The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

Bessarion

Seems farcial that any airport can be called "badly marked" for low-viz. If the runway is CATIII then surely the taxiways should have a similar rating. No need to be a 'regular'.

smurfjed

I didn't actually say that I've flown them. I was just pointing out that you trust the instruments on any approach and dont panic/keep to training and assimilate and cross compare the info the instruments give to stay fully in the picture.

Sorry about that, your postings gave the impression that YOU flew CATIII approaches.

One of the reasons that I love the Jeppesen FD APP on IPADs is that it gives your exact location on the airport taxi chart, it greatly improves situational awareness. If we are operating to an airport that doesn't publish takeoff minima, then we can use discretion to assess if we should takeoff or not, but we need 800 meters for landing, CAT I, so if we ever end up in a situation where we have to takeoff, we must declare a takeoff alternate within 1 hours flight time single engine that has sufficient visibility for landing.

As for expecting ground controllers to help us, that only applies if they have ground radar and aircraft are instructed to keep the transponder turned on, for example JFK states ASDE-X surveillance system in use, pilots should operate transponders with Mode C on all runways and taxiways.

smurfjed

Flier

Cat III sim training consists of low vis T/O, Low vis approach to G/A, low vis approach to land.
Edit - before the pedants get in there - ^^^ is CAT III checking, strictly speaking.


If I'm not mistaken, I think a 'low vis' taxi routing has to have green centreline lights, and tbh when the vis is very poor, the edge lights aren't so confusing, because you can only see the ones very near to you. In better conditions, of I suppose 'poor vis' not falling technically into 'low vis catagory', and at night, they can be confusing especially somewhere like Dublin, where there a lot of taxiways, and if you're looking ahead at your route, it can be difficult to see what's what. Look at it this way - if you're on a green centreline, you're on the taxiway. If you're between blue lights, you could be either on the taxiway or in the grass!

smurfjed

Woke up yesterday morning on a lovely tropical island in Asia, tomorrow morning I'm flying to a freezing cold and windy southern European city.... Gotta admit that this lifestyle doesn't get boring

smurfjed

RangeR

Ah, yer just bragging now, posting it twice

Bessarion

RangeR wrote: »

Ah, yer just bragging now, posting it twice

You obviously don't understand the mental trauma he goes through as he has to select his wardrobe for the next 5-10 days.........

greenybaby

I found an awesome site today called flightradar24 and unlike other tracking sites it gives a real indepth summary of each flight, my question is - what do all these mean - ok some are self explanatory so have highlighted the ones I want to know

Airline: Virgin Atlantic
Flight: VS23
From: London, Heathrow (LHR)
To: Los Angeles, Los Angeles (LAX)
Aircraft: Airbus A340-642 (A346)
Reg: G-VGOA
Altitude: 31000 ft (9449 m)
Speed: 411 kt (761 km/h, 473 mph)
Track: 306°
Hex: 4009B2
Squawk: 3222
Pos: 53.2935 / -7.9573
Radar: N-EIWF1

smurfjed

Track: 306°

---

track that aircraft is flying rather than the heading.
Hex: 4009B2

---

assigned code for the transponder which is different to the squawk code
Squawk: 3222

---

assigned code for flight given by ATC and maybe changed by each subsequent ATC unit
Pos: 53.2935 / -7.9573

---

Actual position expressed in LAT/LONG
Radar: N-EIWF1

---

Radar unit that is providing the data.

smurfjed

greenybaby

Thank you my dear

RangeR

smurfjed wrote: »

Track: 306°

---

track that aircraft is flying rather than the heading.
Hex: 4009B2

---

assigned code for the transponder which is different to the squawk code
Squawk: 3222

---

assigned code for flight given by ATC and maybe changed by each subsequent ATC unit
Pos: 53.2935 / -7.9573

---

Actual position expressed in LAT/LONG
Radar: N-EIWF1

---

Radar unit that is providing the data.

smurfjed

As if it's any clearer now....

Wise Old Elf

In the context of previous request for explanation of radar etc, what is sqawk used for if atc assign the code. I can see how it's used for emergencies and radio failures, but what's with all the other codes?
Cheers

smurfjed

ATC normally use a radar system that's called secondary surveillance radar, it shows targets, now if ATC assign a squawk code to that target, they can know exactly who/what that target is. With more modern technology they have more information available to them such as aircraft ID, this is what is shown in flight tracking sites. Otherwise all that these sites would know is that the target existed, but they couldn't tie the flight/aircraft/squawk together.

Smurfjed

hidinginthebush

Slightly related (probably stupid) question: when aircraft are, say, over the middle of the Atlantic and out of touch with atc (which scares the hell out of me) are there still radar systems that can monitor them, and do they still broadcast their location via gps, or are they all on their lonesome until they get to the other side and fall back under the jurisdiction of the atc.

smurfjed

The North Atlantic is unique as it operates without radar coverage, but it does have ATC coverage through HF High Frequency radio and recently data link. The traffic is regulated along a path called a track, once the 1st aircraft enters, the time for the 2nd one to enter is based on speed, so the 2nd aircraft will not catch up with the first one and so on like a conga line. The tracks only allow traffic fly in one direction at a time, so during the day all traffic goes to the USA and at night it all goes to Europe. If you want to fly the other direction you either have to fly above or below the tracks, or avoid them.

Btw, no GPS has the function of boardcasting, this will be done through VHF, HF or SATCOM.

Smurfjed

Flier

Aircraft on on the North Atlantic are required to pass their position over HF radio every time they pass over 10 degrees of latitude, so on entering the NATS airspace, and at 20 degrees west, 30 degrees west etc until they get to the other side (or visa versa). Part of that report is the estimate for the next 10 degree reporting point, and that estimate must remain accurate within 3 minutes. That's how ATC know that aircraft aren't catching up with each other. A lot if aircraft now have CPDLC, which has an automatic system of sending continuous position reports to ATC, so now ATC know exactly where these aircraft are at all times. That should allow ATC to further reduce separation on the track system, and improve the efficiency of aircraft operating in the NATS. And the double bonus is that CPDLC equipped aircraft don't have to bother so much with the HF radio which can be a real pain as it is noisy squelchy and generally painful to use!

greenybaby

RangeR wrote: »

As if it's any clearer now....

It is actually! Or do you care to give a "clearer" answer???

greenybaby

Ok in addition to my question, just tracking a flight my sister is on now using the same site and every so often in the list this appears V/S -128fpm

Now RangeR I am assuming fpm is feet per minute or perhaps family planning management :P what does the V/S stand for?

RangeR

greenybaby wrote: »

It is actually! Or do you care to give a "clearer" answer???

greenybaby wrote: »

Ok in addition to my question, just tracking a flight my sister is on now using the same site and every so often in the list this appears V/S -128fpm

Now RangeR I am assuming fpm is feet per minute or perhaps family planning management :P what does the V/S stand for?

Apologies, you misinterpreted my initial comment. When I said "As if it's any clearer now...". I meant that I still didn't understand

Airplanonomy [that's my technical term for it] is not my forté. I'm more at home [and damn good at it] with a computer and fps rather than fpm.

greenybaby

RangeR wrote: »

Apologies, you misinterpreted my initial comment. When I said "As if it's any clearer now...". I meant that I still didn't understand

Airplanonomy [that's my technical term for it] is not my forté. I'm more at home [and damn good at it] with a computer and fps rather than fpm.

Apologies all round so

Aerosexual would be the term for the likes of me and other aircraft lovers/spotters

But I like airplanonomy :D

martinsvi

greenybaby wrote: »

what does the V/S stand for?

Vertical speed

smurfjed

When I said "As if it's any clearer now...". I meant that I still didn't understand

tell me which part you didn't understand and I will explain it in further detail. Or if my explanation isn't good enough, then I'm sure that someone else will jump in.

The great thing about aviation is that we never stop learning

Smurfjed

Alpha Dog 1

Question for people who know about airlines...
Why can't Ryanair fly transatlantic? I

IngazZagni

Alpha Dog 1 wrote: »

Question for people who know about airlines...
Why can't Ryanair fly transatlantic? I

It's not that they can't. They could anytime they like really. But a variety of reasons like not being able to get suitable aircraft at a price they want in a decent timeframe. Their brand not being suited for long haul fliers and of course the price of oil. If it was a good financial decision to create RyanAtlantic now it would have been done already.

Alpha Dog 1

Cheers for the reply.
I always thought that was one of the reasons they wanted to take over aer lingus, along with the slots in the major airports.

Growler!!!

Alpha Dog 1 wrote: »

Question for people who know about airlines...
Why can't Ryanair fly transatlantic? I

As far as i know Ryanair s Air Operators Certificate (AOC) does not permit them to carry pax across the Atlantic. It is only valid in Europe.

This is the reason many believe the ryans want to buy EI.

IngazZagni

Growler!!! wrote: »

As far as i know Ryanair s Air Operators Certificate (AOC) does not permit them to carry pax across the Atlantic. It is only valid in Europe.

This is the reason many believe the ryans want to buy EI.

I don't think so. They could obtain one fairly easily I'd imagine considering there huge operations at the moment. It's the brand they want for long haul plus the company structure that's already in place.

Growler!!!

IngazZagni wrote: »

I don't think so. They could obtain one fairly easily I'd imagine considering there huge operations at the moment. It's the brand they want for long haul plus the company structure that's already in place.

If it were that easy why have they not done it already?

It may be a huge European operation but it is not set up for transatlantic flying. If you look at the copy of an operators AOC it will show which geographical area or areas they can operate. For Ryanair to to get this they would require ETOPS certification, again they neither have the aircraft or operation to get this certification.

Easy option then is to buy an operation which has ETOPS certification, ie Aer lingus

So back to my original point - Ryanair need an AOC to carry pax across the Atlantic

smurfjed

For Ryanair to to get this they would require ETOPS certification

They could operate without ETOPS, probably not economically but its allowed.

again they neither have the aircraft

The 737 can be certified for ETOPS.

operation to get this certification

Why not? ETOPS approval has specific requirements and guidelines, it relatively easy to get.

I can understand them not seeing an appropriate market, but I don't see technical limitations.

smurfjed

Growler!!!

Absolutely no reason why Ryanair can't apply for ETOPS. No reason why they can't apply to amend their AOC to carry pax across the Atlantic. The question was asked why don't they. I think I've given the answer to the question.

Nowhere in my posts did i say they couldn't get approval.

IngazZagni

Growler!!! wrote: »

Absolutely no reason why Ryanair can't apply for ETOPS. No reason why they can't apply to amend their AOC to carry pax across the Atlantic. The question was asked why don't they. I think I've given the answer to the question.

Nowhere in my posts did i say they couldn't get approval.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I said it would be relatively easy for an outfit like Ryanair to obtain an ETOPS cert. But of course why would they bother if they don't intend to fly transatlantic ops? It would be pointless and a waste of money not to mention they don't own the aircraft to operate these test flights. If they were to create such TA ops and receive the aircraft then they can apply for the cert by carrying out the test flights. By buying EI, they inherit the ETOPS cert.