I regularly fly a DA42 4-seater equipped with a G1000 system. Sometimes my passengers in the rear seats complain that the radio volume is too loud for them but it is OK for me (intercom is just right for everybody). Reason probably is that I am using a very different headset than them which I assume has a higher impedance and thus requires more electrical power for the same audio volume. If I turned down the COM volume it would be too quiet for me.
I wonder if there is any trick to adjusting/balancing the volume in such a setup.
Intercom Volume Control is the rotary knob on the bottom of the Audio Panel. The small knob controls the pilot ICS volume, while the large knob controls the copilot/passenger ICS volume. Just be sure to be in VOL mode (VOL in the lower left to be illuminated).
Volume for Coms/Navs are controlled by the COM radio volume control located on both the PFD and MFD, but (as far as I know) you cannot set that volume independently for pilot/copilot/passenger.
You can't control the radio volume separately for the passengers but you can control the intercom volume separately. If the passengers' headsets have individual volume controls you can ask them to turn down the volume and you can then compensate by turning up the passenger volume for the intercom. That way the overall intercom volume will be about the same but the radio/ATC volume will be lowered.
If all else fails, you could turn off the radio completely for your passengers :-)
I regularly fly a DA42 4-seater equipped with a G1000 system. Sometimes my passengers in the rear seats complain that the radio volume is too loud for them but it is OK for me (intercom is just right for everybody). Reason probably is that I am using a very different headset than them which I assume has a higher impedance and thus requires more electrical power for the same audio volume. If I turned down the COM volume it would be too quiet for me. I wonder if there is any trick to adjusting/balancing the volume in such a setup.
Sorry for the slightly strange question, but Ryanair (Europe's Largest Low Cost Carrier) decided that seat back pockets took too much effort and got rid of them, and it appears the sick bags in the process. So the question comes up... What happens when Ryanair flights encounter turbulence? I can hardly imagine the Flight Attendants handing out bags ad-hoc when it's sufficiently shaky to cause motion sickness among the passengers.
The airlines are always trying to jam more passengers into each plane. I'm smaller than today's average, and I'm still often uncomfortable in a standard Economy seat. It occurred to me that in the current design, there's a great deal of space wasted over the passengers' heads. And that many of us passengers already do our best to sleep through flights. Hence my question: Is there any reason an airline couldn't introduce a cabin in which some or all passengers travel in a reclining, rather than sitting, position? Seems to me that it would be more comfortable (except for claustrophobes
Since the retirement of the Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144, there aren't any civilian airplanes (passengers carrier or business jet) flying supersonic. I heard that Dassault and SAAB had rather advanced studies on this topic but abandoned them due to various problems. Does anyone know if any aircraft manufacturer plans to develop one?
Reading this page, a retired American Airlines pilot quotes: We tell passengers what they need to know. We don’t tell them things that are going to scare the pants off them. So you’ll never hear me say, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, we just had an engine failure,’ even if that’s true. Given this, how can an observant passenger sitting over wing (seeing most likely very little of the engine), determine if a flameout or shutdown has occurred from observation? This is applicable to an aircraft not unlike the Boeing 737 (which I fly on often).
What is the difference between technical consumption and fuel drain in a fuel calculation system? Both of them reduce the amount of block fuel of aircraft. I assume technical consumption is not equal with trip fuel usage?!
and told him about it because I was told to "report 3 miles out", not "report 3 mile base." I completely understand that I made my base leg too wide and that caused me to deviate from an ATC instruction... with the runway on final and get a feeling for how the winds were blowing since the ATIS reported them as being variable in direction. That said, what I ended up doing was making a wide base, except apparently I made it a little too wide because the GPS did not indicate I was 3 miles from the field until I was on final. At this point, I called the tower, reported I was on a 3 mile final and was given
Several such devices can be placed anywhere in the aircraft and can deploy when they float up to the surface and are exposed to sunlight. It would be much easier to find underwater crash sites. I don't think it's too expensive to make. Certainly cheaper than searching with ships and other planes for days (as in the case with MH370 and the Airbus that crashed into the Atlantic ocean).
In the US, there's a TFR everywhere a designated VIP (US president or vice president) is going to be. When (most?) foreign VIPs visit the US, I don't think there are TFRs in place for them (unless the location coincides with our VIPs). Are there TFRs (or international equivilents) in other countries when the US VIPs are there?
A few times, when flying into SFO, me and my fellow passengers were informed that due to foggy weather one of two parallel runways there is closed, causing delays. So, a few questions: Why can only one runway be used during fog? During an instrument landing, if the instruments are precise enough to land the plane exactly in the middle of one runway, then surely they are precise enough to differentiate between two runways? Is this standard practice in all airports or something specific to SFO? Is there some minimum distance between parallel runways above which it is safe to keep them both