Is this just an economic issue? What are airport taxes and why are they different everywhere

In one of his interviews, Richard Branson outlined in in general terms his vision of the development of space tourism. After the travel to the orbit of our planet became available to tourists, it seems quite possible to use such space hotels for a longer journey. As Branson noted, from such hotels it will be very convenient to make excursion tours to the moon. This type of tourism will become massive only under one condition - the trip should be as short as possible. So, how long will it take for a man to travel to the moon?

By now, there have been quite enough trips to the moon, both by machines and by man. Therefore, in this article we will try to consider all possible options: from the slowest to the fastest flights to the Earth's natural satellite at a distance of 380,000 km.

Slowest: 1 year, 1 month and 2 weeks

Despite the fact that this flight was the slowest, technologically it was the most advanced. The ESA SMART-1 lunar probe was launched on September 27th, 2003 and used a revolutionary ion thruster to fly to the Moon. Although ESA SMART-1 reached the Moon after 410 days, it used only 82 kg of propellant during its journey. At the moment, this is the most economical way of movement.

Not very slow: 5 days

Most original flight Chinese satellite Chang "e-1 was launched into orbit on October 24, 2007. But he had to hang in Earth orbit until October 31, waiting for the correct departure point. He arrived on the Moon on November 5, using conventional rocket engines during the flight.

Manned flights: 3 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes

The Apollo mission reached the Moon fairly quickly. The astronauts took off on the huge Saturn V rocket on July 16, 1969. They were in lunar orbit just three days later on July 19th, 1969.

First satellite:<2 дней

The very first flight to the Moon was made by the Soviet satellite Luna-1. The satellite passed at a distance of only 500 km from the Moon, after which it entered a heliocentric orbit. It took the satellite just 36 hours to reach the Moon.

Shortest way to the moon: 8 hours, 35 minutes

So far, the fastest flight to the Moon is NASA's New Horizons Pluto mission. From the very beginning, the satellite was faithfully accelerated - the speed of movement was about 58,000 km / h. This was done so that the satellite could overcome the attraction of the Sun in the solar system. However, despite such impressive speed, it still took the satellite eight hours and thirty-five minutes to cover the 380,000-kilometer distance.

Thus, companies involved in space tourism have several options for sightseeing tours around the moon. They can offer both long cruises - using ion engines, and short ones - using fast and powerful rockets, in order to take those who want to the moon for the weekend.

How many times have Americans been to the moon? ! explain the following... next... given by the author KOSTIK the best answer is I don't understand why my answers don't stay. I'll try again. The Americans flew to the moon 7 times Apollo 11-17, since the 13th landing was not made due to a serious accident. Thus the Americans have been to the moon SIX times by two people. 12 people. One man always sat on the abode in Apollo.
This is a link to my album from Cape Canaveral. Tried to insert pictures. does not work. Mail slows down.
Mark
Enlightened
(25428)
Lenochka, but they were unmanned, and the question "How many times have the Americans been on the moon" Therefore, I wrote only about manned flights.
By the way, this year I was again at this cosmodrome. They added a 3D cinema. and a capsule to fly to Mars.

Answer from awake[newbie]
You fools, I’ll be happy to throw money on a satellite that will fly around the moon and take a picture of the traces of the Americans ... The Americans weren’t on the moon because they are the smartest on earth and know how to spend money ... Well, if they were in quotes, then this is just nonsense our World was built and it brought good for many years, and they stupidly pissed away the loot for show ...
PS they weren't on the moon 100%

Answer from Oldman Petrov[active]
They have never been and in the next hundred years no one will be able to fly there.

Answer from precocious[newbie]
They were not there at all and they were not there at all)). All this is a falsification, a long and successfully proven truth.))

Answer from Eurovision[guru]
Isn't it logical that the previous expeditions took photos of the places of future landings (the third astronaut remained in orbit anyway), maps were made from these photos. If they gave each astronaut a card, they could use 1 of the two.
In general, questions and more cunning are full of links and answers to them.

Answer from Gavrishevsky Ilya[newbie]
The Americans were 6 times, and the Soviets lost the lunar race, and because of this they invented a lunar conspiracy.

Answer from Dannisy Tzu[guru]
on movies 4 times, and so hell they were there. fished.

Answer from Wait, locomotive (77rus)[guru]
Taking into account the disclosed falsification of the flight to the moon or without? How many times the Americans were really there is not known. Maybe they haven't even been there yet.

Answer from Sunset man[guru]
Several times is a known fact.

Answer from Yovetlana Chernova[guru]
If you mean the landing of people on the moon, then no one was there, I noticed a long time ago that the reports write in great detail about the landing itself, but nothing is ever said about taking off from the moon, and this is the most confusing point of the program deviate in takeoff for seconds in the trajectory and fly away into outer space and a number of other difficulties exist with the problem of takeoff

They say that a certain businessman was so afraid of flying on planes because of the threat of explosions that he came up with an original method of combating terrorism: on any trip he took a dummy bomb with him, confident that there would certainly not be a second person with the same luggage on board. .

If you fantasize about the wine list at the airport before your trip, and when choosing an airline, you are guided by Yandex’s opinion on the topic “Yak-40 plane crashes along the route over the past 15 years”, we sympathize - you have aerophobia.

Often, patients with this unpleasant disease consider it to be something like an aggravation of common sense: “Well, the plane crashed just yesterday - I knew it, I will never sit in this death capsule again!” And then, when you still have to fly, the flight attendants observe nervous, sweating passengers who, as soon as they enter the cabin, fasten their seat belts tightly, grab the armrests and, with a crazy look, begin to wait for death. If you are one of these unfortunates, then remember: aerophobia is a diagnosis.

Terror flying on wings

Imagine a map of the world. Of course, you are the center of the universe, but still, there are so many large cities on this planet. And they have airports. And every hour, 20 planes visit these airports. In total, 138,000 planes safely reach their destination every day in the world - and these are only commercial flights. If the chance of a daily crash was only 0.01%, this would mean that at least 13 planes must crash per day!

It turns out that about 50 million flights are made in the world every year. There are only a few failed ones. Well, let's say six. This is 500 people. Those who landed successfully - about 5 billion. And therefore the chance to die in the next raid is 1 in 10 million. Yes, of course, he is - but where is he not? You walk down an icy street in February, you eat bony fish, you swim drunk, you water flowers in Haiti, you ride the Moscow subway... And the people around you don't care about your life. In an airplane, it is the multimillion-dollar industry that takes care of you, honed to the most insignificant screws: precisely because it is dangerous to fly from the very beginning, humanity has made this action as safe as possible.

How to calm down

However, all these facts convince a real aerophobe only in part. “And if the wing falls off?”, “What if there is a thunderstorm?”, “Well, can the engines turn off?” - in fact, there are no number of questions. There will always be an additional, the same one, the answer to which once and for all must expose the worldwide conspiracy of aviators against your life.

It's better not to hurt yourself. And just do the following:

Learn physics, at least its basics. They will say a lot. For example, many are afraid to simply fall down from a height of 10 km. So, this simply cannot be because of the strong pressure under the wings of the aircraft. It stays in the air as well as a car on the highway. It can be put on the tail, rotated around its axis by 100 degrees, directed down - and if you release the steering wheel, the plane will simply sway in the air, like a boat on the waves.

In Moscow, you can visit the unique Boeing-737 cockpit simulator. It is owned by a private company TFT. This is exactly the simulator on which real pilots rehearse various emergency situations - the notorious engine and landing gear failures, flying in a thunderstorm, snowfall and fog. Inside this is a real Boeing cockpit, in which all the effects are absolutely "no fools". Anyone can fly it with an instructor pilot, you can also ask to simulate any situations and explain how the aircraft behaves in this case.

The right decision would be to see a doctor. After all, aerophobia is a disease, and it needs to be treated. So far, there is only one clinic in Russia dealing with this issue - it is called "Fly without fear" and is located in Moscow. The course of treatment usually fits in two days and several thousand rubles. For those who cannot come, there are online courses that can be paid online.

Can Russian Airlines be trusted?

If you decide to fly without all these tricks, then, first of all, remember: choosing an airline desperately, you are just wasting your time. They are all equally safe - that of Lufthansa, that of Aeroflot, that of Izhevsk Airlines.

“No one has ever heard of Tajik-Avia or Ural Airlines crashing,” says the director of the Fly Without Fear clinic, the pilot Alexey Gervash. “Airlines, like turbulence, are just a matter of comfort, not safety. Aviation is a huge structure with a strict hierarchy, there are thousands of requirements, and if a company puts its plane at the airport, it means that it meets all of them. And it’s completely wrong to think that Russian airlines are worse than others: 1.5 years have passed from the plane crash in Perm to the crash near Smolensk, and during this time not a single person has died in Russia “in the sky.”

Rumors that pilots in Russia drink, dilute gasoline, airlines buy planes decommissioned in Korea and repair them in a barn with a sledgehammer are also the result of mass aerophobia. Russia is part of the global aviation community. If the fears are to be believed, millions of careless people allow Russian drunken pilots in wrecks with diluted gasoline to fly hourly over power plants, schools, UNESCO monuments and the Large Hadron Collider. Suicides, no less. Or is that still not the case?

By the way, pilots and flight attendants do not receive cash bonuses “for risk”. Because the plane flies not contrary to common sense and the laws of nature, but thanks to them.

Is there a future for our aircraft industry?

Yes, because there is potential. But no one knows the future. And on the one hand, this is good, because if a person knew the future, it would not be interesting to live. And of course it has potential. There are a huge number of young people who want and can, and are learning how to build, invent. It's hard to say how it will go on. At the moment, I do not see any positive shifts in the rise of the aviation industry.

Does the Russian aviation industry need it? Or is it more profitable for us to fly on Boeings?

Russia has a very large brain potential. It's no secret that Russia builds and invents the best gliders in the world. Gliders in the sense of aerodynamic quality. But as always with us, somewhere in the bud - it chokes. And the brains flow to the west. If conditions are created for these people to live with dignity and be able to do this business, then it will be possible to raise not only the aviation industry. There will be a desire, there will be a striving towards this issue, we will achieve it. To date, I don't see anything. Maybe competitors interfere.

In general, what is competitiveness - it's a choice. If there was one plane in the world - IL-96, and no one else would make planes, then we would sell it for the price we would like, because no one has it.

But there are a lot of aircraft on the market, the competition between competitors is great. And it is always not white, it is always a dirty game. Whoever has more money, intelligence, cunning, promotes his product to the market more. And we have no one to promote the IL-96 aircraft to the world market. Although the plane is very competitive.

There are companies that manufacture aircraft equipment. Why would any other firm develop something that is better than them? Failed with the engine, build a glider. Buy this engine from the British, who have it better. And if you do not want to buy, build your own engine and demonstrate it clearly. But this is not done, everything depends on money.

Our fleet of Airbuses and Boeings consists of pre-owned vehicles, and some of them cannot be operated in the United States. I would like to understand how safe and economical it is? That's why the Americans are not profitable? Economically or according to safety standards?

Any mechanical machine that has rubbing, rotating parts, it has a certain resource. For an aircraft, there is actually no concept of wear and tear. It can wear out according to the condition of the airframe, metal and everything else. If we took the plane from the dump, we must also take into account the fact that the dumps are different. The USA says: “We don't need a plane that has been flying for more than 15 years. Because it becomes unprofitable for us to constantly change spare parts on it. We'd rather buy a new aircraft and not change anything."
In Russia, we cannot afford to buy new planes. The Americans have adopted a law that an aircraft after 15 years is considered unusable. This is connected, in addition to private ones, also with state funds, laws, etc. But this does not mean at all that an aircraft that has been in operation for more than 15 years is rubbish. I can say for sure that you can take a completely new aircraft from the factory and in a year make it so that no one in the world will look at it. And you can, on the contrary, take a new aircraft and sell it as new after 10 years of operation. Our people buy old planes because the price is much lower. A new aircraft costs $100 million and a used one costs $30 million.

Is this just an economic issue?

Yes, this is a purely economic issue. Because buying an airplane is not like buying a loaf of bread from a store. In addition to buying an aircraft, the company will have to invest a lot of money for maintenance, insurance, etc. And this is simply unaffordable money for many Russian airlines. New aircraft are operated either by large state-owned companies or by very developed international companies. Once the Chinese took new planes, now they are forced to take supported ones. But they are setting up production, they have received a license to produce aircraft. We conclude that buying new aircraft is unaffordable.

We know that an aircraft can be released for a flight with a certain set of faults. How does this affect flight safety? Or can the aircraft fly with a faulty engine autothrust control system, and it doesn't affect anything?

There is a book that describes the minimum equipment with which an aircraft is allowed to take off. Everything is written there: when it is possible, when it is impossible, and everything else. Naturally, if the aircraft's engine is not running, no one will let it go anywhere. If the light in the toilet does not work, then, of course, you can fly. Those defects that affect flight safety are unacceptable in operation. Those that indirectly affect the safety of the flight, they can be considered from the point of view that it is not necessary to return the aircraft to the base and that the probability of failure of this system is unlikely to occur. And on the other hand, even if the system fails, we will get to the base anyway. That is, the duplication of these systems allows the use of an aircraft, all this is written in the book.

For example, an aircraft has 2 engines and an auxiliary power unit. Let's take the electrical part, each auxiliary power unit has an electric generator. It is allowed to take off an aircraft with an inoperative auxiliary power unit. That is, it broke down, there is no contact, the plane can be launched from a ground source, from another engine, etc. Why is this allowed? We took off, one engine failed us, then we connect to the auxiliary power unit. And here we do not have an auxiliary power unit and the engine failed. The point is that a plane can fly on one engine.

And even if the second engine fails, then we have a battery. The conclusion is that this defect affects flight safety indirectly. But with this defect, the plane cannot fly constantly, so certain deadlines are given for repairs. But if something burns in the engine, then this directly affects the safety of the flight. And not only on Boeing, Airbus, but also on the TU-154, IL-62, IL-96, the same thing. It has always been, is and will be.

Have you had to refuse a flight in your practice? And already boarding the plane, having prepared for the flight, to find that something is not working.

Yes, and it happened more than once. I came on the plane, I was already taxiing, and something broke in the process. And either it was repaired, or on a reserve aircraft.

Were there any problems that happened after takeoff, already in the air?

Of course there have been.

Can you tell any case?

The TU-154 suffered an engine failure on takeoff. Nothing terrible happened, because engine failure is not an emergency.

Do you feel engine failure in the cabin?

I do not know, I was not in the cabin, but in the cockpit. But the passengers said they could hear it. This is not even a failure, but the engineer turned off the engine, because the loss of oil has begun. And in order not to bring the matter to a fire, they turned off the engine. But we decided to return anyway.

On a Boeing at night in the clouds in bad weather they took off once, and suddenly everything went out. The electricity has run out. Again, nothing terrible happened, they redistributed the food and flew further. There was also a situation on the fighter. At night, the artificial horizon disappeared. I suffered a lot of fear, I was young.

Failures happen, I have experienced it more than once in my flying life. But I didn't have anything beyond emergency. There was a situation when entering at the Antalya airport, the mechanization was released, the hose burst, the hydraulic system leaked out. I had to spend 5 days in Antalya in a five-star hotel until the plane was repaired.

Did the chassis come out?

Everything came out. We simply lost the hydraulic system, naturally we did not fly out of there. We arrived, we were settled, the plane was laid up. They were waiting for the technicians to arrive from Russia. While they found the cause, they ordered a hose, while they installed it, they checked it. And we, as pilots, sat in hotels. So there have been such cases. .

Is it really correct to say that when traveling by plane the most dangerous part is the car ride to the airport?

More likely yes than no. Returning to the Internet, there the person wrote: "You are not correctly assessing the ratio of risk and probability." Cars fight, but there are more of them than planes. But if we take it in absolute numerical terms, we take statistics for one aircraft and one machine. And if you take it in absolute numbers, then it turns out that the plane is still safer. With a million sorties, one disaster.

Disaster or flight accident?

I find it difficult to answer this question. Because I myself did not keep these statistics. We will talk about disasters when there are human casualties. After all, the concept of a catastrophe and an accident are different. A catastrophe is an incident with a technical device that resulted in human casualties within 3 days. The accident is a broken car, no human casualties.

If we take that the car leaves the house every day. Although the plane takes off every day, it does not stand still, because the plane for commercial purposes must fly 16-17 hours a day. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money. If we take a million sorties and a million machine departures, then the ratio of accidents and catastrophes will clearly be more in the direction of cars.

And therefore, it is absolutely legitimate to assume that the road from home to the airport is much more dangerous than flying by plane. The probability of getting into an accident on a plane is approximately equal to the probability of getting an icicle on the head while walking on the sidewalk. No one can be immune from this.

Are modern aircraft ready to fly in all weather conditions? Or is there such weather conditions under which the plane cannot fly?

The aircraft can fly in all weather conditions. On the other hand, he can fly, but who will let him go. The cloud front can be bypassed. Thunderclouds and everything else is not so much dangerous as it is the phenomena that are present in these clouds that are dangerous.

Hail is solid, frozen water, it has weight, the plane has speed. Hitting a piece of ice weighing 50 grams into an aircraft at a speed of 900 km per hour is a clear hole right through. In addition, the atmospheric conditions in the thundercloud itself are such that the aircraft immediately begins to freeze. Because the humidity is huge, the temperature is low, the rate of ice growth is lightning fast. The plane loses its aerodynamic properties very quickly, i.e. it was a plane, and after 10 seconds it turned into a brick. And this will lead to the inevitable death of the aircraft.

There are also downdrafts and updraughts that can throw an aircraft around critical angles. These are all meteorological conditions. But today all this is predictable. You can fly in any weather conditions, modern aircraft can land automatically. Full fog, zero visibility, can't hear anything, but the plane can auto-land.

Who is landing planes these days: pilots or computers?

Basically, whoever you want. I plant myself. There are conditions under which it is forbidden to land on your hands. That is, in category 3 weather, this is a landing in the machine. All this is not regulated, which is necessary on hand, or in the machine. It's all up to you.

How many times a day does a pilot fly?

There is a labor code that regulates the length of the working day. The working day cannot exceed certain values. We have documents that regulate the general situation and we have documents of the company. We cannot work more than 12 hours a day, but we must have a break for lunch and everything else. If we know in advance that our flight will exceed the working hours, then we need a reinforced crew. Working time is not counted from the moment you take off, but from the moment you come to work.

For example, we carry out the flight Moscow - Los Angeles. It is clear that the plane will fly for more than 12 hours. Therefore, we will fly not together, but four. One crew will sit in the cabin, the other will steer the plane. There are rest areas for the crew.

If the flights are short, then 2 flights per day. If there are delays, then the aircraft commander is given the right to extend working hours by 1.5-2 hours, but with the consent of all crew members. If someone refuses, then we stay. If I clearly know that the delay is even longer, that is, more than 14 hours, then I will not fly anywhere.

Is it true that if a pilot flies in the cabin as a passenger, then he always sleeps?

About myself I can say - I sleep. And, at any time. The plane makes me sick, but not in terms of being sick, but in terms of falling asleep well, like in a hammock.

Can you roughly tell what happens in the cockpit at the time of takeoff?

Yes, nothing special. We stood in front of the runway, waited, they were allowed to taxi out onto the runway, we taxi out, we carry out a list of control checks before takeoff, we get permission to take off, go and take off.

Yes. The funny thing is, planes can land in the machine, but they can’t take off. Not because it is technically difficult, but because it is simply not necessary.

Does the plane start to squat the moment the autopilot is turned on?

No, this is the moment when the plane took off and accelerated to a certain required speed. The plane begins to squat, because the wing mechanization is removed, the flaps are removed. Due to the mechanization of the wing, resistance is removed, and the speed begins to increase. The flaps are retracted a little slower than the speed begins to increase, and a drawdown is obtained.

What is the reason for the fact that now in the summer in many airlines there are flight delays for a considerable time, sometimes even for a day?

It has to do with the airline. Some companies in pursuit of money overestimated their strength. They collect a certain number of flights without providing a certain reservation. She creates her business plan for the summer with 30% aircraft failures. But in practice, it turns out that they often experience aircraft failures, and their plan begins to go astray. Because it is impossible to load 10 flights per day on one plane.

If we operate one aircraft with a frequency of 16 hours a day, then we should have 8 hours left for its maintenance, refueling and everything else. And some companies try 22 hours to operate and 2 hours to service. And this suggests that if the schedule is off by only half an hour, then this delay begins to accumulate.

Half an hour here, twenty minutes there, another ten minutes there. Then the plane broke down, but there is no backup, and it turns out to be a “snowball”. Overestimation of forces and opportunities in the pursuit of money leads, as a rule, to flight delays. If we had 2 aircraft, absolutely serviceable, and we would operate one flight per day, then with almost a 100% probability this flight would be operated without any delays. If we load 5 flights a day on one plane, and there is no backup, then the probability that we will not be in time somewhere is high.

Does it happen that under such conditions the company puts pressure on the pilot and the director says: “Fly, people are waiting”?

There are rumors, but I haven't personally experienced it. Here, probably, we are not talking about the flight director, but about the commercial director of the company. I have never heard this from flight directors, because he is a pilot himself. A commercial director can say such things, and he doesn't push, he asks. That is, it is useless to press. There are such conversations. Moreover, it will not work to put pressure on it, but you can stimulate it. As in any field, there are people who fundamentally approach this issue, and some do not. It's hard to speak for everyone.

During takeoff, the engines operate in takeoff mode. And when landing, do we hear an increase in noise, does the take-off mode also turn on, or is it some other phenomenon?

When the plane starts to descend, the engine starts to work at higher speeds. The point is that wing mechanization, flaps, landing gear are being produced, and they increase drag.

At what speed does the plane take off and land?

Takeoff speed is approximately 230-250 km/h. Landing speed is approximately equal to takeoff speed, even slightly less. Because the fuel has run out, the plane is lighter. In general, the landing speed is 200-250 km/h. It all depends on weight, strip condition, pressure, etc.

Could you tell us how you came up with the idea to start your own "live journal"?

I didn't come up with this idea.

When I got to know the computer closely, I began to surf the Internet. He began to climb where he could and could not. I was mainly interested in aviation, I wrote in a search engine and climbed forums, websites, etc. Through a chat on the Internet, I met more advanced guys. And they advised me to publish my photos in LiveJournal. And it turned out to be a good option, because it was possible to publish and write something there. That's how I basically became a writer and photographer. And in this magazine I wrote once, twice, and everyone began to write: tell me, show me. That's how it all went and went.

Moreover, until recently, I did not know that there were any ratings, although they do not interest me much. Because I write for my readers. In fact, I keep a diary, I open the year 2005, remember where I flew, where I was. I lead it more for myself, my friends, children, acquaintances. I never have material of a scandalous nature, because I see no reason to endure quarrels in public. In my diaries I never discuss the conclusions of the interstate aviation committee on this or that catastrophe, I do not discuss what is published in the newspapers. And not because I do not have my own opinion, but because my opinion may often not coincide with the rest.

Recently, I have been talking to the press and I am convinced that in most cases certain conversations that we had will be published in the publication in a distorted form. Moreover, they are distorted so cleverly and cool that it seems that you were talking about one thing, but it turns out that you told about another. Although I understand that the person who was interviewing, he has several tasks. Either display in the right direction of this publication, or form a public point of view, or simply interview an interesting person. So naturally, with the art of the pen, you can do anything. He sends me, read it, that's how we will publish it, and that's how it will be written. I agree, I like it. The text is published, and there everything is the other way around. Honestly, I will not say anything more to Komsomolskaya Pravda. Because we were discussing flight safety, and in the newspaper there is a close-up of a naked girl and a scandal is described. Of course, I understand that this is to attract attention. It's just unpleasant when you talk with a person everything is fine, and then everything is vice versa.

Has anything changed in your life because of the popularity of your live magazine?

Yes. First, the log takes a lot of time. Secondly, a lot of interesting people appeared, I learn a lot. I have always had a dream to ride in a hot air balloon. And thanks to the livejournal, they invited me, took a ride. Basically what I expected was what I got. And useful acquaintances are also not the last thing. To be honest, I wanted to go on vacation. I advertised: “Who can help with the vacation?” A lot of people responded. Phoned someone on the phone, talked to someone on ICQ. And he chose what he wanted, and went to rest.

Some time ago you wrote a story about a village doctor who saves an airplane. How did the idea to write this story come about?

In general, this idea arose against the background of my grandiose indignation and loss of myself. Although I am a very calm person. A dispute ensued on the Avia.ru forum whether Simmer would land the plane. Simmer are those who torment the computer in the hope of mastering the mystery of piloting supersonic and passenger aircraft, and at some point they lose the idea of ​​​​the connection between reality and virtuality. And I was surprised that people who are already over 30 believe that he can easily go into the real world and be able to easily fly a plane. This skirmish lasted for several days, I realized that I was not in peace of mind. Then I somehow remembered the movie when all the pilots were poisoned. And I decided to take a plot from there and decided to add a simmer there. But only modern, funny. And I began to write this story online, and within 3 days I will write 10 lines. So that's what I wrote.

So can a simmer land a plane?

Of course not. This is from the realm of fantasy.

Even with all the automation of landing, despite the fact that there is a computer?

The computer can land, the simmer cannot. Everything rests on the fact that a person, having found himself in real life in a real cabin with all his computer skills, he simply will not be able to perform the algorithm of actions that will be transmitted to him. There are simmers that actually fly. They were fond of simulators, went to flight school, they actually flew.

The Simmers know a lot. But you need to be able to use the acquired knowledge, where to apply. That is, you need to know where to get the right information at the right time. It is easier to learn certain main directions and at the right time to find the right way to solve the situation, rather than memorizing everything. And so the sheer amount of information actually prevents simmers from doing what a regular statistical pilot does.

The school does not teach you to study the entire “flight manual” by heart, you must read it and have an idea. The main emphasis is on understanding the process of working in the cockpit, flight processes, and what to do if something suddenly happened. Simple mindless poking of buttons does not lead to anything good. And having read books, having simulated the situation in the virtual world, he believes that the same thing will happen in his cockpit. No, distractions affecting the psyche and hearing. For example, you need to start lowering, you focus your attention on what you will be doing at the moment. At this time, you have a connection, you bypass thunderstorms, etc. Without preparation, this is impossible.

You can know the technique theoretically, but until you practically try, nothing will work. I had an example: 2 simmers are sitting on the simulator, I tell them: “Let's set the course”, he sets the speed instead of the course. Then I say: “To enter, we connect the second autopilot.” But the button is implemented in such a way that by pressing once you turn it on, by pressing the second - you turn it off. Instead of turning on two autopilots, the simmer turned off the first autopilot. The one who was sitting on the left, he did not pay attention to this, and I naturally kept silent. The plane was balanced because it had been on autopilot for some time. The second time they turned off the autopilot, the plane slowly began to drift off that course. And they think he's leaving because he's being driven by two autopilots, so that's the way it should be. As a result, they did not hit the strip.

Is it really possible to fly with the pilot Lekha?

Go to the website of the airline "Atlant-Soyuz", find the phone. Call and say: “We bought tickets for such and such a flight and we want Aleksey Kochemasov to be our commander.

But seriously, if we buy a ticket at Atlant-Soyuz, is there a chance that we will fly with you?

Is it still possible to fly with you on the Boeing TFT simulator at Kutuzovsky?

Yes. To do this, call the number listed on the website of the simulator and find out when I will work.

Will you have an exhibition of your photographs in the near future?

Yes, from 4 to 12 September at Kutuzovsky 12. Come, there will be more than a hundred photographs, most of which were taken from the cockpit.

What would you like to wish our readers who are preparing to fly somewhere?

Don't be afraid, fly. Profitable, reliable and interesting.

Thanks a lot.

If you have a question that you would like to ask a real pilot, then you can do it in the discussion of this topic. We will collect all your questions and pass them on to Alexey. The answers to them will be published. Also, in the near future, a material dedicated to the Boeing 737NG simulator, which was discussed in this article, will be released.