel - again with less runway than technically required.

The various Space Shuttle Orbiters did this all the time.

They mostly got piggyback rides back to their launch facilities.

An Aerolineas Argentinas' Boeing 737-200 was hijacked by terrorists in 1975 and made to land in a farm.

The government took 10 days to unstuck the aircraft from the mud and to move and install a makeshift aluminum runway (a mesh-like thing that was usually used for ice operations) and take-off at less than minimum weight.

The first officer was a glider pilot (I knew him personally, although we never spoke about this episode), so he was used to landing on random fields.

A bit different than with a glider, though!

A war-surplus B-17, named "Lacey Lady", was landed on an Oregon highway to be converted into a roadside restaurant and fuel station.

I suppose it could have taken off from there again, if anyone had been suitably inclined… There have also been several incidents where an airliner made an emergency landing on runways or fields that were below normal minimum standards, but by careful management of takeoff weight and other risk factors, was successfully flown out again.

Notable examples include TACA Flight 110 and the wrong-airport landing of the Dreamlifter at Jabara .

A B52 is pretty big right?

When a B52 was acquired by the Imperial War Museum, Duxford (a former second world war airbase now museum with a 1500m runway).

They had to use chutes and a few practice flybys before landing.

It's now on permanent display.

They had to do the same with a Concorde I believe!

Video:

The Alraigo Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident Harrier had to land on a container ship after running out of fuel.

Could potentially have flown it off if refueled and re-watered (for engine cooling in VTOL) but would also have had to be recovered to a suitable position as it slid and landed on top of a van.

Ship ended up sailing into harbour with the jet still on board.

Qantas landed 747 for a museum on a 1800x30m runway.

KLM flew a Fokker 70 to Lelystad (EHLE) airport to become part of the museum collection there.

It wasn't legal to take off from there, though it probably could have managed (business jets use the field at times).

They for a while considered flying a 747 there to the same museum

but this was not done because the runway wasn't strong enough to take the aircraft's weight.

It could have landed within the runway length (damaging the runway in the process), but could never have taken off again.

In the end the 747 was dismantled and transported on barges and trucks, then reassembled at the museum where it still stands today (and can be rented out as a venue for receptions).

Not sure if "large" enough, but most planes from an aircraft carrier need to be "catapulted" in order to takeoff, not just "flown" (although they also usually land with aid from an arrestor)

A Boeing 727-100 was landed at Meigs Field in Chicago (runway length 1,189 m) in 1992.

It was then loaded onto a barge and (eventually) installed as an exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry, where it remains to this day.

It is not clear whether the 727-100 could have taken off again from this runway.

In one of the news interviews linked above, the pilot who landed the plane jokes that if he had to try it, he'd want to chain the airplane down at one end of the runway, run up to full power, and then cut the chain.

Boeing 747 G-BDXJ (wikipedia link) landed in Dunsfold Airfield on 25 May 2005.

Dunsfold runway is listed as 5,496ft (1,675m).

I suppose it may be feasible to take off on that runway, but that wouldn't be easy.

That 747 was never intended to fly again anyway.

How large is "large"?

I grew up just south of E.W. "Cotton" Woods Airport , a 2400' runway in Columbia, MO.

My father told me some time in the 1970s that a jet-powered aircraft (I remember him saying a Learjet, though that could have been him using the name generically) had made an accidental or emergency landing at the airport, and needed to be hauled out on a flatbed after having the wings removed.

A Google search just now did not turn up anything about this, and I don't know how or where to search official incident reports to confirm.

Question: And, what was done with them subsequently?

Have any large aeroplanes been landed — safely and without damage — in locations that they could not be flown away from?

A number of planes have been landed in locations from which they could not take off. Some of them were to be converted into building for other uses such as a museum or tourist attraction. One hijacked plane was made to land in a farm.

There are many instances of such incidents, mainly in cases of planes flown to museums in order to be exhibited or other places where they would be repurposed, or in emergency landings.


Two reasons:

The airplane is extremely versatile, while having adequate performance, and is a good choice when a small airforce needs a do-everything airplane to replace multiple types.

Being designed for carriers, it's overbuilt for normal land operations in many key areas, which means a longer airframe structural life in its much easier life landing on runways.

For an air force with a limited budget and the need to run the airplane a long time, it's worth giving up some of the speed/payload/range that was sacrificed by the structural needs of carrier ops.

Wanting to replace the Dassault Mirage III , and after considering multiple fighters from multiple nations, it boiled down to the F-16 and F/A-18.

The F-16 had engine issues, inferior radar, no long-range missiles and BVR capability, single engine, and was technologically immature at the time.

Note: There were concerns that the larger more sophisticated F-15 could destabilize the region.

The F-16 and F/A-18 by comparison are light fighters .

Further reading on the selection process:

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service (Wikipedia)

Selection of the replacement of the Mirage III was of course carefully considered by the RAAF, and the most suitable airframe was considered for the mission and circumstances typical for a vast, distant and sparsely populated continent:

The fact that it was designed for carrier operation actually was a plus, since it results in a more robust airframe with lower expected corrective maintenance costs.

It was a twin-engine design, and the most suitable one at the time.

The distances between airfields are vast in Australia, and the experience with the single engine Mirage III was that too many were lost after an engine fail.

Why a carrier-capable plane over a land-based plane?

Australia has a history of operating carrier craft beginning in the 1920s.

At the moment there are two helicopter carriers in the Royal Australian Navy, but no full-deck carriers since the retirement of HMAS Melbourne in 1982.

However, Australia is surrounded by a lot of water, and lacks land borders with any other nation.

(map below)

It is possible that carriers may return.

The F/A 18 had an estimated service life of 20 to 30 years (depends on the source) based on 100 carrier landings a year Source .

So its not unreasonable that a carrier could be ordered and delivered and commissioned while FA-18 were still serviceable.

The FA-18 order was announced on 20 October 1981, source which overlaps the in-service years of the HMAS Melbourne .

For the "and others", the documents from Finland have become public as the secrecy period of 25 years has recently been passed.

In a major military deal, there are always technological, economical and political aspects.

There were five candidates: Russian MIG-29 Swedish JAS 39 Gripen French

MIRAGE 2000

-5 General Dynamics F-16 (USA) McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (USA) The Finnish Air Force tested all candidates between summer 1991 and winter 1992.

The Hornet was considered clearly better than the others.

It had the best range, mission time and could carry the biggest missile load.

These are important factors for Finland, which is geographically a large country.

Air Force saw Hornet as modern and it had good development potential.

Development costs were shared by many nations.

F-16 did not fulfill all the performance requirements from the Air Force.

In addition, proposed participation of the Finnish aviation industry was not seen as adequate.

At the time of decision, the production line of F-16 was closing.

Gripen and especially many of it's critical components were still in prototype stage.

The system was seen as too immature and hence the JAS was rejected as being too risky.

Swedes expected that Finland would take part in the development costs, though it was not known how much costs there ultimately would be.

Mirage did fulfill Air Forces requirements and was considered as a really good plane for the pilot.

However, the maintenance system was seen as difficult and it was feared that maintenance costs would be high due to low number of users.

MIG-29's electronics and maintenance systems did not fulfill requirements.

Lifetime of the plane was half from that of the others.

MIG-29 was by far most expensive considering both purchase price and operating costs over 30 year period.

Politically, buying the MIG would have meant co-operation between Finland and Russia, and this type of co-operation was seen as undesirable by the government.

Selecting the F-18 was a decision and signal towards co-operation with the west.

During the cold war Finland was not part of the eastern block, but being a neighboring country of Soviet Union, did experience quite a bit pressure from the east.

The Russian economic crash following the collapse of Soviet Union was a major issue, too.

There was no guarantee that the country would be able to deliver the planes.

In hindsight, the decision to choose F/A-18 has been considered as excellent.

Especially, the risks with JAS did realize, the offered B-version of the plane has been considered as a failure.

Source: https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/201707022200238131 (in Finnish)

There is a very limited selection of affordable 2-engined fighter aircraft (and the selection was even more limited in the time frame of these acquisitions).

Some countries (Canada, Australia) have large uninhabited areas and their air forces prefer the added safety of a second engine.

This limited Australia's choices to F-15 or F-18.

Question: Why did the Royal Australian Air Force (and others) procure the F/A-18 despite being purpose-built for carriers?

Why did the RAAF procure the F/A-18 despite being purpose-built for carriers?

The airplane is extremely versatile, while having adequate performance, and is a good choice when a small airforce needs a do-everything airplane to replace multiple types.  Some countries (Canada, Australia) have large uninhabited areas and their air forces prefer the added safety of a second engine. Selection of the replacement of the Mirage III was of course carefully considered by the RAAF, and the most suitable airframe was considered for the mission and circumstances  typical for a vast, distant and sparsely populated continent.

In areas like Australia where there are big distances to be covered over sparsely populated areas, this type of aircraft is more efficient and since the F-18 is so versatile, it can replace multiple other types of aircraft. Also, the fact that it was designed for carriers makes it more robust, with lower maintenance cost and added convenience benefits. In some European countries, it was a way to turn to the west. It can also be argued that there was a limited selection of twin-engine aircraft and it was the most appropriate choice. All in all, it is considered a good decision to pick F/A-18s.

The fact that it was designed for carriers makes it more robust, with lower maintenance cost and added convenience benefits.

There was a limited selection of twin-engine aircraft and it was the most appropriate choice.