Flying IFR

[Loflar]

Since this debate was really off-topic in original thread, I have decided to make a new one.

However, I should stress, that I am talking about instrument flights (i.e. what airlines regularly do),

Yes, fly-by-wire is common. However, auto-landing features (if that's a part of what you mean) are rarely used even in absolutely optimal conditions, and all those factors I mention still play a part.

Fly-by-wire is an Airbus buzzword for controlling aircraft mechanisms using electronics, rather then hydro-mechanics. (See Wikipedia.) Autolanding is again function of aircraft equipment. When I say instrument flights, I am referring to flying performed following Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) under Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), as described in ICAO Annex 2.

during which pilots heavily consult charts

Not mid-landing, they don't. Nor even mid-flight, depending on situation (e.g. on an instrument flight a while back that I was accompanying the instructor on, the pilot was given a visor that blocked his view of everything but the instruments - he flew according to the plotted course that he had worked on prior to take-off, with the instructor on-hand and ready to take control in case there was an error).

OK, I was not precise here. Charts should be consulted during pre-flight briefing. During flight, they are available as reference in case of need, and may be occassionally checked, typically by the second pilot. For example, on non-precision approach charts, there is a descent table specifying altitudes to reach in certain distances from the reference DME. It is typically the job of second pilot to check if the values charted are consistent with those on instrument panel, while the first pilot concentrates on flying.

If you want to see our charts, you can browse Czech AIP here: http://lis.rlp.cz/ais_data/www_main_con ... en_aip.htm

This is what Jeppesen, LIDO and EAD use for source.

[Eldacar]

Fly-by-wire is an Airbus buzzword for controlling aircraft mechanisms using electronics, rather then hydro-mechanics.

Not just limited to Airbus these days. It's more of a catch-all term.*

OK, I was not precise here. Charts should be consulted during pre-flight briefing.

They are. Unless you haven't logged your flight, but those are anomalies rather than the norm.

During flight, they are available as reference in case of need, and may be occassionally checked, typically by the second pilot.

Depends on the flight. For some they are, and for some they aren't (most commercial airlines work out their flight path, including projected fuel consumption and so on, before takeoff, though they keep various manuals on-hand). Some flights don't have a second pilot, though a commercial airline (obviously) has a captain, FO and either one or two SOs (depending on how many sectors there are).

If you want to see our charts, you can browse Czech AIP here: http://lis.rlp.cz/ais_data/www_main_con ... en_aip.htm

So you're one of the people who make those charts. Not that I'm really sure where this conversation is going, but I think I understand more of what you do now. This?

* I'm not really a fan of Airbus - I prefer Boeing, particularly so given some of the stories I've heard.

[Loflar]

If you want to see our charts, you can browse Czech AIP here: http://lis.rlp.cz/ais_data/www_main_con ... en_aip.htm

So you're one of the people who make those charts. Not that I'm really sure where this conversation is going, but I think I understand more of what you do now. This?

Yes. Well, I just did not want to further hijack the education thread by aviation debate.

* I'm not really a fan of Airbus - I prefer Boeing, particularly so given some of the stories I've heard.

I prefer travelling by train. It is cheaper, more comfortable, and there are no people telling me what I can take on board, taking away my drinking water and breaking into my luggage in name of security.

[Eldacar]

Well, I just did not want to further hijack the education thread by aviation debate.

Fair enough.

I prefer travelling by train. It is cheaper, more comfortable, and there are no people telling me what I can take on board, taking away my drinking water and breaking into my luggage in name of security.

In Europe, perhaps (I've been on the Eurostar), but I prefer flying in Australia.

[Musashi]

Public transport has a tendency to be underfunded in a lot of countries. I rather like the efficiency of ours, especially the trains.

[Loflar]

Since the thread is already here, I could as well use it to learn something. English is an abbreviative (I hope I am not making a new word) language, and some technical terms seem to lack any meaning. For example, could English natives explain me, what term "vertical path angle" really means? (I know what it means and how to work with it, but it seems to be untranslatable, because the words, put together, simply don't seem to have a meaning.) Hint: it is relevant to trajectory of landing airplane.