The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

View Profile · 04-04-2014 9:28pm

Yes you would use reverse thrust up to maximum as well as braking and deploy the speedbrake.

smurfjed · 19-04-2014 5:18pm

Landed into LeBourget Paris, luckily the wind was favouring the long runway so we got vectored to that, turbulent approach. After landing we are rolling along the runway, choice of one exit taxiway or rolling to the end of the runway, as the aircraft was leaving again as soon as possible, we rolled along to the end in order to keep the brakes cool......
Next thing we know, ATC are asking us to expedite exiting the runway due to landing traffic behind us, problem was that he was speaking to that traffic in French so we didn't know that he was even there !! As we exited the runway we could see that the landing traffic was a 7X. Don't think that the tower was too amused with us, but hey, if you want us to know that you have traffic behind us, then either tell us, or speak in ENGLISH....

Thats my gripe for the week

conor_ie · 19-04-2014 7:12pm

I was going to ask if anything interesting had happened recently to any of the pilots that post here! Thanks Smurfjed!!

faceman · 19-04-2014 7:21pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Landed into LeBourget Paris, luckily the wind was favouring the long runway so we got vectored to that, turbulent approach. After landing we are rolling along the runway, choice of one exit taxiway or rolling to the end of the runway, as the aircraft was leaving again as soon as possible, we rolled along to the end in order to keep the brakes cool......
Next thing we know, ATC are asking us to expedite exiting the runway due to landing traffic behind us, problem was that he was speaking to that traffic in French so we didn't know that he was even there !! As we exited the runway we could see that the landing traffic was a 7X. Don't think that the tower was too amused with us, but hey, if you want us to know that you have traffic behind us, then either tell us, or speak in ENGLISH....

Thats my gripe for the week

Thankfully no harm came of it. In that instance if there had been an incident or incursion, who would have been at fault?

Jack1985 · 19-04-2014 10:00pm

In that instance if there had been an incident or incursion, who would have been at fault?

I don't think ATC would let it get to that stage, predominantly in Europe you are only cleared to land when the runway is ''clear'', in the US however they can clear two or three to land at the same time and I believe in the US also its the crews responsibility to ensure its clear or possibly theres an equal share 50/50 responsibility.

Regards who would be at fault if there was an incursion I would think it would be ATC and the traffic that landed even though there was a danger on the runway (aircraft had not vacated) definitely not the crew who were on the runway.

Cessna_Pilot · 19-04-2014 10:39pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Landed into LeBourget Paris, luckily the wind was favouring the long runway so we got vectored to that, turbulent approach. After landing we are rolling along the runway, choice of one exit taxiway or rolling to the end of the runway, as the aircraft was leaving again as soon as possible, we rolled along to the end in order to keep the brakes cool......
Next thing we know, ATC are asking us to expedite exiting the runway due to landing traffic behind us, problem was that he was speaking to that traffic in French so we didn't know that he was even there !! As we exited the runway we could see that the landing traffic was a 7X. Don't think that the tower was too amused with us, but hey, if you want us to know that you have traffic behind us, then either tell us, or speak in ENGLISH....

Thats my gripe for the week

Had a go around myself in LTN last week because of some slow BIZjet drivers taking it a bit too handy vacating 26. Said BIZjet drivers being told to, and I quote "expedide to vacate B previously advised traffic at 1 mile" and them replying back in a very patronising and relaxed manner that they would :rolleyes: Quite a regular occurance there I believe. Said previous traffic being us, and them being told 3 times to not piss around on the runway! Amatuers!

Cessna_Pilot · 19-04-2014 10:40pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

I don't think ATC would let it get to that stage, predominantly in Europe you are only cleared to land when the runway is ''clear'', in the US however they can clear two or three to land at the same time and I believe in the US also its the crews responsibility to ensure its clear or possibly theres an equal share 50/50 responsibility.

Regards who would be at fault if there was an incursion I would think it would be ATC and the traffic that landed even though there was a danger on the runway (aircraft had not vacated) definitely not the crew who were on the runway.

Land after clearances are common at UK airports.

Jack1985 · 19-04-2014 10:45pm

Land after clearances are common at UK airports.

Which airports? They don't issue such clearances at LHR the busiest in the UK, watched a documentary in July last year and aircraft were being cleared to land in LHR as low as 200ft AGL.

Cessna_Pilot · 19-04-2014 11:20pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

Which airports? They don't issue such clearances at LHR the busiest in the UK, watched a documentary in July last year and aircraft were being cleared to land in LHR as low as 200ft AGL.

Luton and Stansted to name two I'm familiar with. Issued only in the hours of daylight, for obvious reasons.

To quote;

When aircraft are using the same runway, a landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft which has landed is clear of the runway provided that:
a) the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
d) the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway; and
e) the pilot of the following aircraft is warned. Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation rests with the pilot of the following aircraft.The phraseology used to authorise a landing aircraft to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft is clear of the runway is "LAND AFTER the (aircraft type)

Jack1985 · 19-04-2014 11:29pm

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

Luton and Stansted to name two I'm familiar with. Issued only in the hours of daylight, for obvious reasons.

To quote;

When aircraft are using the same runway, a landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft which has landed is clear of the runway provided that:
a) the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
d) the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway; and
e) the pilot of the following aircraft is warned. Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation rests with the pilot of the following aircraft.The phraseology used to authorise a landing aircraft to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft is clear of the runway is "LAND AFTER the (aircraft type)

Cheers for that!

eatmyshorts · 19-04-2014 11:38pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

Which airports? They don't issue such clearances at LHR the busiest in the UK, watched a documentary in July last year and aircraft were being cleared to land in LHR as low as 200ft AGL.

Gatwick employ it to.

Jack1985 · 19-04-2014 11:41pm

Question of my own I keep forgetting to ask, say you were in a situation for e.g. ORK was fogbound and you faced approx 30 mins of holding with no guarantee of the fog clearing when would you decide on a diversion?

From you're loadsheet say were estimated to arrive on block with 3.2 tonnes of fuel in ORK, held for approx 30 mins which equates to 1,061 tonnes of fuel burn reducing your FOB to 2.2 tonnes, then you decide you are going to SNN where the fuel burn en-route equates to 909KG approx 84 track miles, which should give an estimated 1.3 tonnes of arrival block fuel in SNN.

What would be the opinion of letting the fuel get to 1.3 tonnes? my own preferable action would be to hold for max 15 minutes before diverting giving me a block arrival fuel of 1.8 tonnes in SNN, if I decided to divert to DUB after 15 minutes of holding at ORK, with 133 track miles or an estimated en-route fuel burn of 1.3 tonnes, I would arrive with an estimated FOB block of 1.4 - Are these figures entirely safe? guaranteeing of course that both alternates are say CAVOK.

Cessna_Pilot · 20-04-2014 12:08am

Jack1985 wrote: »

Question of my own I keep forgetting to ask, say you were in a situation for e.g. ORK was fogbound and you faced approx 30 mins of holding with no guarantee of the fog clearing when would you decide on a diversion?

From you're loadsheet say were estimated to arrive on block with 3.2 tonnes of fuel in ORK, held for approx 30 mins which equates to 1,061 tonnes of fuel burn reducing your FOB to 2.2 tonnes, then you decide you are going to SNN where the fuel burn en-route equates to 909KG approx 84 track miles, which should give an estimated 1.3 tonnes of arrival block fuel in SNN.

What would be the opinion of letting the fuel get to 1.3 tonnes? my own preferable action would be to hold for max 15 minutes before diverting giving me a block arrival fuel of 1.8 tonnes in SNN, if I decided to divert to DUB after 15 minutes of holding at ORK, with 133 track miles or an estimated en-route fuel burn of 1.3 tonnes, I would arrive with an estimated FOB block of 1.4 - Are these figures entirely safe? guaranteeing of course that both alternates are say CAVOK.

Instructed to hold for 30 minutes with no gaurantee of improvement after the 30 mins. I'd be on the ground in SNN before those 30 minutes are up!

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 12:18am

Instructed to hold for 30 minutes with no gaurantee of improvement after the 30 mins. I'd be on the ground in SNN before those 30 minutes are up!

It happens regularly at ORK but the majority of the flights do hold a good 20 minutes before diverting, is there an actual defined minimum required FOB at the ALTN?

ProfessorPlum · 20-04-2014 12:21am

Jack1985 wrote: »

It happens regularly at ORK but the majority of the flights do hold a good 20 minutes before diverting, is there an actual defined minimum required FOB at the ALTN?

You must plan to land with at least your minimum reserve fuel on board (30 mins). There's no legal requirement to have any more than that, and if you know that you will land with less, you must declare a mayday.:eek:

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 12:24am

You must plan to land with at least your minimum reserve fuel on board (30 mins).

That's the answer I was looking for thank you,

. So to clarify if I hold for 15 mins then divert to SNN and arrive with an ONBL, FOB of 1.8 tonnes with my 30min reserve endurance being 1.1 tonnes, I'm ok?

ProfessorPlum · 20-04-2014 12:27am

Jack1985 wrote: »

That's the answer I was looking for thank you, . So to clarify if I hold for 15 mins then divert to SNN and arrive with an ONBL, FOB of 1.8 tonnes with my 30min reserve endurance being 1.1 tonnes, I'm ok?

Absolutely. So long as you land anywhere with your 30mins intact, you're legal.

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 12:32am

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Absolutely. So long as you land anywhere with your 30mins intact, you're legal.

Brilliant cheers for that!

smurfjed · 20-04-2014 6:57am

Cessna_Pilot, bear in mind that my planned landing distance for Luton is around 5600 feet at maximum landing weight, the demonstrated landing distances are based on maximum braking immediately upon landing which will result in the aircraft being parked and the thermal fuse plugs melting, so needless to say we don't operate like that. So bear in mind that if you are landing behind us in Luton and we are heavy, we most likely will not make the A1 or B1 taxiways, as neither of these are high speed exits.

adam88 · 20-04-2014 9:53am

smurfjed wrote: »

Cessna_Pilot, bear in mind that my planned landing distance for Luton is around 5600 feet at maximum landing weight, the demonstrated landing distances are based on maximum braking immediately upon landing which will result in the aircraft being parked and the thermal fuse plugs melting, so needless to say we don't operate like that. So bear in mind that if you are landing behind us in Luton and we are heavy, we most likely will not make the A1 or B1 taxiways, as neither of these are high speed exits.

High speed exit?? What does that mean

Thermal fuse plugs?? What are these

dukedalton · 20-04-2014 11:01am

Not a tech question but you guys might know the answer, and I don't want to open a new thread:

I was recently on an Aer Lingus flight to Amsterdam, which was a code share with KLM. One of the air hostesses was Dutch. I was just wondering, would she be a KLM employee seconded to Aer Lingus on that particular route, or do Aer Lingus actively recruit foreign, native-speaking crew for specific routes they fly?

lord lucan · 20-04-2014 11:05am

dukedalton wrote: »

Not a tech question but you guys might know the answer, and I don't want to open a new thread:

I was recently on an Aer Lingus flight to Amsterdam, which was a code share with KLM. One of the air hostesses was Dutch. I was just wondering, would she be a KLM employee seconded to Aer Lingus on that particular route, or do Aer Lingus actively recruit foreign, native-speaking crew for specific routes they fly?

All EI crew, most likely being bilingual helped in her application and she's a Dutch lady living in Ireland. I'd imagine it was just a coincidence she was on the AMS run.

smurfjed · 20-04-2014 11:15am

High Speed Taxiways or Rapid Exit Taxiways are taxiways leading off a runway at an acute angle that allow aircraft to leave the runway at a high speed, unto 60 knots, but in the case of Luton the exits are 90 degrees to the runway so are not classified as high speed.

Every time we brake we convert energy into heat that is absorbed by the brakes, there is only so much of this heat that the brakes and tires can absorb, in order to avoid the tires exploding, the rims are fitted with plugs that are designed to fail at a lower heat than the tires, as they fail, they will release the pressure from the tire and thereby avoid the tires exploding. According to our books, during a high speed rejected takeoff, we can expect the fuse plugs to melt, this can also happen if you apply heavy braking after landing and then have a long taxi to the parking area. This is the primary reason why you will see some aircraft with tail mounted engines taxing with the trust reversers open.

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 11:29am

dukedalton wrote: »

Not a tech question but you guys might know the answer, and I don't want to open a new thread:

I was recently on an Aer Lingus flight to Amsterdam, which was a code share with KLM. One of the air hostesses was Dutch. I was just wondering, would she be a KLM employee seconded to Aer Lingus on that particular route, or do Aer Lingus actively recruit foreign, native-speaking crew for specific routes they fly?

Are you sure she was actually Dutch or did you presume that from a flag on her name badge? If the later she was more than likely Dutch speaking.

bkehoe · 20-04-2014 12:54pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

That's the answer I was looking for thank you, . So to clarify if I hold for 15 mins then divert to SNN and arrive with an ONBL, FOB of 1.8 tonnes with my 30min reserve endurance being 1.1 tonnes, I'm ok?

You hold for as little or long as you decide is appropriate given the specific conditions on the day - you can't decide your plan just based on your own expected fuel burns, there's a much bigger picture than just your aircraft to consider. For example if you push the limits you might find that all those other guys who didn't hang around in the hold for 30mins have diverted to the same alternate and now you're No 5 in the approach or the airport closes to further diversions due to a lack of parking, you don't get the optimal flight level for the cruise to the alternate and thus burn more fuel, etc, or the alternate has a reduced arrivals rate due to similarly bad weather, etc, etc, etc.

If there's no short term forecast improvement from the TAF, or tower reported improvement in RVRs over a short period of time, I'd personally be heading straight for the alternate.

Strumms · 20-04-2014 2:11pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

Are you sure she was actually Dutch or did you presume that from a flag on her name badge? If the later she was more than likely Dutch speaking.

Do EI crews have flags on their name badges ? I have to say I never even noticed that. EI have non Irish cabin crew and indeed non Irish pilots. Not unusual in the modern world.

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 2:39pm

Strumms wrote: »

Do EI crews have flags on their name badges ? I have to say I never even noticed that. EI have non Irish cabin crew and indeed non Irish pilots. Not unusual in the modern world.

Yeah those who speak with multiple languages it's only cabin crew where them.

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 2:42pm

bkehoe wrote: »

You hold for as little or long as you decide is appropriate given the specific conditions on the day - you can't decide your plan just based on your own expected fuel burns, there's a much bigger picture than just your aircraft to consider. For example if you push the limits you might find that all those other guys who didn't hang around in the hold for 30mins have diverted to the same alternate and now you're No 5 in the approach or the airport closes to further diversions due to a lack of parking, you don't get the optimal flight level for the cruise to the alternate and thus burn more fuel, etc, or the alternate has a reduced arrivals rate due to similarly bad weather, etc, etc, etc.

If there's no short term forecast improvement from the TAF, or tower reported improvement in RVRs over a short period of time, I'd personally be heading straight for the alternate.

To be fair I used ORK primarily because there's not going to be more than 5 a/c in the hold, there's going to be paking in DUB/SNN when I said for example they were CAVOK.

Had I said I was flying to BCN with the same weather than id have been asking a totally different question, as you have eluded to there is a lot more to consider in that specific situation.

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 2:48pm

Another question from me onto another area, can anyone explain to me how to understand sigmet charts? I'm guessing the more lines on the wind dials (sorry if I'm naming them wrong - only recently started receiving examples of them), the stronger the wind in that particular direction? Also what other data can you take in from sigmets? Cloud formations maybe turbulence?

smurfjed · 20-04-2014 5:13pm

What charts are you talking about in particular, can you link to one? I use an Ipad APP called Wx Charts, from that i can get just about every type of met chart. I usually use them for checking the winds, weather activity and turbulence, we can then decide if we can route around any problem areas, or go higher than them. For example tonight we will have a bumpy time from the bottom of Italy across the med, from FL280 to 410, we will be at the top of that cruising at 410. We have the ability to go to 450, but as we are then required to wear face oxygen masks, its something that we avoid, but if we had passengers onboard we would have to do it in order to give them a smoother ride.

Right now I'm looking out the window of probably the tallest hotel in Paris, the weather is beautiful and i get to fly an empty aircraft out from there in about 3 hours, this is when the job beats every type of office job imaginable...

basill · 20-04-2014 5:27pm

Who is the sigmet provider? If its something like WAFC prepared then the solid black triangles represent 50kts of wind each. The long thin lines are 10kts and half a line is 5kts.

Type "sigmet chart symbol" into google and you will get loads of returns which should help you decode all the other stuff like cb's, forecast turbulence etc.

Jack1985 · 20-04-2014 5:35pm

Thanks for the replies lads, here's the sigmet, not sure who the provider is as it's linked into the OFP.

bkehoe · 20-04-2014 8:26pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

To be fair I used ORK primarily because there's not going to be more than 5 a/c in the hold, there's going to be paking in DUB/SNN when I said for example they were CAVOK.

Had I said I was flying to BCN with the same weather than id have been asking a totally different question, as you have eluded to there is a lot more to consider in that specific situation.

Airports can be CAVOK and still have significant delays or a myriad of reasons as to why they may not be suitable or expeditious. No matter how perfect the weather is, how precise the flight plans, one will not be hanging around in a hold till the fuel in the tanks equals the reserve fuel on your flightplan. This is airmanship.

Suasdaguna1 · 21-04-2014 2:05am

bkehoe wrote: »

Airports can be CAVOK and still have significant delays or a myriad of reasons as to why they may not be suitable or expeditious. No matter how perfect the weather is, how precise the flight plans, one will not be hanging around in a hold till the fuel in the tanks equals the reserve fuel on your flightplan. This is airmanship.

Airmanship is you dont land with less than final reserve fuel......reserve fuel can be eaten into and land at your destination airport but you'd want to be at the top of your game and know that you'll be landing.

Cessna_Pilot · 21-04-2014 2:06pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies lads, here's the sigmet, not sure who the provider is as it's linked into the OFP.

That is not a sigmet. Thats a wind chart.

basill · 21-04-2014 3:34pm

The attached is a sigmet chart. As Cessna stated your link is wind chart.

http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/fax/PGDE14.PNG

Jack1985 · 21-04-2014 6:18pm

Attached are all related weather charts to the OFP I'm currently viewing, it would be great if someone could say its function, how to interpret it etc, thanks.

The attached is a sigmet chart.

Thanks basil

KnotABother · 22-04-2014 2:21pm

How often if ever would you fly an NDB approach in the course of commercial jet flying? And how often if ever again do you fly a full procedure? Are you just vectored to intercept a localiser/radial?

Growler!!! · 22-04-2014 4:06pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

Attached are all related weather charts to the OFP I'm currently viewing, it would be great if someone could say its function, how to interpret it etc, thanks.

Thanks basil

Might explain a few things.
http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/186

Growler!!! · 22-04-2014 4:14pm

KnotABother wrote: »

How often if ever would you fly an NDB approach in the course of commercial jet flying? And how often if ever again do you fly a full procedure? Are you just vectored to intercept a localiser/radial?

Quite often. BHX have been doing rwy extension works on rwy 15 for the last while. Because of the works they have been switching off the ILS. An RNAV approach is available too but we are not certified to do it. Radar are quite good at vectoring us onto the inbound course.

Rwy 08 in KER is ndb only also but you have to do the full procedure as they don't have radar.

Like everything else, it's easy when you're used to it.

Jack1985 · 22-04-2014 4:21pm

Growler!!! wrote: »

Might explain a few things.
http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/186

Thanks so much for that, finally getting a grasp on it now :P - From the first image in my last post for CAT areas it shows for point 6 a CB area of moderate turbulence with 400/270, would the later be the base and 400 be the top of the weather system as in there's an area of moderate turbulence between FL270 and FL400?

Cheers!

smurfjed · 22-04-2014 8:02pm

This is what we used yesterday, the first thing to do is check the date and time and the appropriate levels. Then have a look at your route and see what lies ahead of you.

You can see a number of ISOL EMBD CB 300/XXX, basically means isolated CBs embedded in other clouds with a max height of FL300 but the XXX isn't actually the lower level, it means that they are lower than the lowest level that the chart was based upon.

Around Italy you can see a Jetstream with black triangles and lines, each triangle is 50 kts. and each line 10, so you have a 130 jet stream. that area is surrounded by dashed lines and the number 4 is associated with that area, looking to the reference box, you can see area 4 has turbulence from 280-460.

If you look closely you can see individual letters, like Z, P, S.... these are actually city names, Zurich, Paris and Stockholm etc.

What else can you see?

Jack1985 · 22-04-2014 8:16pm

This is what we used yesterday, the first thing to do is check the date and time and the appropriate levels. Then have a look at your route and see what lies ahead of you.

You can see a number of ISOL EMBD CB 300/XXX, basically means isolated CBs embedded in other clouds with a max height of FL300 but the XXX isn't actually the lower level, it means that they are lower than the lowest level that the chart was based upon.

Around Italy you can see a Jetstream with black triangles and lines, each triangle is 50 kts. and each line 10, so you have a 130 jet stream. that area is surrounded by dashed lines and the number 4 is associated with that area, looking to the reference box, you can see area 4 has turbulence from 280-460.

If you look closely you can see individual letters, like Z, P, S.... these are actually city names, Zurich, Paris and Stockholm etc.

Brilliant that's made that chart so much easier to read now!

Any idea what the name of that app is smurfjed?

, just hope you can confirm a few details:

[500] - There are various numbers of three figures in boxes around the chart, do these represent Tropopause levels?

Where can you determine areas of CAT? or is this made known via the detailed information using the reference numbers?

Cheers.

smurfjed · 22-04-2014 9:37pm

Wx Charts by company called ProgAero....

[500] or similar is the Tropopause Level, if it has a H above the value, it means HIGH, the letter L stands for LOW.

Before the edit you asked about wind strength, the levels show where the wind is greater than 80 kts. with the maximum shown by the symbols.

Read the tiny text above the box with numbers, it is labelled CAT AREAS. So this indicates where you will encounter CAT.

Jack1985 · 22-04-2014 10:30pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Wx Charts by company called ProgAero....

[500] or similar is the Tropopause Level, if it has a H above the value, it means HIGH, the letter L stands for LOW.

Before the edit you asked about wind strength, the levels show where the wind is greater than 80 kts. with the maximum shown by the symbols.

Read the tiny text above the box with numbers, it is labelled CAT AREAS. So this indicates where you will encounter CAT.

Brilliant thanks to all of ye who helped, plenty of study now to understand this fully.

Cheers!

eatmyshorts · 23-04-2014 1:54am

Jack1985 wrote: »

Brilliant thanks to all of ye who helped, plenty of study now to understand this fully.

Cheers!

Just to add, the CAT areas shown are for forecast "moderate" or "moderate occasionally severe" turbulence. "Light" is not shown. It doesn't mean there will be turbulence, just conditions are indicative of turbulence.

The CB activity areas are ISOL, OCNL or FRQT. Without looking up the actual figures, that means CBs expected to cover <25%, 25-50%, or >50% of the indicated area. Or roughly something like that!

Jack1985 · 23-04-2014 5:55pm

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Just to add, the CAT areas shown are for forecast "moderate" or "moderate occasionally severe" turbulence. "Light" is not shown. It doesn't mean there will be turbulence, just conditions are indicative of turbulence.

The CB activity areas are ISOL, OCNL or FRQT. Without looking up the actual figures, that means CBs expected to cover <25%, 25-50%, or >50% of the indicated area. Or roughly something like that!

Cheers

eatmyshorts · 23-04-2014 6:31pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

Cheers

Or maybe the chart is a whole conspiracy lead by the US, the Met Office, the mujahadeen, Disney Corp and Kermit the Frog to fool us all......

Oops, wrong thread!!

Jack1985 · 23-04-2014 6:43pm

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Or maybe the chart is a whole conspiracy lead by the US, the Met Office, the mujahadeen, Disney Corp and Kermit the Frog to fool us all......

Oops, wrong thread!!

Hahah, who knows maybe METARs contain a secondary meaning after all!

Suasdaguna1 · 24-04-2014 11:06pm

What else can you see.? Asks smurf.......i can see id have brown trousers doing a europe to south africa run or vica versa......big MF TZ/CB's upto FL500. Thats the first excuse id have to kick off carrying 30mins en rte extra juice re deviations. Day time fine, night time a mare

The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

Comments