Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:
The 727 has a prop. They install it under the tail while
parked.

Either that or you drop the rear airstairs if the plane is
so equipped. Don't know about the 727, but some of the
DC-9's you HAD to do that. When the plane was empty
it only took a couple of guys standing in the back to
tip it up off the nose gear.

I once read that the Concorde used to pump fuel around after landing to
move the CG far enough forward that departing pax wouldn't tip it over.

They also did a lot of active CG management (by pumping fuel around) in
flight as they went from subsonic to supersonic and back.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gene Seibel writes:

But it's not flying. It's making pictures on a computer screen.

Sitting in an aircraft isn't flying, either. The aircraft flies; you
sit and watch. Only birds actually fly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Fly n. flew, flown, flying, flies -intr. 1. To engage in flight,
especially: a. to move through the air by means of wings or winglike parts.
b. To travel by air: "We flew to Dallas." c. To operate an aircraft or
spacecraft. (all other definitions don't relate to the thread)

Flight n. 1.a. The motion of an object in or through a medium, especially
through the earth's atmosphere or through space. b. an instance of such
motion. c. the distance covered in such motion. 2.a. The act or process of
flying through the air by means of wings. b. The ability to fly. (rest of
the definitions don't relate)

Aircraft n., A machine of device such as an airplane, a helicopter, a
glider, or a dirigible, that is capable of atmospheric flight.

I don't see any mention of computer simulations in these definitions So, it
would appear that according the American Heritage Dictionary, actual real
life flying of an airplane is considered "flying" and operation of a
computer simulation is NOT. I know this is not the FAA's definition, but
considering the FARs around the logging of simulator time, and even the fact
that there is a "simulator" column in my logbook, don't think the FAA
considers using a simulator "flying" either. i.e. I can't use a simulator
to maintain VFR currency or pass a flight review. And the last time I
checked a personal computer is not "capable of atomospheric flight", unless
you do something like throw it out a window, and then which isn't even
"controllable flight" and you can really ride it and the computer is then
"flying" and not you.

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
snip

And the
last time I checked a personal computer is not "capable of atomospheric
flight", unless you do something like throw it out a window

As I think someone pointed about before, strap a big enough engine on it
and anything's possible.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
snip

And the last time I checked a personal computer is not "capable of
atomospheric flight", unless you do something like throw it out a window

As I think someone pointed about before, strap a big enough engine on it
and anything's possible.

That would have probably been me... :-) But then he would actually be
flying, and we know he wouldn't want to do that, and then also he wouldn't
be flying a 737 anymore, as he would be flying a "Pentium 4" or an "Amd64"
or what ever computer he has, and I don't think anyone in this newsgroup
would be able to help him figure out how to fly that. :-)

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:
The 727 has a prop. They install it under the tail while
parked.

Either that or you drop the rear airstairs if the plane is
so equipped. Don't know about the 727, but some of the
DC-9's you HAD to do that. When the plane was empty
it only took a couple of guys standing in the back to
tip it up off the nose gear.

I once read that the Concorde used to pump fuel around after landing to
move the CG far enough forward that departing pax wouldn't tip it over.

They also did a lot of active CG management (by pumping fuel around) in
flight as they went from subsonic to supersonic and back.

I found out during my Private checkride, during the oral portion, that
apparently the 747 has a tank in the tail and that the procedure used to be
basically "burn it when you want", but to avoid getting caught in an aft CG
situation, they pump the fuel from the tail tank to the main tanks as soon
as practical. My DE was a 747 captain for NWA, and he had asked me "Which
is more efficient, an aft CG or a forward CG? Which is more stable?" and we
were discussing things and he used the 747 as an example.

Emily writes:

... I think that they'd love to hear that
this particular reasonably well written reg is open to interpretation.

Except that I didn't say that. I said that someone has interpreted
the regulation, not that it is open to interpretation (quite the
opposite, generally).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

I know this is not the FAA's definition ...

And so do I, which makes the purpose of the post a bit mysterious.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Wade Hasbrouck writes:

I know this is not the FAA's definition ...

And so do I, which makes the purpose of the post a bit mysterious.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

FAA doesn't define "flight" or "fly" as they are common english word and if
you don't know what they mean you should look them up in a dictionary. If
you know of another definition that should be used, would be glad to see it.

However, the FAA does have a definition for "aircraft"

FAA says from FAR 1.1 "General definitions":

"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in
the air."

Pretty much the same as the one from the dictionary, and probably a little
more restrictive than the dictionary. You computer kind of fails to meet
that definition.

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message

Note that YOU were the one that set the parameters that the
"aircraft's engines are running", therefore, the regs quoted
directly answered your original question, as the PIC is always
"operating an aircraft" if the engines are running, and therefore it
is not "just a polite custom".

The PIC is NOT "always 'operating an aircraft' if the engines are
running". The FAA specifically defines "operate" to relate to "air
navigation". There is nothing in the definition that suggests that
simply having the engine running constitutes "operating".

Remember those two airline pilots that got busted for being drunk when
they boarded the plane in Florida recently? Were they not charged with
operating an aircraft under the influence? The engines were not yet
running, as I recall. So, apparently, it takes a lot less to "operate" the
aircraft than "air navigation" in reality. Nonetheless, I'll re-read the
regs to see your point of view on this.

Neil

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Robert Chambers writes:

Haha, in a 737... you mean in Bill Gates somewhat grainy representation
of a 737 you mean.

No, I mean in Precision Manuals' extremely faithful representation of
a 737-800.

prior to engine start the beacon goes on, once you start up if it's
night time put all the lights on for taxi, if there are others that
might be impacted by the strobes turn them off, if you're flying in a
cloud (or in your case a pretend cloud) turn the strobes off to prevent
the reflection of the strobes from giving you vertigo - you might fall
off your chair.

What about landing lights? When do you turn them on, and when do you
turn them off? (Obviously they are on during take-off and landing,
but I mean outside of that.)

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I believe use of landing lights are "pilot discretion" as they are not
required equipment for Part 91 operations. Common sense should tell you if
you are going to annoy/irritate another aircraft/airplane.

In the plane I trained in, my instructor got me into the habit flying around
during the day with the taxi light on, which I believe is part of the
"Operation Lights On" initiative. The 172s I fly now has the a "pulsing"
landing light, and will fly around day and night with the landing light on
pulse, and then for takeoffs and landings, I set it to "steady" Anything to
make you stand out and get other people's attention.