I love how you care about your subscribers, your explanations are easy to follow and in-depth, giving all the information we want to hear in a short time. I have said it before, going to say it again: fantastic channel.
I'm one of your 'general public' subscribers, only subscribed a few weeks ago, and still catching up on old videos. I actually really enjoy the technical ones, and the disaster analyses. I don't normally watch disaster videos, but I like your 'what did we learn from this' attitude. I've no particular interest in aviation in general, but I enjoy listening to an expert sharing their expertise, and sometimes I go and research a little further on a technical point.
I think this sort of discussion is a fantastic use of youtube. There will be a wealth of flight experience out there, ranging from the nervous flyer, through the confident but uninformed traveller, the semi informed enthusiast (which would be me) all the way up to pilots, trainers, cabin crew and, I dare say, engineers & manufacturers. Your style covers us all with the same message: the pilots are the ones in control, merely using the available technologies to assist you. Spreading the message that the autopilot still needs to be programmed and constantly tweaked & monitored is, in my opinion, the way to ensure we the travelling public understand your skills. It will also hopefully build our respect that you had to work hard to do what you do, and that you are constantly retraining and scrutinising your methods. Top marks.
Still fly the aircraft. Auto is not a robot. It needs human input. It just gives the pilot relief to not have as much pulling & pushing the yoke during flight.
very informative. I always noticed as pilots switched to auto pilot, they kept fiddling with other instruments or kept watching other monitors or gauges. Props to pilots. My life is in their hands
Thanks for your clear explanation of how the autopilot assists the human pilots. I was an engineering lab technician who helped develop the SP50 Autopilot (AFCS - Automatic Flight Control System) for the 727 and DC-9 aircraft. It was a most rewarding project, the first such systems using solid-state electronics. The autopilot also "smooths the road" by sensing changes in roll, pitch, and yaw and applying correcting trim signals. Consider what happens to the balance of the aircraft when a passenger gets up and walks to the toilet.
I like the way you explain things. I was working for a private license some time ago but only got a little past Solo. Ran out of money, job change. I do fly airlines to go see family. I understand some of the things but there are so many new things and it has been 30 year now, and the past 30 year has made a lot of changes!
Hello Sir this is Abhisek from India I am not a pilot but an aviation lover, thanks for all the great knowledge that you guys are spreading in across the world thanks once again
I think the correct answer is: A lighter aircraft is easier to descend. My reasoning for the answer is because a lighter aircraft can be slowed down much faster than a heavy aircraft. looking forward to finding out if if my answer is correct... I would like to also add to my comment that I think your time, work & efforts producing these videos is a wonderful gift to ALL aviation enthusiasts! Sadly for me and a complement to you - I wish that I had you as a mentor when I was of school age and choosing my future. I would have been a great pilot! Keep up the great work for the young future pilots & middle age aviation enthusiasts like me... You are terrific!
I don't think the video about autopilot modes ever happened. I'd love to see a video about what all the different modes are, and why they are used in certain circumstances. What do you think the next autopilot innovation will be?
You give the best explanations I have ever heard, clean, clear, structured and thoroughly explained. I understand even those that are meant for pilots. I will make sure to contribute somehow when I can.
Also …you have at least one professional airline pilot….36 years at Continental / United B -777 last 15 years …also B-737…DC-10…B-727 engineer. At the commuters…BE-90…BE-1900…ATR-42. Great channel…Great information…I watch your videos a lot…Great job.
Enjoying your podcast from Nigeria. I worked with Virgin Nigeria back then and i have always admired flying and aviators generally. Keep up the good work.
I am just a sim pilot and enthusiast of aviation. My guess is the lighter aircraft, The drag created to descend would have more effect on the aircraft, assuming your talking about the same aircraft heavy or light. This would allow a higher rate of descent due to less energy from the weight of the aircraft. It would also allow you to fly a little slower. That is my guess. Thank you for all of your podcast. I realize this one is 4 years old but I'm trying to get around to all of them.
Thank you for this channel. I am one of those subscribers that is just fascinated by flying, aircraft and the airline industry. Your channel is excellent and answers all of the questions I could and have ever thought of (so far) about flying. I also love the commercial aircraft industry and am constantly comparing commercial aircraft models. Recently took my first flight on a 787 (-9). Probably the smoothest flight I've ever experienced. Please keep the videos coming sir !!!
Hey Mr. Mentour! Thanks for sharing all your knowledge with us aviation fans. Answering to your question: My naive impression is that a larger aircraft has more weight and drag, and therefore it should be more stable do descend and be affected by winds to a lesser degree. Can't wait to see your podcast.
18 min is usually a bit longer longer than your other videos. However it didn't feel longer. And I really learned a lot about the autopilot. You explained it easy and good.
I am not a pilot, just aviation fan. Your explanations are very clear and I also like the items you choose to bring up. I would like to have more visual info like animations, or cockpit\simulator videos, to make your explanations more tangible. It is lacking in some of your videos,like this one for example.Thank you!
Well put, keep doing what you are doing 2 years old, 50K views, 16 dislikes: You are doing it right! I like how you care about your subscribers, Thanks again!
Your podcasts on flight are very interesting. Ever since I took a vacation to Kitty Hawk, SC. Here in the US and visited the Wright Brothers' sites where they "discovered" flight I've been hooked on the subject of airplanes and the science of flight. Your videos are very cool. 💙 them all.
Request: Video disinguishing between "Flight Director" and "Auto-pilot", maybe even distinguishing between Boeing's auto-pilot and FMC assumptions and usage vs. Airbus vs. Embraer vs. Bombardier, etc.
Having watched a few of these videos by both you and Captain Joe I've developed an appreciation for how complex a modern airliners internal systems are, and how challenging the external working environment actually is. Being an airline pilot requires a huge amount of knowledge, but... in the worst case scenario and the pilots were incapacitated for some reason, how much knowledge would an ordinary person ideally need to have in order to have a decent chance of landing an airliner, given that they had communication with air traffic control, and all the airplanes systems were working properly? If it was a days training in a top of the line simulator I reckon you'd have a queue of people a mile long! Similar to how people buy/gift rally car racing days etc.
"Do we need pilots when we have autopilot?" => Same reasons we still need DRIVERS even for automobiles with CRUISE control. Even (so-called) "autonomous automobiles" (aka: self-driving cars) sometimes need "A Nut Behind the Wheel." "Sometimes, "Charlie" can fly the plane," but only sometimes, because "Charlie's not the smartest chip in the circuit board".
Thank you for all you do for us flight enthusaists Captain . my answer to that question is , when landing I would think about both , landing the plane and TOGA or go around if things are funny , so A heavy plane would scare me and a lighter one have better cances at both .
As a flight simmer, I prefer to land the larger airline planes. They tend to be more stable on the approach and it is easier to monitor the glide slope. Smaller aircraft may not be equipped with ILS instrumentation and the DC 3, for instance, can be fun to land manually but the approach may be harder to monitor.
As you use manual landing I notice a lot of back and forth up and down movement of the yoke. Can you explain why that is? I'm not an aviation pro or piolet just blown away by the responsibility your job requires and how you do it so calmly. Love your videos! Thank You!
AP can set heading, set altitude, sometimes set speed. also attitude hold. it's more of a cruise control really. some can switch waypoints automagically as you fly over them and then set a new steering heading.
i think a lighter air plane is easier to land because it responds faster to changes in steering. the heavier airplanes you have to think much further ahead in steering before responding. Looking forward to your answer :-)
Thank you very much for your work. I’m zäthe middle category I was dreaming of being a pilot,but life is hard, but I still love to be a pilot and knowing what goes around in the cockpit.I want you to know that I wach your videos everyday!steve from Greece
Thanks for this latest video. You have answered a question I had about disengaging the autopilot on final approach in the simulator.. I have usually done this at about 200 ft above touchdown, You mentioned that "Minimums' is the time that you disengage. I shall follow your advice in future.
***** I would say heavier, and my theory is it has less sensitive control over it which in turn will give you a broader stage for subtle changes to the aircraft. As well as it is less affected by environmental conditions such as crosswind. Wonder if I'm right..
answering your question, I would say it does not matter as the procedure is the same. I would say, il's more a question of slowing down by using flaps and on the ground high automatic brakes when thrust reversing
I'd say a heavier aircraft is easier to land. Two reasons, first, it would not be as susceptible to local weather gusts/cross wind changes etc. Second, being heavier you what have to input more changes to move the aircraft so it would not be as 'touchy'. i.e. on a very small plan a 10 rpm change in the engine might be the difference between taxing and takeoff. Now, this video is 2.5 years old, which of your videos has the answers? I love your work and explanations. I'm a structural engineer and have been thickening of doing the same sort of videos for young university student engineers.
I'm part of the "general public", and I just want you to keep doing what you're doing. I'm learning a lot, and that helps me relax more when flying. Fear of the unknown, etc. Love your videos, love your app. Thanks! As an afterthought, is there a way the average person can go to a flight simulator? See what it's like to fly a Cessna, or a turbo prop, different aircraft. That would be a good video.
Thanks for these videos. I've never flown a plane in my life but now feel that if the pilot dies during my next flight I'l be able to take over and land the plane safely. I don't think I could cope with engines failing or falling off!!!
Kind of a malformed question, but if we're talking about a 1 ton Cessna vs. a 300 ton 777 and specifically about the situation you described about ATC giving you a direct to your FAF and being too high, then the Cessna is definitely the easier one to just grab by the scruff and manhandle it. I can always just stab throttle, stomp on the rudder, give it tons of opposite aileron and forward slip my way down. If you're going 350 KTAS and your turning circle is the size of a small country, then you've got to think darn fast. Basically, my point is that the distinction is more about "fast vs slow" rather than "light vs heavy".
***** Ah, right, so we're talking same airframe, different loadout? In that case I'd go with the light loadout case being easier, although it really depends on what you consider makes a descent "easy" and also what airframe we're talking about. Principally a descent is an intentional loss of (potential) energy and in an airplane that can really only be arranged by way of drag. In normal operating conditions, airframe drag is a function of total mass. However, drag doesn't increase linearly with mass. I can't talk about the 737, but I do range have real data for the 757, and at the same range, as ZFW increases, fuel increases slower. So at, say, 120000 lbs ZFW, you're looking at around 50000 lbs to go 3000nm. At 170000 lbs ZFW, it'll go up, but only to 64000 lbs. So for a 41% increase in ZFW, you're only talking about a 28% increase in fuel consumption (which principally is caused by drag). However, as you know, the potential energy of an object is directly and linearly dependent on mass. So an airplane twice as heavy doesn't experience twice the drag (at least this is the case with the 757, and I imagine with most modern airliners). Speedbrake energy dissipation capability is unaffected by loadout. They put out the same amount of drag, no matter if the airplane is lightly loaded, or heavily loaded. So it's a question of who can lose potential energy the quickest. Lastly, however, is the question of descent strategy and what you subjectively consider "easier". Is a shallower, slower descent "easier"? Is the ability to steeply drop the airplane on request "easier"?
***** If we're talking about the same distance, same altitude and same initial speed, then the answer is clear. A lightly loaded airplane has a higher energy dissipation capability relative to its total energy and as such has a far higher braking reserve available when compared to a heavily loaded airframe.
Thanks for all the info you provide. You kept referring to your presentation as a podcast...as in audio oriented? Otherwise, as feedback, I miss the sofa and the dogs. I could have used some graphics to portray some of what you were saying. I’m fascinated with learning about flying a plane even though it may never happen. Explanation of all the systems....elevators, rudders, TCAS, etc. is very interesting. Regarding your question....I know nothing so I’ll follow my own logic and go with a heavy aircraft because light planes seem easier to be affected by wind, stalling, etc. Thank you so much for being interested in our needs.
Hi very interesting videos. I am just an aviation enthusiast who likes to visit the airport viewing area with a scanner to listen in. Just one thing I did see and that is I visited the cockpit of a tristar in the 1990s roughly midway between the UK and Kenya. And the flight crew were playing cards lol.
Thank you very much for this instruction, sir. I personally hope to be a future pilot aiming for the B-777. Future video Suggestions: Day in the life of a pilot How to deal with being a pilot. Is the pay good?
Dear Captain, would appreciate your answers for these questions: (1) In some plane crashes the captain is not the one handling the plane but co-pilot or first officer. Possibly the captain is on the break or taking a nap. The question is why he don't go and take control of the airplane until it is too late? (2) Communication gap or synchronization between captain and co-pilot is an issue in several crashes. Why typically both are not updating each other about what maneuver they are doing in order to NOT cancel out each other's action? (3) Some non-English speaking pilot fail to interpret communication from English speaking ATC, resulting in disaster. Don't you think they should be permitted to fly only if they have enough verbal English communication and interpretation skills? (4) The aircraft with 4 engines are safer then the one with 2? If yes, why? If no, why? (5) What are the chances of survival if both the engines fail? And how? (6) How far a plane can glide without any engine?
1: If you are talking about the Air France 447 crash, then it was simply too late. The Captain entered the cockpit, but he was not aware the plane was stalling. None of the pilots were. 2: Well they should. You always communicate with the other pilot, instead of doing something on your own. This is just pilot error. 3: I would blame the airline. English is the aviation language. 4: A 737 can fly with one engine. The chance of them both failing is very slim. 5: Well, depends. If you're on the middle of the ocean, then you're fucked pretty much. But there have been incidents where pilots managed to glide a plane to a safe landing with both engines out. Air Canada 143 and Air Transat flight. 6: It depends on which plane, what altitude, and what weight.
I love this program so much a train pilot must learn more and more and keep updated with more information even if he's a pilot he must keep studying and taking more information about flying an airplane updating a flying is more important than flying itself thank you very much for your efforts explaining how to opparate an aircraft as much as we learn we still need more learning even as an experienced pilot
Heavier aircraft are easier to to land with a proper setup. Greater inertia provides greater stability for proper configuration and accurate approach. However, that same inertia (e.g. delay spooling up fanjets) makes response MUCH slower than a Cessna 172 when avoiding geese over the Hudson.River, crabbing in crosswind or compensating for changes in approach. (Just guessing. I'm available to observe in your jump set, whenever you want to demonstrate.).
thank you for your insight into autopilot usage. I only have a few hours in a cessna 172 from many years back but I have been following reports of aviation crashes. I have noticed that in too many cases, the autopilot was a large factor in the crash. Examples include the Max crashes, the AA 757 to Cali, the Asiana flight into San Fran and the Sukhoi superjet demo flight among others. To be fair, there have been crashes which could have been avoided with an A/P but these seem to have been caused by poor stick and rudder skills which are related to the "roboplane" craze. If I was able to get back into flying, I would use GPS at all times but only use the A/P in straight and level cruise. Is that a realistic goal and would an airline allow me to do that?
I think it's easier to descend a heavy one and land than a light one because light ones are susceptible to crosswinds and tend to have better/quick lift.... at least from the flight videos I've watched.
As a nonpilot, but is very interested in avation, i will assume/ guessestimate an heavy aircraft would be easier to land... it would be more difficult for the lighter to land because it tendency want to" more float/ floaty than a heavier craft.. In my occupation, tanker driver, a heavier truck is easier to stop than a lighter/ bobtail( without a trailer/ tanker)...
I think it's easier to descend a light aircraft. It can be landed easy with VFR, unlike the heavy ones and requires shorter runways. And if it stalls, it's easier to recover controll, I guess. Big planes have more limited bank and pitch up angles. You can't loop a 737 or an a320...
During the descent, the aircraft's glide slope ratio will vary, and with it, the component of the aircraft's weight acting along the flight path, a propulsive force. The difference between gravitational propulsive force and the aerodynamic drag force produced by the wings and selected flap configuration needs to be carefully controlled in order to maintain the appropriate rate of deceleration. As its glide slope ratio varies along a prescribed trajectory, a lighter aircraft will experience smaller changes in the propulsive component of its weight. So the aerodynamic drag force required to bleed off airspeed at a prescribed rate will also change less, meaning the flap setting will not have to be changed as often, or as much, reducing pilot workload.
Assuming both planes are descending with the same angle of decent, the Heavier aircraft descends FASTER than the light aircraft. Pitch of an aircraft varies with weight however angle of attack stays the same (depends on relative airflow) ;)
Just watched this video for the first time. I assume the question at the end is asking us to compare landing in a light aircraft such as a Cessna vs. a heavy aircraft such as a commercial jet transport like a 737. I’m going to guess a light aircraft is easier on the descent. Its approach speed is much lower, so the pilot has more time to get lined up with the runway, get on the glideslope, deal with crosswinds, and get the thrust or power settings right. In videos I’ve seen of private pilots trying to land a jet (usually in a simulator) they have commented that everything happens so much faster in the jet. A friend who is a Cessna pilot once asked a commercial pilot if he thought there was a chance he (the friend) could land a jet aircraft. The pilot replied that he could probably get the plane on the ground, but it would be damaged.
Dear sir ..u hv explained very well n cleared all the myths about autopilot..iam not a pilot bt iam verry much intrested in aviation n in ur informative videos n as u asked...i think its easier to decend heavier aircrafts due to its balance in air....
Hi Mentour pilot, i hope you are doing well, i have to admit you are the best, you do the best tutorial video, i'm a serious simulator pilot, i have been seen so many tutorial video but you are the best, its very easy to understand you the way you speak & explain thing, and every time you come back with very subjective & informative video i really love your video and learn many thing from your tutorial i listen very carefully every single of your word and apply that on my simulator flight.many thanks & my salute to you sir.i wish you always have a safe flights. Raju
Hello Sir you are wonderful, your videos are so informative, i am not a pilot but i like Aviation and your videos helps a lot. And you know what yesterday my three years old daughter picks up the phone and says where is Pilot uncle, she loves you too,,,, thank you. Now answering to your question i guess it is easier to land a heavy plane since the plane is heavy it will be less effected by heavy crosswind (this is just my guess) i will wait for your video on this ..
Heavier aircraft seems to be easier to land as it will have less possibility of flares and cross winds detours. The bigger mass will help keeping it on track. Of course there is enough runway to stop it after it touched down.
Very informative video!!! I will say a light aircraft, I suppose you would gather less momentum on the descent, so controlling the speed would be easier. Having said that, I guess a heavy aircraft would be more stable in windy conditions!!!
I guess a light 737 is easier to descend than a heavy 737, because a descending aircraft tends to convert its potential energy into speed, and for braking you need spoilers, and the spoilers also reduce lift, and in a heavily loaded aircraft you have to be more careful to keep enough lift.
The question is about _descending_, not landing! Descending means shedding of energy, and a heavier plane has more kinetic energy to get rid of, so my take is that a lighter aircraft of otherwise similar configuration (type) is easier to descend.
If you had to land a b737 manual on a light aircraft it will be easy to descend then a heavy aircraft because on a light aircraft you are giving less pressure where as a heavy one you need to put more pressure to land it.
My answer: I would say it depends on the skill of the pilot and his typerating for that particular plane. In Flight Simulator, I can easily land the Cessna -- even when I screw up the approach, I can usually get it down without bending the airplane, lol. But It took my a gazillion tries before I was able to land the 747 because the plane has so much inertia that I was yo-yoing trying to level off after changing altitude and I just slam into the ground when trying to land the beast even when on the glideslope and lined up perfectly.
Light aircraft because the problem lies on stopping the aircraft after a certain distance and since the lighter aircraft has less momentum, the drag force can more easily slow the aircraft to the desired landing speed.
I've not read the comments below, and I'm a few years late in replying by I would say that a heavier 737 would be easier to land . The reason being I think the increase weight would make it easier to slow the aircraft and maintain a steeper descent that would be possible with a lighter aircraft.
I am a Bank Officer...desk bound everyday..but I travel frequently and so have some idea of the difficulties and normal day to day experiences involved in flying. So...I think a heavier plane would be easier to descend. Every object which is in motion has the factor of inertia..this tends to keep the object moving in its course unless acted upon with great force to change its course. A heavy object would have greater inertia simply because it will be less susceptible to external forces. Based on this premise I think a heavy aircraft would continue on the path directed by the pilot and not be erratic in say..descent speed . lateral deviation or vertical due to crosswind forces . turbulence due to local topography and so on. So .the aircraft would be stable and therefore the more easy to get it down as the pilot wants it to.........
a lighter plane would be easier to descend because the descent profile is easier to manage than with a heavier plane due to things such as managing airspeed use of things like air brakes/spoilers/flaps extra manuevres that may be needed if you cant slow down in time lower chance of needing to go around when taking a short final its also easier to stop the thing once its on the runway
I'm in the lather class of people. I just freaking love airplanes. I wanted to be a pilot when I was 19 I was determined and it's what I wanted to do an then well when I looked into it I realised that it'd took me years working as a student to afford even the first year of flight school. So now I'm 22 and I just don't want the same thing in life. I'm learning software engineering and computer science and avionics is something that does interest me but I'm not good enough of a coder (I'm a freshman still) to really do anything but dream about what I could do to help make planes even more secure. I'm the kind of programmer who does defensive programming. Instead of just trying to make something that works, I first thing about a way to do it and then think about all the ways I could break it before even typing a line of code. (I do write a lot)… And once I'm done with that I run it in multiple static analysers (takes ages) to find if in any freak conditions I might have a bug (it does happen and when it does I can assure you "freak" condition is an understatement and it often end up in hours if not days of debugging and optimisation. ) Anyway nobody cares about my life. I'm jut really glad you make those videos so I can learn more about planes and pilots. :)
I'm not a pilot, I'm actually a drum teacher in England but find aviation fascinating, I do enjoy watching your videos, they are very informative and friendly. In answer to your question I am going to put my money on heavier aircraft being easier to descend, I think this might be because lighter aircraft are more susceptible to the wind? I could be way off on this though :-)
***** I'm sure you are generating a lot of interest from the flight sim enthusiasts wanting to get a real pilots insight on how to do things, you have a great video on how to takeoff, have you done one on landings yet? I look forward to the next podcast.
Please try to add short clips and pics on how it is done in actual aircraft. Something like Captain Joe does in his podcast. This helps to understand better.
2. Things a hands down awsome video Loved it. 2. I personaly belive that a heavy aircraft is easier to land then a light aircraft. Sence I tried a cessna 172 in real life and a 737-500 simulator at arlanda. I personally felt that when landing the cessna no matter how perfect I was to the runway, the smallest wind ore failiure (sry for my spelling) could really mess me up. Also the light aircraft sence you don't have as many stuff onboard that helps you when landing. I mean in a 737 on the artificual horison you have two purple lines telling you exactly where to go. Also the thing about never being "safe" apon landing in the cessna I never felt in the 737 sim. It was allways like a saftey that this thing is going down on the runway it might not be smooth but it is going down on the runway. Then the big changer I think is that in a cessna you are all alone ore whith just youre friends ore people who can see what you are doing and trust you. In a 737 about 150 people you never have met at any time. Put their life in your hands whithout probebly not even saing a word to you. So I think that if you take in all the perspectives even tho it might be easier whith the flying itself I think that it is more difficult to land a 737
Love your work! I aim to one day be offered a position within your employer too. :) In response to your question, I would say a lighter aircraft is easier to descend. A heavy aircraft would require a much higher Vs1/Vs0 than the lighter aircraft..
My guess was that the heavy aircraft are easier descend cause it has more weight to pull it towards earth - EQ the lift to drag ratio are lower and that makes the aircraft more "willingly" to loss altitude cause the gravity has more weight to pull on. On the other hand a lighter aircraft should have easier to ascend cause the engines need less force to keep it in the air. Does that make sense? Johan.
Qantas Flight 72 was an Airbus A330 fly by wire. I know you specialize in the Boeing 737. However, will you please do a video on the Qantas Flight 72 incident and what changes are in place today to prevent such flight computer errors and to allow pilot override flight computer errors.
Technology is improving so fast year after year so of that we have to keep improving our brains to make it more safe by the way safe is for God the creator hope we keep learning from you captain to be truthly you are an experienced wonderful pilot thanks so much for this wonderful information wish you my best in your carrier
Lighter would be easier, as heavier would have its own momentum and inertia, thus tend to be a bit more 'unwieldy' to flare out correctly and may tend to present a hard landing. (BTW, I had my language in German as I am a native German speaker from Switzerland, no NOT 'Swityerland'!) mode that had accounted for the 'z's rather than the' y's and vice versa as the languages utilise different keys, this has now since been corrected on 20.Apr.2021. (I know my physics that as a child prodigy have learned whilst most kids my age have yet to learn in school, I learned at 9 years of age from my adopted father as he had a Masters Degree in physics).
Hey man, as always you are doing a great job for all of us. I've heard that in cases of medium or low turbulence, autopilots are preferred as they control the situation better. I know this happens in the 787 and the 777 but not sure about the 737.
I would guess that a lighter aircraft is easier. A heavier aircraft should be able to have a higher speed, and takes longer time to slow down. And it's also bigger, so more mass to control. On the other hand it should be less prone to heavy winds. Looking forward to your next video and to get the answer :)
Huh. I would've said that the heavier aircraft would be easier because lighter aircraft could be tossed around in high winds making it harder to control.
Daniel E. Colon yes, a heavy aircraft would be easier when it comes to controlling the aircraft as it would be more stable in gusty conditions. But consider this scenario.. You're descending and ATC gives you a direct routing, which you didn't expect. Now you've ended up high. Would you prefer to be in a heavy aircraft or a light aircraft?
Kevin Souza i would have said that the heavier aircraft would be easier to control for the same reason pointed out by Daniel but apparently it's not so….thanks for sharing your knowledge very very interesting! :=)
Well, you're right. I would prefer being in a light aircraft in that situation. But, that doesn't mean landing in a heavy aircraft isn't doable. They wouldn't give you a direct route if they knew there was a great possibility of overshooting the final approach. They teach you both things: dealing with high winds and dealing with a direct approach. However, high winds are more unpredictable and thus make the light aircraft more prone to accidents.
I think a heavy aircraft is easier to decent due to its weight, but it might be a bit slower in reaction due to its mass which can be experienced as more difficult. When flying on autopilot, I expect it will not make much difference in being easier or more difficult.
I don't know what is harder to land I have only landed C152, C172! When I soloed I in the C152 it didn't want to go down, it was about 175 lbs lighter than the other landings I had made. They are all made to fly and they don't want to go down!!
I wonder how much automation is theoretically possible with the current state of technology. What if the instructions about route change and shortcuts are passed in digital form from ATC? There are rules and described procedures for all parts of a flight, what if they are automated completely? Imagine a second layer autopilot on top of the existing autopilot devices that is capable of communicating with ATC, processing data from all available aircraft sensors, analyzing videostream from specially installed external cameras (visible light + IR) and even listening to human commands ("please open the pod bay doors, HAL"). I know it would require a HUGE amount of certification and stuff, but it feels pretty realistic. It could already help with checklists! Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying pilots are not needed, on the contrary I'm against single pilot operations, at least for now, also a preprogrammed machine is not likely to replace a human pilot in the nearest future for emergency situations and when non-standard decision-making is required.
I'm one of the non-pilots that is interested in aviation. Thanks for this video. :)
Hey me too from India
Gu1tarJohn me too John. 😂
Same here. Getting less nervous about flying.
I love how you care about your subscribers, your explanations are easy to follow and in-depth, giving all the information we want to hear in a short time. I have said it before, going to say it again: fantastic channel.
Well put. Agreed.
You said it right. He is marvelous. He knows our 'pulse'. I simply love this guy & this channel.
ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC
Very well explained . A larger plane would be easier to land then a smaller aircraft.
Couldn't agree more, I'm so glad I found this channel a couple years ago, I check for videos more than I even look at my email and banking apps
I'm one of your 'general public' subscribers, only subscribed a few weeks ago, and still catching up on old videos. I actually really enjoy the technical ones, and the disaster analyses. I don't normally watch disaster videos, but I like your 'what did we learn from this' attitude. I've no particular interest in aviation in general, but I enjoy listening to an expert sharing their expertise, and sometimes I go and research a little further on a technical point.
I think this sort of discussion is a fantastic use of youtube. There will be a wealth of flight experience out there, ranging from the nervous flyer, through the confident but uninformed traveller, the semi informed enthusiast (which would be me) all the way up to pilots, trainers, cabin crew and, I dare say, engineers & manufacturers. Your style covers us all with the same message: the pilots are the ones in control, merely using the available technologies to assist you. Spreading the message that the autopilot still needs to be programmed and constantly tweaked & monitored is, in my opinion, the way to ensure we the travelling public understand your skills. It will also hopefully build our respect that you had to work hard to do what you do, and that you are constantly retraining and scrutinising your methods. Top marks.
Still fly the aircraft. Auto is not a robot. It needs human input. It just gives the pilot relief to not have as much pulling & pushing the yoke during flight.
very informative. I always noticed as pilots switched to auto pilot, they kept fiddling with other instruments or kept watching other monitors or gauges. Props to pilots. My life is in their hands
Thanks for your clear explanation of how the autopilot assists the human pilots. I was an engineering lab technician who helped develop the SP50 Autopilot (AFCS - Automatic Flight Control System) for the 727 and DC-9 aircraft. It was a most rewarding project, the first such systems using solid-state electronics. The autopilot also "smooths the road" by sensing changes in roll, pitch, and yaw and applying correcting trim signals. Consider what happens to the balance of the aircraft when a passenger gets up and walks to the toilet.
I don't understand why some people really dislike your podcast as they're almost perfect(because no one's perfect). 🧐
They could be jealous or ignorant unwilling to accept new data. Limited mentality or just don't have a taste for aerodynamics.
I like the way you explain things. I was working for a private license some time ago but only got a little past Solo. Ran out of money, job change. I do fly airlines to go see family. I understand some of the things but there are so many new things and it has been 30 year now, and the past 30 year has made a lot of changes!
Yes, indeed.
Hello Sir this is Abhisek from India I am not a pilot but an aviation lover, thanks for all the great knowledge that you guys are spreading in across the world thanks once again
Thank YOU for supporting the channel!
abhishek chakravorty did you just misspell your own name??
I think the correct answer is: A lighter aircraft is easier to descend. My reasoning for the answer is because a lighter aircraft can be slowed down much faster than a heavy aircraft. looking forward to finding out if if my answer is correct...
I would like to also add to my comment that I think your time, work & efforts producing these videos is a wonderful gift to ALL aviation enthusiasts! Sadly for me and a complement to you - I wish that I had you as a mentor when I was of school age and choosing my future. I would have been a great pilot! Keep up the great work for the young future pilots & middle age aviation enthusiasts like me... You are terrific!
I don't think the video about autopilot modes ever happened. I'd love to see a video about what all the different modes are, and why they are used in certain circumstances. What do you think the next autopilot innovation will be?
You give the best explanations I have ever heard, clean, clear, structured and thoroughly explained. I understand even those that are meant for pilots.
I will make sure to contribute somehow when I can.
Also …you have at least one professional airline pilot….36 years at Continental / United B -777 last 15 years …also B-737…DC-10…B-727 engineer. At the commuters…BE-90…BE-1900…ATR-42. Great channel…Great information…I watch your videos a lot…Great job.
Enjoying your podcast from Nigeria. I worked with Virgin Nigeria back then and i have always admired flying and aviators generally. Keep up the good work.
I am just a sim pilot and enthusiast of aviation. My guess is the lighter aircraft, The drag created to descend would have more effect on the aircraft, assuming your talking about the same aircraft heavy or light. This would allow a higher rate of descent due to less energy from the weight of the aircraft. It would also allow you to fly a little slower. That is my guess. Thank you for all of your podcast. I realize this one is 4 years old but I'm trying to get around to all of them.
I don't know a thing about flying but I start flight school next week and your videos have answered a lot of questions. Thank you.
Thank you for this channel. I am one of those subscribers that is just fascinated by flying, aircraft and the airline industry. Your channel is excellent and answers all of the questions I could and have ever thought of (so far) about flying. I also love the commercial aircraft industry and am constantly comparing commercial aircraft models. Recently took my first flight on a 787 (-9). Probably the smoothest flight I've ever experienced. Please keep the videos coming sir !!!
I really love the way you explain aircraft operations. Its straight from a pilot himself.
Great pleasure indeed.
Amazing how your channel evolved over the year. Congrats!
Happy Landings,
Capt. Guido
Passenger here! Even if you haven't been doing videos for us specifically, I've been enjoying them!
Thank you for the lovely videos, Captain! Very helpful as I soon begin my career on the 737NG.
Hey Mr. Mentour! Thanks for sharing all your knowledge with us aviation fans. Answering to your question: My naive impression is that a larger aircraft has more weight and drag, and therefore it should be more stable do descend and be affected by winds to a lesser degree. Can't wait to see your podcast.
18 min is usually a bit longer longer than your other videos. However it didn't feel longer. And I really learned a lot about the autopilot. You explained it easy and good.
I am not a pilot, just aviation fan. Your explanations are very clear and I also like the items you choose to bring up. I would like to have more visual info like animations, or cockpit\simulator videos, to make your explanations more tangible. It is lacking in some of your videos,like this one for example.Thank you!
Well put, keep doing what you are doing 2 years old, 50K views, 16 dislikes: You are doing it right!
I like how you care about your subscribers, Thanks again!
Your podcasts on flight are very interesting. Ever since I took a vacation to Kitty Hawk, SC. Here in the US and visited the Wright Brothers' sites where they "discovered" flight I've been hooked on the subject of airplanes and the science of flight. Your videos are very cool. 💙 them all.
Oops. Kitty Hawk is NC.
Request: Video disinguishing between "Flight Director" and "Auto-pilot", maybe even distinguishing between Boeing's auto-pilot and FMC assumptions and usage vs. Airbus vs. Embraer vs. Bombardier, etc.
You really start to appreciate autopilot when it's stormy weather outside especially in a small aircraft it's so nice
Having watched a few of these videos by both you and Captain Joe I've developed an appreciation for how complex a modern airliners internal systems are, and how challenging the external working environment actually is. Being an airline pilot requires a huge amount of knowledge, but... in the worst case scenario and the pilots were incapacitated for some reason, how much knowledge would an ordinary person ideally need to have in order to have a decent chance of landing an airliner, given that they had communication with air traffic control, and all the airplanes systems were working properly? If it was a days training in a top of the line simulator I reckon you'd have a queue of people a mile long! Similar to how people buy/gift rally car racing days etc.
i think Heavy aircraft has more energy so needs more track miles
"Do we need pilots when we have autopilot?" => Same reasons we still need DRIVERS even for automobiles with CRUISE control. Even (so-called) "autonomous automobiles" (aka: self-driving cars) sometimes need "A Nut Behind the Wheel."
"Sometimes, "Charlie" can fly the plane," but only sometimes, because "Charlie's not the smartest chip in the circuit board".
Thank you for all you do for us flight enthusaists Captain . my answer to that question is , when landing I would think about both , landing the plane and TOGA or go around if things are funny , so A heavy plane would scare me and a lighter one have better cances at both .
I am in 2nd part. Normal guy interest in Aviation.
As a flight simmer, I prefer to land the larger airline planes. They tend to be more stable on the approach and it is easier to monitor the glide slope. Smaller aircraft may not be equipped with ILS instrumentation and the DC 3, for instance, can be fun to land manually but the approach may be harder to monitor.
Great video as always! It's great getting this kind of information from people (pilots) who really know what they're talking about. Keep flying!
As you use manual landing I notice a lot of back and forth up and down movement of the yoke. Can you explain why that is? I'm not an aviation pro or piolet just blown away by the responsibility your job requires and how you do it so calmly. Love your videos! Thank You!
AP can set heading, set altitude, sometimes set speed. also attitude hold. it's more of a cruise control really. some can switch waypoints automagically as you fly over them and then set a new steering heading.
It is not some ALL planes can set heading, altitude and speed
i think a lighter air plane is easier to land because it responds faster to changes in steering. the heavier airplanes you have to think much further ahead in steering before responding. Looking forward to your answer :-)
Thank you very much for your work. I’m zäthe middle category I was dreaming of being a pilot,but life is hard, but I still love to be a pilot and knowing what goes around in the cockpit.I want you to know that I wach your videos everyday!steve from Greece
Thanks for this latest video. You have answered a question I had about disengaging the autopilot on final approach in the simulator.. I have usually done this at about 200 ft above touchdown, You mentioned that "Minimums' is the time that you disengage. I shall follow your advice in future.
***** I would say heavier, and my theory is it has less sensitive control over it which in turn will give you a broader stage for subtle changes to the aircraft. As well as it is less affected by environmental conditions such as crosswind. Wonder if I'm right..
answering your question, I would say it does not matter as the procedure is the same. I would say, il's more a question of slowing down by using flaps and on the ground high automatic brakes when thrust reversing
I'd say a heavier aircraft is easier to land. Two reasons, first, it would not be as susceptible to local weather gusts/cross wind changes etc. Second, being heavier you what have to input more changes to move the aircraft so it would not be as 'touchy'. i.e. on a very small plan a 10 rpm change in the engine might be the difference between taxing and takeoff. Now, this video is 2.5 years old, which of your videos has the answers? I love your work and explanations. I'm a structural engineer and have been thickening of doing the same sort of videos for young university student engineers.
I'm part of the "general public", and I just want you to keep doing what you're doing. I'm learning a lot, and that helps me relax more when flying. Fear of the unknown, etc. Love your videos, love your app. Thanks!
As an afterthought, is there a way the average person can go to a flight simulator? See what it's like to fly a Cessna, or a turbo prop, different aircraft. That would be a good video.
Thanks for these videos. I've never flown a plane in my life but now feel that if the pilot dies during my next flight I'l be able to take over and land the plane safely. I don't think I could cope with engines failing or falling off!!!
Kind of a malformed question, but if we're talking about a 1 ton Cessna vs. a 300 ton 777 and specifically about the situation you described about ATC giving you a direct to your FAF and being too high, then the Cessna is definitely the easier one to just grab by the scruff and manhandle it. I can always just stab throttle, stomp on the rudder, give it tons of opposite aileron and forward slip my way down. If you're going 350 KTAS and your turning circle is the size of a small country, then you've got to think darn fast. Basically, my point is that the distinction is more about "fast vs slow" rather than "light vs heavy".
***** Ah, right, so we're talking same airframe, different loadout? In that case I'd go with the light loadout case being easier, although it really depends on what you consider makes a descent "easy" and also what airframe we're talking about.
Principally a descent is an intentional loss of (potential) energy and in an airplane that can really only be arranged by way of drag. In normal operating conditions, airframe drag is a function of total mass. However, drag doesn't increase linearly with mass. I can't talk about the 737, but I do range have real data for the 757, and at the same range, as ZFW increases, fuel increases slower. So at, say, 120000 lbs ZFW, you're looking at around 50000 lbs to go 3000nm. At 170000 lbs ZFW, it'll go up, but only to 64000 lbs. So for a 41% increase in ZFW, you're only talking about a 28% increase in fuel consumption (which principally is caused by drag). However, as you know, the potential energy of an object is directly and linearly dependent on mass. So an airplane twice as heavy doesn't experience twice the drag (at least this is the case with the 757, and I imagine with most modern airliners).
Speedbrake energy dissipation capability is unaffected by loadout. They put out the same amount of drag, no matter if the airplane is lightly loaded, or heavily loaded.
So it's a question of who can lose potential energy the quickest.
Lastly, however, is the question of descent strategy and what you subjectively consider "easier". Is a shallower, slower descent "easier"? Is the ability to steeply drop the airplane on request "easier"?
***** If we're talking about the same distance, same altitude and same initial speed, then the answer is clear. A lightly loaded airplane has a higher energy dissipation capability relative to its total energy and as such has a far higher braking reserve available when compared to a heavily loaded airframe.
Thanks for all the info you provide. You kept referring to your presentation as a podcast...as in audio oriented? Otherwise, as feedback, I miss the sofa and the dogs. I could have used some graphics to portray some of what you were saying. I’m fascinated with learning about flying a plane even though it may never happen. Explanation of all the systems....elevators, rudders, TCAS, etc. is very interesting. Regarding your question....I know nothing so I’ll follow my own logic and go with a heavy aircraft because light planes seem easier to be affected by wind, stalling, etc. Thank you so much for being interested in our needs.
Offcorse the light ones are tougher to descent ,because it's more prone to crosswinds etc.
Hi very interesting videos. I am just an aviation enthusiast who likes to visit the airport viewing area with a scanner to listen in. Just one thing I did see and that is I visited the cockpit of a tristar in the 1990s roughly midway between the UK and Kenya. And the flight crew were playing cards lol.
Thank you very much for this instruction, sir. I personally hope to be a future pilot aiming for the B-777. Future video Suggestions: Day in the life of a pilot
How to deal with being a pilot.
Is the pay good?
+Mentour Pilot Thank you very much, sir!
Dear Captain, would appreciate your answers for these questions: (1) In some plane crashes the captain is not the one handling the plane but co-pilot or first officer. Possibly the captain is on the break or taking a nap. The question is why he don't go and take control of the airplane until it is too late? (2) Communication gap or synchronization between captain and co-pilot is an issue in several crashes. Why typically both are not updating each other about what maneuver they are doing in order to NOT cancel out each other's action? (3) Some non-English speaking pilot fail to interpret communication from English speaking ATC, resulting in disaster. Don't you think they should be permitted to fly only if they have enough verbal English communication and interpretation skills? (4) The aircraft with 4 engines are safer then the one with 2? If yes, why? If no, why? (5) What are the chances of survival if both the engines fail? And how? (6) How far a plane can glide without any engine?
Curious Guy you can probably glide 60 to 100 miles from a standard cruise altitude
1: If you are talking about the Air France 447 crash, then it was simply too late. The Captain entered the cockpit, but he was not aware the plane was stalling. None of the pilots were. 2: Well they should. You always communicate with the other pilot, instead of doing something on your own. This is just pilot error. 3: I would blame the airline. English is the aviation language. 4: A 737 can fly with one engine. The chance of them both failing is very slim. 5: Well, depends. If you're on the middle of the ocean, then you're fucked pretty much. But there have been incidents where pilots managed to glide a plane to a safe landing with both engines out. Air Canada 143 and Air Transat flight. 6: It depends on which plane, what altitude, and what weight.
I love this program so much a train pilot must learn more and more and keep updated with more information even if he's a pilot he must keep studying and taking more information about flying an airplane updating a flying is more important than flying itself thank you very much for your efforts explaining how to opparate an aircraft as much as we learn we still need more learning even as an experienced pilot
Heavier aircraft are easier to to land with a proper setup. Greater inertia provides greater stability for proper configuration and accurate approach. However, that same inertia (e.g. delay spooling up fanjets) makes response MUCH slower than a Cessna 172 when avoiding geese over the Hudson.River, crabbing in crosswind or compensating for changes in approach. (Just guessing. I'm available to observe in your jump set, whenever you want to demonstrate.).
thank you for your insight into autopilot usage. I only have a few hours in a cessna 172 from many years back but I have been following reports of aviation crashes. I have noticed that in too many cases, the autopilot was a large factor in the crash. Examples include the Max crashes, the AA 757 to Cali, the Asiana flight into San Fran and the Sukhoi superjet demo flight among others. To be fair, there have been crashes which could have been avoided with an A/P but these seem to have been caused by poor stick and rudder skills which are related to the "roboplane" craze. If I was able to get back into flying, I would use GPS at all times but only use the A/P in straight and level cruise. Is that a realistic goal and would an airline allow me to do that?
I think it's easier to descend a heavy one and land than a light one because light ones are susceptible to crosswinds and tend to have better/quick lift.... at least from the flight videos I've watched.
As a nonpilot, but is very interested in avation, i will assume/ guessestimate an heavy aircraft would be easier to land... it would be more difficult for the lighter to land because it tendency want to" more float/ floaty than a heavier craft..
In my occupation, tanker driver, a heavier truck is easier to stop than a lighter/ bobtail( without a trailer/ tanker)...
Heavy, because of it's inertia and larger Reynolds number it will be much more forgiving in higher wind gusts and crosswinds.
I think they are quite similar. Different parameters (speed, autobrakes, length of RNY). Due to braking is havier little harder to land.
I think it's easier to descend a light aircraft. It can be landed easy with VFR, unlike the heavy ones and requires shorter runways. And if it stalls, it's easier to recover controll, I guess. Big planes have more limited bank and pitch up angles. You can't loop a 737 or an a320...
During the descent, the aircraft's glide slope ratio will vary, and with it, the component of the aircraft's weight acting along the flight path, a propulsive force. The difference between gravitational propulsive force and the aerodynamic drag force produced by the wings and selected flap configuration needs to be carefully controlled in order to maintain the appropriate rate of deceleration. As its glide slope ratio varies along a prescribed trajectory, a lighter aircraft will experience smaller changes in the propulsive component of its weight. So the aerodynamic drag force required to bleed off airspeed at a prescribed rate will also change less, meaning the flap setting will not have to be changed as often, or as much, reducing pilot workload.
Assuming both planes are descending with the same angle of decent, the Heavier aircraft descends FASTER than the light aircraft. Pitch of an aircraft varies with weight however angle of attack stays the same (depends on relative airflow) ;)
Just watched this video for the first time. I assume the question at the end is asking us to compare landing in a light aircraft such as a Cessna vs. a heavy aircraft such as a commercial jet transport like a 737.
I’m going to guess a light aircraft is easier on the descent. Its approach speed is much lower, so the pilot has more time to get lined up with the runway, get on the glideslope, deal with crosswinds, and get the thrust or power settings right.
In videos I’ve seen of private pilots trying to land a jet (usually in a simulator) they have commented that everything happens so much faster in the jet.
A friend who is a Cessna pilot once asked a commercial pilot if he thought there was a chance he (the friend) could land a jet aircraft. The pilot replied that he could probably get the plane on the ground, but it would be damaged.
Precise and friendly. Nice combination . . .
Dear sir ..u hv explained very well n cleared all the myths about autopilot..iam not a pilot bt iam verry much intrested in aviation n in ur informative videos n as u asked...i think its easier to decend heavier aircrafts due to its balance in air....
Hi Mentour pilot, i hope you are doing well, i have to admit you are the best, you do the best tutorial video,
i'm a serious simulator pilot, i have been seen so many tutorial video but you are the best, its very easy to understand you the way you speak & explain thing, and every time you come back with very subjective & informative video i really love your video and learn many thing from your tutorial i listen very carefully every single of your word and apply that on my simulator flight.many thanks & my salute to you sir.i wish you always have a safe flights. Raju
Hello Sir you are wonderful, your videos are so informative, i am not a pilot but i like Aviation and your videos helps a lot. And you know what yesterday my three years old daughter picks up the phone and says where is Pilot uncle, she loves you too,,,, thank you. Now answering to your question i guess it is easier to land a heavy plane since the plane is heavy it will be less effected by heavy crosswind (this is just my guess) i will wait for your video on this ..
I think I will enjoy my next flight with this knowledge. Thanks
Heavier aircraft seems to be easier to land as it will have less possibility of flares and cross winds detours. The bigger mass will help keeping it on track. Of course there is enough runway to stop it after it touched down.
Very informative video!!! I will say a light aircraft, I suppose you would gather less momentum on the descent, so controlling the speed would be easier. Having said that, I guess a heavy aircraft would be more stable in windy conditions!!!
I would imagine a more loaded 737 would be easier to land, especially if there are any crosswinds.
I love your channel and your thorough explanation in all your videos. Amazing!!!
I guess a light 737 is easier to descend than a heavy 737, because a descending aircraft tends to convert its potential energy into speed, and for braking you need spoilers, and the spoilers also reduce lift, and in a heavily loaded aircraft you have to be more careful to keep enough lift.
The question is about _descending_, not landing! Descending means shedding of energy, and a heavier plane has more kinetic energy to get rid of, so my take is that a lighter aircraft of otherwise similar configuration (type) is easier to descend.
If you had to land a b737 manual on a light aircraft it will be easy to descend then a heavy aircraft because on a light aircraft you are giving less pressure where as a heavy one you need to put more pressure to land it.
My answer: I would say it depends on the skill of the pilot and his typerating for that particular plane. In Flight Simulator, I can easily land the Cessna -- even when I screw up the approach, I can usually get it down without bending the airplane, lol. But It took my a gazillion tries before I was able to land the 747 because the plane has so much inertia that I was yo-yoing trying to level off after changing altitude and I just slam into the ground when trying to land the beast even when on the glideslope and lined up perfectly.
Light aircraft because the problem lies on stopping the aircraft after a certain distance and since the lighter aircraft has less momentum, the drag force can more easily slow the aircraft to the desired landing speed.
I've not read the comments below, and I'm a few years late in replying by I would say that a heavier 737 would be easier to land . The reason being I think the increase weight would make it easier to slow the aircraft and maintain a steeper descent that would be possible with a lighter aircraft.
I’ve just learnt so much, answered so many of my burning questions
Fist of all you ate the best instructor. It would be nice a video on how set up the ILS. How to set up the outo pilot.
Thank you God bless you
I am a Bank Officer...desk bound everyday..but I travel frequently and so have some idea of the difficulties and normal day to day experiences involved in flying.
So...I think a heavier plane would be easier to descend.
Every object which is in motion has the factor of inertia..this tends to keep the object moving in its course unless acted upon with great force to change its course.
A heavy object would have greater inertia simply because it will be less susceptible to external forces.
Based on this premise I think a heavy aircraft would continue on the path directed by the pilot and not be erratic in say..descent speed . lateral deviation or vertical due to crosswind forces . turbulence due to local topography and so on.
So .the aircraft would be stable and therefore the more easy to get it down as the pilot wants it to.........
a lighter plane would be easier to descend because the descent profile is easier to manage than with a heavier plane
due to things such as
managing airspeed
use of things like air brakes/spoilers/flaps
extra manuevres that may be needed if you cant slow down in time
lower chance of needing to go around when taking a short final
its also easier to stop the thing once its on the runway
I'm in the lather class of people. I just freaking love airplanes. I wanted to be a pilot when I was 19 I was determined and it's what I wanted to do an then well when I looked into it I realised that it'd took me years working as a student to afford even the first year of flight school.
So now I'm 22 and I just don't want the same thing in life. I'm learning software engineering and computer science and avionics is something that does interest me but I'm not good enough of a coder (I'm a freshman still) to really do anything but dream about what I could do to help make planes even more secure.
I'm the kind of programmer who does defensive programming. Instead of just trying to make something that works, I first thing about a way to do it and then think about all the ways I could break it before even typing a line of code. (I do write a lot)…
And once I'm done with that I run it in multiple static analysers (takes ages) to find if in any freak conditions I might have a bug (it does happen and when it does I can assure you "freak" condition is an understatement and it often end up in hours if not days of debugging and optimisation. )
Anyway nobody cares about my life. I'm jut really glad you make those videos so I can learn more about planes and pilots.
:)
Nice job I am so enjoying listening to your podcasts. I say heavier is easier to control
I'm not a pilot, I'm actually a drum teacher in England but find aviation fascinating, I do enjoy watching your videos, they are very informative and friendly. In answer to your question I am going to put my money on heavier aircraft being easier to descend, I think this might be because lighter aircraft are more susceptible to the wind? I could be way off on this though :-)
***** I'm sure you are generating a lot of interest from the flight sim enthusiasts wanting to get a real pilots insight on how to do things, you have a great video on how to takeoff, have you done one on landings yet? I look forward to the next podcast.
Please try to add short clips and pics on how it is done in actual aircraft. Something like Captain Joe does in his podcast. This helps to understand better.
great video as always Captain.very nice.
hats off.
2. Things a hands down awsome video Loved it.
2. I personaly belive that a heavy aircraft is easier to land then a light aircraft. Sence I tried a cessna 172 in real life and a 737-500 simulator at arlanda. I personally felt that when landing the cessna no matter how perfect I was to the runway, the smallest wind ore failiure (sry for my spelling) could really mess me up. Also the light aircraft sence you don't have as many stuff onboard that helps you when landing. I mean in a 737 on the artificual horison you have two purple lines telling you exactly where to go. Also the thing about never being "safe" apon landing in the cessna I never felt in the 737 sim. It was allways like a saftey that this thing is going down on the runway it might not be smooth but it is going down on the runway. Then the big changer I think is that in a cessna you are all alone ore whith just youre friends ore people who can see what you are doing and trust you. In a 737 about 150 people you never have met at any time. Put their life in your hands whithout probebly not even saing a word to you. So I think that if you take in all the perspectives even tho it might be easier whith the flying itself I think that it is more difficult to land a 737
Light weight aircraft is easier to land on the ground. Heavy aircraft is also easy but requires lengthy runway.
Love your work! I aim to one day be offered a position within your employer too. :)
In response to your question, I would say a lighter aircraft is easier to descend. A heavy aircraft would require a much higher Vs1/Vs0 than the lighter aircraft..
My guess was that the heavy aircraft are easier descend cause it has more weight to pull it towards earth - EQ the lift to drag ratio are lower and that makes the aircraft more "willingly" to loss altitude cause the gravity has more weight to pull on. On the other hand a lighter aircraft should have easier to ascend cause the engines need less force to keep it in the air. Does that make sense? Johan.
heavier because it has more gravity and drag but you still need to rework it with thrust
Qantas Flight 72 was an Airbus A330 fly by wire. I know you specialize in the Boeing 737. However, will you please do a video on the Qantas Flight 72 incident and what changes are in place today to prevent such flight computer errors and to allow pilot override flight computer errors.
Technology is improving so fast year after year so of that we have to keep improving our brains to make it more safe by the way safe is for God the creator hope we keep learning from you captain to be truthly you are an experienced wonderful pilot thanks so much for this wonderful information wish you my best in your carrier
Excellent: Could you do an episode on Glide Slopes . Please
Lighter would be easier, as heavier would have its own momentum and inertia, thus tend to be a bit more 'unwieldy' to flare out correctly and may tend to present a hard landing. (BTW, I had my language in German as I am a native German speaker from Switzerland, no NOT 'Swityerland'!) mode that had accounted for the 'z's rather than the' y's and vice versa as the languages utilise different keys, this has now since been corrected on 20.Apr.2021. (I know my physics that as a child prodigy have learned whilst most kids my age have yet to learn in school, I learned at 9 years of age from my adopted father as he had a Masters Degree in physics).
Hey man, as always you are doing a great job for all of us. I've heard that in cases of medium or low turbulence, autopilots are preferred as they control the situation better. I know this happens in the 787 and the 777 but not sure about the 737.
I would guess that a lighter aircraft is easier. A heavier aircraft should be able to have a higher speed, and takes longer time to slow down. And it's also bigger, so more mass to control. On the other hand it should be less prone to heavy winds.
Looking forward to your next video and to get the answer :)
A light aircraft is easier.. Heavier the aircraft, higher is the momentum and the more difficult it is to slow down..
Huh. I would've said that the heavier aircraft would be easier because lighter aircraft could be tossed around in high winds making it harder to control.
Daniel E. Colon yes, a heavy aircraft would be easier when it comes to controlling the aircraft as it would be more stable in gusty conditions. But consider this scenario.. You're descending and ATC gives you a direct routing, which you didn't expect. Now you've ended up high. Would you prefer to be in a heavy aircraft or a light aircraft?
Kevin Souza i would have said that the heavier aircraft would be easier to control for the same reason pointed out by Daniel but apparently it's not so….thanks for sharing your knowledge very very interesting! :=)
Well, you're right. I would prefer being in a light aircraft in that situation. But, that doesn't mean landing in a heavy aircraft isn't doable. They wouldn't give you a direct route if they knew there was a great possibility of overshooting the final approach. They teach you both things: dealing with high winds and dealing with a direct approach. However, high winds are more unpredictable and thus make the light aircraft more prone to accidents.
But, you do have a point. When it comes to descending, light aircraft is better. =)
I think a heavy aircraft is easier to decent due to its weight, but it might be a bit slower in reaction due to its mass which can be experienced as more difficult. When flying on autopilot, I expect it will not make much difference in being easier or more difficult.
I don't know what is harder to land I have only landed C152, C172! When I soloed I in the C152 it didn't want to go down, it was about 175 lbs lighter than the other landings I had made. They are all made to fly and they don't want to go down!!
I wonder how much automation is theoretically possible with the current state of technology. What if the instructions about route change and shortcuts are passed in digital form from ATC? There are rules and described procedures for all parts of a flight, what if they are automated completely? Imagine a second layer autopilot on top of the existing autopilot devices that is capable of communicating with ATC, processing data from all available aircraft sensors, analyzing videostream from specially installed external cameras (visible light + IR) and even listening to human commands ("please open the pod bay doors, HAL"). I know it would require a HUGE amount of certification and stuff, but it feels pretty realistic. It could already help with checklists!
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying pilots are not needed, on the contrary I'm against single pilot operations, at least for now, also a preprogrammed machine is not likely to replace a human pilot in the nearest future for emergency situations and when non-standard decision-making is required.