Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Decides About V1  
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

I just wanted to hear how V-1 is calculated. I know that it is the speed after which an aborted takeoff may not be attempted anymore as there is not enough runway length available.

I just want to hear which factor ultimately decides about V-1. I guess runway length is decisive, so let's assume you take off with a slightly loaded 757 at full power on a cold day on the longest runway of Denver. Is there a temperature above which one the brakes could not brake an airplane to complete stop, so that the brakes will set V-1, or is it always the runway length that is decisive?

With other words, can an airplane get so fast that the brakes will be unable to stop the airplane as they get too hot to brake anymore? Or is runway length the only factor in calculating V-1?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

Aircraft weight/mass is just as important in determining V1. In fact, it is probably more important. At my company we receive performance charts for the flight which is about to occur. On these charts we have all the legal runways we can use and all the weights and temps we can expect. There is also a maximum V1 speed listed on this chart.

Aircraft performance is a very complex (but interesting) thing and there are many factors, but the most important regarding V1 would be weight and runway length.

Others, including the very knowledgeable Mr. SlamClick, will surely have something to add which I have undoubtedly left out.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3498 times:

Flap setting is another factor. I had forgotten about this one.


smrtrthnu
User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Here are a few:

Aircraft weight
Thrust setting
Headwind
Temperature
Runway length
Runway slope
Flaps
Slats
Whether air conditioning and anti-ice are on/off/partial
Runway condition (dry, wet, water, slush, snow, etc.)
Any equipment used to start/steer/stop on the aircraft inop -- many, many things can affect this (anti-skid, nosewheel steering, ground spoilers, thrust reversers, auto-brakes, speed brakes, excessive brake wear, etc.)

And how do they do such a complicated calculation each time? Some of them still carry tables for each runway with corrections for what can't fit on the tables, but some do it this way:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Werner



User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

In addition to those mentioned above, runway condition is also taken into account. For a wet runway or one covered with slush V1 is lower. Maybe Slamclick, Cx Flyboy and company can elaborate more.  

Allow me to raise an issue. I suppose an aircraft would continue to accelerate at the intial abort maneuver. I recall reading that the captain of an aircraft aborted the takeoff exactly at V1 but it takes time for the engines to get into reverse thrust and hence possibly delaying the activation of other systems/devices that would decelerate the aircraft. The captain only managed to have the aircraft at full deceleration at a speed of 10 knots above V1. I would like to ask is that whether this is taken into account when calculating V1? How would one or the system know the window for this "overspeed"? I can't be sure about this but I suppose V1 is calculated also based on maximum braking possibile by the aircraft and pilot. However, is it difficult to apply maximum brakes and obtain positive directional control simultaneously? In many cases we've seen braking to this extent will result in blown tires resulting in brake failures. Would all this factors lead to an overrun? I suppose when aborting at or close to V1 these factors are a cause for concern?

Apologies for so many questions at a time but all responses appreciated, thanks in advance!

Mr.BA

[Edited 2005-11-10 08:23:24]


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3445 times:

Quoting 3201 (Reply 3):
Runway condition (dry, wet, water, slush, snow, etc.)



Quoting Mr.BA (Reply 4):
In addition to those mentioned above, runway condition is also taken into account. For a wet runway or one covered with slush

Did I miss something?  Smile

Quoting Mr.BA (Reply 4):
it takes time for the engines to get into reverse thrust and hence possibly delaying the activation of other systems/devices that would decelerate the aircraft... is it difficult to apply maximum brakes and obtain positive directional control simultaneously?

These are certainly taken into account for aircraft where certain systems are not working -- anti-skid, auto-braking, etc. The calculations are different for every airframe/engine combination, and presumably these factors are included in the calucations for a fully healthy aircraft as well.

Quoting TheSonntag (Thread starter):
With other words, can an airplane get so fast that the brakes will be unable to stop the airplane as they get too hot to brake anymore? Or is runway length the only factor in calculating V-1?

Forgot to answer this one before. Depending on what else is going on, the max *weight* for takeoff can be limited by the field, tire speed, obstacles, brake energy, climb (without obstacles), or, for your dream airport (infinitely long runway with no obstacles), the structural limit. How many of these can limit V1? I'd guess field, tires, and brake energy, but I don't know that definitively. The answer to your question, though, is almost certainly yes.


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

The others are right. There are many factors. Something which will limit V1 quite strongly is the runway condition. A wet or contaminated runway will have a very large impact on the aircraft's ability to stop, thus lowering the V1 speed quite a bit.

All of the factors mentioned above play a role. It is much more than just runway length.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3393 times:

Well, I don't have time this morning to do a bunch of typing so here are two of my replies (applicable to US rules) from this thread:

Takeoff Speeds/Other Question (by Vikkyvik Aug 21 2005 in Tech Ops)

My reply #2


The establishment of V1 for an airplane is done (at various weights etc.) by the manufacturer under the provisions of FAR 25.107

It is established in relation to VEF which is a theoretical engine failure speed and VMCG which is the minimum speed at which you can maintain directional control [on the ground, with] the critical engine failed and the other producing takeoff thrust.

It does not have anything directly to do with runway length. Rather, runway length required is limited by the distance needed to accelerate to VEF, lose an engine, accelerate an additional two seconds on one engine (recognition time) then reject the takeoff using any means that is "safe and reliable." which normally means brakes only.

If you have FAR AIM For Flight Crew published by ASA, Part 25 is included therein. Otherwise you can get the FARs online.

You will find the descriptions of all the takeoff speeds. Somewhat technical.

And my reply #10


You are correct. It also applies to some other factors and they are logical if you give them some thought:

Runway Slope: Harder to stop a plane going downhill. Reduce V1 to allow more stopping distance.

Headwind / Tailwind: Easy to stop plane into wind, increase V1. Harder to stop with tailwind so decrease V1.

Anti-skid inop: Less brake effectiveness, make decision to stop sooner, reduce V1.

Thrust reverser on MEL: Your takeoff performance was not based on use of reverse thrust, so no change to V1.

Now V2 is an in-flight, indicated airspeed so there is not much that will change it, other than gross weight, configuration (flaps) and density altitude. It is very rare to find adjustments to V2 in aircraft performance charts.

* * *


I'd really suggest that you go and read that entire thread. There is good stuff posted there by several people and even my two posts above will make more sense in context.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3386 times:

Thank you again everybody for your great replies!

User currently offlineVuelingAirbus From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

I have one additional remark to make. The reason for a lower V1 on a wet (not contaminated) runways is the lowered screen height above the runway end (15 versus 35 feet) in case of engine failure. On wet runway you can take reversers into account which are not taken into account on dry runways. This can lead to a higher maximum allowed take off weight and therefore a so called dry check must be done (which basically means you compare dry and wet performance and if the wet performance is better than the dry performance is limiting - even/especially on wet runways).

regds


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Quoting VuelingAirbus (Reply 9):

JAA rules? Doesn't sound familiar to me.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineVuelingAirbus From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

IEM OPS 1.495(a). Take-off obstacle clearance. See JAR-OPS 1.495(a)
1. In accordance with the definitions used in preparing the take-off distance and take-off flight path Data provided in the Aeroplane Flight Manual:
a. The net take-off flight path is considered to begin at a height of 35 ft above the runway or clearway at the end of the take-off distance determined for the aeroplane in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) below.


b. The take-off distance is the longest of the following distances:
i. 115% of the distance with all engines operating from the start of the take-off to the point at which the aeroplane is 35 ft above the runway or clearway; or
ii. The distance from the start of the take-off to the point at which the aeroplane is 35 ft above the runway or clearway assuming failure of the critical engine occurs at the point corresponding to the decision speed (V1) for a dry runway; or


iii. If the runway is wet or contaminated, the distance from the start of the take-off to the point at which the aeroplane is 15 ft above the runway or clearway assuming failure of the critical engine occurs at the point corresponding to the decision speed (V1) for a wet or contaminated runway.


2. JAR-OPS 1.495(a) specifies that the net take-off flight path, determined from the data provided in the Aeroplane Flight Manual in accordance with sub-paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) above, must clear all relevant obstacles by a vertical distance of 35 ft. When taking off on a wet or contaminated runway and an engine failure occurs at the point corresponding to the decision speed (V1) for a wet or contaminated runway, this implies that the aeroplane can initially be as much as 20 ft below the net take-off flight path in accordance with sub-paragraph 1 above and, therefore, may clear close-in obstacles by only 15 ft. When taking off on wet or contaminated runways, the operator should exercise special care with respect to obstacle assessment, especially if a take-off is obstacle limited and the obstacle density is high.


User currently offlineVuelingAirbus From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
JAA rules? Doesn't sound familiar to me.

The fact that it does not sound familiar to you does not mean anything. I don't want to blame you. But as a retired Airline Pilot you should know the different performance calculations for wet versus dry runway. it is basic knowledge and every performance manual points out the importance of a dry check (definition see below)

JAR–OPS 1.490 Take-off

[...] (5) On a wet or contaminated runway, the
take-off mass must not exceed that permitted for a
take-off on a dry runway under the same
conditions. [...]

And the reason why they have implemented this subparagraph is because the minimum obstacle clearance height in case of engine failure and wet/contaminated runway is 20 feet lower than on a dry runway under the same conditions.

[Edited 2005-11-11 03:26:38]

User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting Mr.BA (Reply 4):
I recall reading that the captain of an aircraft aborted the takeoff exactly at V1 but it takes time for the engines to get into reverse thrust and hence possibly delaying the activation of other systems/devices that would decelerate the aircraft. The captain only managed to have the aircraft at full deceleration at a speed of 10 knots above V1. I would like to ask is that whether this is taken into account when calculating V1?

FAR 25.109 requires the accelerate-stop distance to include the distance covered in two seconds at V1 on a dry runway. This helps take into account crew reaction time and the issues you brought up.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
JAA rules? Doesn't sound familiar to me.

FAR 25.113



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Quoting VuelingAirbus (Reply 12):
The fact that it does not sound familiar to you does not mean anything. I don't want to blame you. But as a retired Airline Pilot you should know the different performance calculations for wet versus dry runway. it is basic knowledge and every performance manual points out the importance of a dry check (definition see below)

JAR–OPS 1.490 Take-off

[...] (5) On a wet or contaminated runway, the
take-off mass must not exceed that permitted for a
take-off on a dry runway under the same
conditions. [...]

You say I "should know" this stuff then you go on and quote JAR stuff. No I should not know that anymore than you should know Russian rules.

I operated my entire career including thousands of hours outside the United States under US FARs. When addressing questions like these from people outside the US I usually make point out that I am making reference to US regulations. This is because I understand that they might not be familiar with my rules.

Let me make it perfectly clear - the JAR rules are utterly irrelevant to domestic US operations.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):
my replies (applicable to US rules)

Believe me, I am well acquainted with the effects on aircraft performance of various types of moisture on runways.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineVuelingAirbus From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
You say I "should know" this stuff then you go on and quote JAR stuff.

Well - I quoted JAR because it was easier to find for me since i work and live in Europe. And yes you should know because JAR and FAR are the same in that case (look up FAR 25.113 (b)). Its not only a JAA rule, it is also a FAA rule. I have an JAA ATPL (A) and a FAA CPL. I am sorry to disapoint you but even in the US you have a screenheight of only 15 feet above runway surface
on a wet runway as long as you can clear obstacles BEHIND the runway by at least 35 feet. On a dry runway you have a sceenheight of 35 feet and you must clear obstacles BEHIND the runway by 35 feet as well.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14):
Believe me, I am well acquainted with the effects on aircraft performance of various types of moisture on runways.

I do not doubt that you do. I am saying that you might have missed something during your career. Dealing with performance charts which include wet conditions does not imply you have to be 100 % familiar with all underlying regulatory requirenments, but in this case US rules are the same rules as Europen rules.

RGDS


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

Quoting VuelingAirbus (Reply 15):
Well - I quoted JAR because it was easier to find for me since i work and live in Europe.

That is probably wise. I reference US FARs for much the same reason, but I say so in my post if there is any chance that will be unclear. As below:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):
(applicable to US rules)

I consider this to be very necessary in a multi-national forum, and a service and courtesy to our readers. Not all who ask questions here or read the answers are air transport professionals.

Now, as to this:

Quoting VuelingAirbus (Reply 15):
And yes you should know because JAR and FAR are the same in that case (look up FAR 25.113 (b)).

Here is FAR 25.113 in its entirety:


§25.113 Takeoff Distance
and takeoff run.


(a) Takeoff distance is the greater of -
(1) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path
from the start of the takeoff to the point at
which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff
surface, determined under §25.111; or
(2) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along
the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from
the startt of the takeoff to the point at which the
airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as
determined by a procedure consistent with
§25.111.

(b) If the takeoff distance includes a clearway,
the takeoff run is the greater of -
(1) The horizontal distance along the takeoff
path from the start of the takeoff to a point equidistant
between the point at which VLOF is reached and the
point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff
surface, determined under §25.111; or
(2) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the
takeoff path, with all engines operating from the start of
the takeoff to a point equidistant between the point at
which VLOF is reached and the point at which the airplane
is 35 feet above the takeoff surface determined by a
procedure consistent with §25.111.

[Docket No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964 as
amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5671, Apr. 8, 1970]



Nowhere in there does it mention wet runways or "screen height."

Perhaps you would like to take a moment and refresh your memory as to the regulation you actually did mean.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3140 times:

SlamClick, I think you have an older version of the regulation. Here is 25.113 from the government's own website. This version shows an amendment in February of 1998, while yours shows April of 1970. Here is a link to 14 CFR: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...l=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl


Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart B—Flight
Performance


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 25.113 Takeoff distance and takeoff run.
(a) Takeoff distance on a dry runway is the greater of—

(1) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a dry runway; or

(2) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.

(b) Takeoff distance on a wet runway is the greater of—

(1) The takeoff distance on a dry runway determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; or

(2) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 15 feet above the takeoff surface, achieved in a manner consistent with the achievement of V2 before reaching 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a wet runway.

(c) If the takeoff distance does not include a clearway, the takeoff run is equal to the takeoff distance. If the takeoff distance includes a clearway—

(1) The takeoff run on a dry runway is the greater of—

(i) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to a point equidistant between the point at which VLOF is reached and the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined under §25.111 for a dry runway; or

(ii) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to a point equidistant between the point at which VLOF is reached and the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.

(2) The takeoff run on a wet runway is the greater of—

(i) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 15 feet above the takeoff surface, achieved in a manner consistent with the achievement of V2 before reaching 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined under §25.111 for a wet runway; or

(ii) 115 percent of the horizontal distance along the takeoff path, with all engines operating, from the start of the takeoff to a point equidistant between the point at which VLOF is reached and the point at which the airplane is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined by a procedure consistent with §25.111.

[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25–23, 35 FR 5671, Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25–92, 63 FR 8320, Feb. 18, 1998]



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineVuelingAirbus From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16):
Perhaps you would like to take a moment and refresh your memory as to the regulation you actually did mean.

I get the impression that you are a little stubborn. Other than that i was refering to the right regulation. I would recomend to check your sources as there are expanded regulations (same like expanded checklists on FCOM). I posted here the applicable paragraphes of FAR 25.113 dealing with wet runway situation. Read it yourself! I believe you will not trust me so I will also add the corresponding link. Should you still not be convinced i recoomend that you contact your local FAA office and tell them you disagree with their regulations. Other than that I am more than open to a serious discussion about performance issues.

[...]

(b) Takeoff distance on a wet runway is the greater of --

(1) The takeoff distance on a dry runway determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; or

(2) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 15 feet above the takeoff surface, achieved in a manner consistent with the achievement of V2 before reaching 35 feet above the takeoff surface, determined under §25.111 for a wet runway.

[...]

(2) The takeoff run on a wet runway is the greater of --

(i) The horizontal distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which the airplane is 15 feet above the takeoff surface, achieved in a manner consistent with the achievement of V2 before reaching 35 feet above the takeoff surface, as determined under §25.111 for a wet runway [...]

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-113-FAR.shtml

I hope that finally convinced you...

RGDS

[Edited 2005-11-11 23:03:13]

User currently offlineVuelingAirbus From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 17):
SlamClick, I think you have an older version of the regulation. Here is 25.113 from the government's own website. This version shows an amendment in February of 1998, while yours shows April of 1970. Here is a link to 14 CFR: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...2.tpl

Thanx Alias. As I was posting I saw that you beat me to it. I am glad that there are others who check the accurancy of their claims.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

My apologies. I do indeed have an out-of-date copy of FAR Part 25. It is dated 1998 but obviously did not include the revision, which must have been distributed later that year.


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineVuelingAirbus From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3107 times:

I am sorry too if I might have sounded rude. Next time I will try to find and post all relevant items right away so that things don't get out of control. Aviation is a changing environment and i guess those "wet"-runway limitations got lifted under the pressure of many airlines. With the lower screen height and the use of reverse thrust for the calculation you can find yourself in a position where you would be able to take off with a higher MATOW on a wet/contaminated runway compared to a dry runway. To prevent this you must perform a dry check and in some countries the old 35 feet rule still applies (e.g. Australia). Hope all is settled now.

RGDS


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What Decides About V1
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Awin And 3DTV, What's New About It? posted Wed May 24 2000 00:21:35 by Cricri
Training Pilot About To Do Heavy Landing? Do What? posted Sun May 21 2006 19:36:33 by JulianUK
Tyre Burst Just Before Take Off V1 - Do What? posted Sat May 20 2006 23:45:51 by JulianUK
Pilots- What Irritates You About ATC? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 18:36:32 by N766UA
What Are The Different Vs (V1 V2) On Takeoffs? posted Wed Dec 28 2005 06:44:43 by ATCme
What Was The Captain Talking About? posted Sun Sep 18 2005 22:20:34 by Zweed
Ignorance About Glare - What Is It? posted Sat Apr 16 2005 11:39:51 by Art
Can somebody explain to me what the Localizer is all about? posted Mon Jan 19 2004 08:42:27 by BrodieBrazil
Split Controls: What The Heck Is This About! posted Tue Feb 12 2002 07:34:31 by Cdfmxtech
L1011: What's So Special About The Aircraft? posted Wed Aug 29 2001 02:22:26 by Cdfmxtech

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format