Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

Options
11011131516116

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    Maybe it's not the same with modern airliners but older aircraft even within the same sub type often had noticeable differences in handling and performance. Pilots would have their favourites and regard some as 'dogs'. I remember Electras and 727s, some were favoured some not.

    Certainly it's still true of lighter aircraft particularly when they get a bit older and have been modified or bashed about. Flight schools often have a favoured trainer which although externally identical to all the others seemed to feel and fly better.

    Weight and loading of course makes a difference. A type I fly can be flung around like a fighter when empty and land on a postage stamp. Fill it up with six or seven people and it feels like a mini airliner and effectively has to be flown as such.


  • Registered Users Posts: 708 ✭✭✭A320


    Any Preference to CFM56 or V2500 engines Priority Right or does it matter,i know a few little differences regarding indication etc but performance wise????


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭Delta Kilo


    I'd be interested in the answer to that too A320.

    I know from an operations point of view, the CFM56-5B on the A320 is preferred to the V2500. Most operators tend to choose this option on the A320 fleet. Its a more expensive engine but perceived to be more reliable and efficient than the IAE.

    But from a pilots point of view, is there a notable difference between the two? Do the engines behave differently etc?


  • Registered Users Posts: 708 ✭✭✭A320


    From a maint point of view i prefer the CFM,some of the wiring in the v25 tends to be routed poorly and thus chafing


  • Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Priority Right


    I prefer the CFM engines. They startup faster, and respond faster. Which when you're starting out in the flare that extra time it takes the power to reduce can help you out but normally it's better to have a faster reacting engines. (very small difference but noticeable).

    When I moved from V25 and was in the first day in the sim with CFM. They started in such a short time I asked the instructor if that was a sim anomaly. He just stared at me and I'm sure was thinking I was mental. But when I explained that I was used to the V25s he understood. They do take ages to start. CFM you can wait until half way through the pushback before starting.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭bladeruner


    Plowman wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    a heavy 321 is a dog in the climb , not enough power (engine dependent of course but its no 757 now matter what way you cut it )
    on the other hand its a tad more stable coming in for landing...every cloud and all that ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭pclancy


    I for one have run out of questions for our folks up front. Anyone got any good ones?


  • Registered Users Posts: 376 ✭✭IrishB.ie


    Runway length dictates the takeoff weight of an aircraft.

    We've seen aircraft 'lift' from a standing position during a storm, so my question
    is, does headwind ever influence the allowed takeoff weight of an aircraft?
    Can the weight be increased if the headwind is strong enough?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭bladeruner


    IrishB.ie wrote: »
    Runway length dictates the takeoff weight of an aircraft.

    We've seen aircraft 'lift' from a standing position during a storm, so my question
    is, does headwind ever influence the allowed takeoff weight of an aircraft?
    Can the weight be increased if the headwind is strong enough?


    Yes generally increased head wind = increased RUNWAY RESTRICTED take off weight.
    Conversely, taking off with a tailwind would reduce the RUNWAY restricted Max take off weight.

    There are some reasons such as max brake energy speeds/weights why u may not get head wind increase but most of the time you do.

    Obviously only a constant wind could be used for these calculations - gusts could not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 821 ✭✭✭eatmyshorts


    IrishB.ie wrote: »
    Runway length dictates the takeoff weight of an aircraft.

    Runway length is only one of the contributing factors.

    Others are:
    Temperature
    Density altitude
    Wind velocity
    Air pressure
    Runway surface condition (dry, wet, contaminated, etc)
    Engine rating
    Aircraft CofG position (some aircraft)
    Obstacles within the take-off cone
    Use of engine anti-ice
    Some active Configuration Deviation List items
    Some active Minimum Equipment List items

    Any variation in any of these is enough to have an effect on the Regulated Take Off Mass allowable.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    What is the most difficult airport that any of our pilots have used?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 407 ✭✭LLU


    Saw a documentary the other day about that famous safe landing in the Hudson river in 2009 and apparently one of the key saving factors was that the captain switched on the APU very early on in the process, even though this step came much later on in the emergency procedures. This meant that his instrumentation and controls continued to work throughout and were not impacted by the loss of main engine power. They said that this enabled the planes systems to keep it in a safe envelope throughout.

    To me it seems like a brilliant piece of thinking but I can't help wondering if he would have been hung out to dry for this if there hadn't been such a happy outcome (and assuming he still lived). So is there any scope for thinking on your feed in a situation like this? Is there an emergency procedure for *everything* which needs to be stuck to?

    Thanks!


  • Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Priority Right


    Hardest airport. Well some places in mid Africa and Moscow can be fun because the ATC is daft sometimes. Hard airports to fly into can turn out to be fun if you're safe and can be easier than big "easier" airports.

    There is a checklist for every emergency. It was good thinking to start the apu but we do it a fair bit if ground staff disconnect the apu. Straight away you turn on the apu. But to do that in an emergency is harder to do. You can deviate from the checklist sometimes because some are checklists not a do list.


  • Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Keedowah


    Is there a key to open the aircraft or cockpit and is it a key that is used to start the aircraft? If so how does this key(s) get handled in the airport going from one crew to the other?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭bladeruner


    Hardest airport. Well some places in mid Africa and Moscow can be fun because the ATC is daft sometimes. Hard airports to fly into can turn out to be fun if you're safe and can be easier than big "easier" airports.

    There is a checklist for "NEARLY" every emergency. It was good thinking to start the apu but we do it a fair bit if ground staff disconnect the apu. Straight away you turn on the apu. But to do that in an emergency is harder to do. You can deviate from the checklist sometimes because some are checklists not a do list.

    FYP
    :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭bladeruner


    Keedowah wrote: »
    Is there a key to open the aircraft or cockpit and is it a key that is used to start the aircraft? If so how does this key(s) get handled in the airport going from one crew to the other?

    No key for door and no key to start up.
    Airports are secure places to park !


  • Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Priority Right


    bladeruner wrote: »
    FYP
    :)

    Very true. I'd hate to see the QRH for every eventuality they could imagine! :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,575 ✭✭✭lord lucan


    Are pilots bad passengers? By that i mean do you find yourself monitoring various aspects of the flight and being critical/judgemental or do you sit back and chill out and not give it a second thought?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic? And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭bladeruner


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic?
    Yes, ships are too slow and sea lions proved unreliable. :)
    donvito99 wrote: »
    And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?
    I can't speak for every airline but I'm 99% sure no European airline has guns in the cockpit.
    That was an American "initiative".
    Guns have no place on an airliner.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Skuxx


    donvito99 wrote: »
    And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

    I've never seen a gun in a cockpit, but most do have an axe! Worked on a turkish plane before that had an axe in the cabin, on the aft lav wall behind the last row of seats!! Seemed a bit accessable!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    A gun in a pressurised vessel is a very bad idea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Bearcat


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic? And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

    No and No


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 167 ✭✭bladeruner


    Bearcat wrote: »
    donvito99 wrote: »
    Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic? And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

    No and No

    Quite often some poor junior at an embassy will be sent on a "mail run" to deliver diplomatic bags/mail.
    That is my take on airlines still carrying diplomatic mail.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Bearcat


    Europe yes, USA no..... Tbh as time marches on mail is more electronic orientated as against some suit dropping a bag into a cockpit. On many occasions no one was there at the other end to collect same which Kinda makes a mockery of the diplomatic tag.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    lord lucan wrote: »
    Are pilots bad passengers? By that i mean do you find yourself monitoring various aspects of the flight and being critical/judgemental or do you sit back and chill out and not give it a second thought?
    Don't know about others but my wife hates me when I turn to her looking concerned and say: 'I don't want to worry you but.....' It's amazing how often she gets caught.

    As for guns, well only in America as they say. American airline pilots are authorised to carry guns but only after a training course and being deputised as law enforcement officers. As for the danger of a discharge in a aircraft, it's not that big a deal unless it hits something vital. Despite the the movie cliche. The aircraft won't disintegrate if someone puts a bullet through window at 34000 feet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    So you are cruising along at 10,000m and auto pilot is set with altitude hold.

    After a period of time due to the earths curvature you are going to be higher then 10,000m.
    So does the Auto pilot
    1: Constantly adjust trim to keep you at the desired altitude
    2: wait until you are x % from the require height and then adjust

    On a similar vein if you encounter severe turbulence and the plane changes altitude does the autopilot disengage and you manually fly back to the required altitude ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    amen wrote: »
    So you are cruising along at 10,000m and auto pilot is set with altitude hold.

    After a period of time due to the earths curvature you are going to be higher then 10,000m.
    So does the Auto pilot
    1: Constantly adjust trim to keep you at the desired altitude
    2: wait until you are x % from the require height and then adjust

    You'd need to be travelling at a few kilometres per second to have to worry about that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    amen wrote: »
    So you are cruising along at 10,000m and auto pilot is set with altitude hold.

    After a period of time due to the earths curvature you are going to be higher then 10,000m....

    Why. The height is relative to the ground/sea. As such its not a straight line, as I think you are visualising it. It follows the curvature in general.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭View Profile


    On a similar vein if you encounter severe turbulence and the plane changes altitude does the autopilot disengage and you manually fly back to the required altitude ?

    If the turbulence is severe enough the autopilot may disengage. The pilot will then take manual control until the turbulence has passed and he/she can re-engage the AP.
    Sometimes in turbulence you may notice the AP struggling to keep the altitude or speed in which case you will intervene and take manual control.

    However for moderate turbulence the AP is generally quite good at keeping speed/heading/altitude.


Advertisement