The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

keith16

LeftBase wrote: »

I cant remember the exact details but the crew were covering for him. That's why they didn't mention the fact he was clearly drunk when he arrived in the cockpit.

Films are for entertainment and should be interpreted as such.

I respectfully disagree. Films are not just for entertainment. They are for educating, inspiring, provoking and much much more.

I do however understand that a film like "Flight" is given to completely disregarding the technicalities of flying a plane. My question is, does this type of portrayal of your industry, in films like flight, annoy or entertain you?

LeftBase

keith16 wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. Films are not just for entertainment. They are for educating, inspiring, provoking and much much more.

I do however understand that a film like "Flight" is given to completely disregarding the technicalities of flying a plane. My question is, does this type of portrayal of your industry, in films like flight, annoy or entertain you?

It entertains me

keith16

LeftBase wrote: »

It entertains me

I agree, the part where he

flew the plane upside down

was particularly amusing.

Also, the part in that stupid "2012" movie where

they were trying to take off as carnage and chaos raged around all and sundry, ATC were nonchalantly shouting "you do not have clearance for take off".

Oh how I lol'd.

Mister Jingles

keith16 wrote: »

I agree, the part where he

flew the plane upside down

was particularly amusing.

Is there noway that it could be possible ?

Locker10a

LeftBase wrote: »

I cant remember the exact details but the crew were covering for him. That's why they didn't mention the fact he was clearly drunk when he arrived in the cockpit.

Films are for entertainment and should be interpreted as such.

The crash itself is based on a real accident! Not the pilot drinking, and im not sure about the inverted flight but the rest is based on the crash of an Alaska Airlines flight some years ago!

keith16

Mister Jingles wrote: »

Is there noway that it could be possible ?

I have no idea! It probably is. But not sure if the plane would be flying or gliding?

Locker10a wrote: »

The crash itself is based on a real accident! Not the pilot drinking, and im not sure about the inverted flight but the rest is based on the crash of an Alaska Airlines flight some years ago!

I did not know that!

keith16

I have an another question. What happens if the APU fails and you are halfway over the Atlantic?

LeftBase

keith16 wrote: »

I have an another question. What happens if the APU fails and you are halfway over the Atlantic?

The APU is not on usually on aircraft in flight. They are used for power in pre-flight etc and to rotate the compressor to high enough speed etc to start the engines. From there the engines provide power for all the odds and ends on board. Long Range aircraft must have APUs that are startable in flight to make up for the loss of power of the dead engine. APUs must be startable in flight for aircraft on ETOPs routes. If you took off to cross the Atlantic and you got an APU failure off Donegal you could continue as long as you flew a non ETOPs route. I cant see that being allowed in an airline's SOPs really but the only time a startable in flight APU is needed afaik is for ETOPs certification.

Bsal

A 707 prototype did a barrel roll in Seattle in 1955, so it is possible to fly a large aircraft inverted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

smurfjed

If you took off to cross the Atlantic and you got an APU failure off Donegal you could continue as long as you flew a non ETOPs route. I cant see that being allowed in an airline's SOPs

how would you know that it had failed?

BSAL, Tex Johnson did a barrel roll, this is very different to flying inverted, so to answer your question, no commercial airliner is capable of sustained inverted flight.

Keith16, an Alaskan Airlines Dc9 (MD something) lost control of the movable part of the tail, the aircraft crashed. The fault was traced to a screw jack that was used to move the tail up and down.

Smurfjed

basill

Long Range aircraft must have APUs that are startable in flight to make up for the loss of power of the dead engine.

This is not always the case. I would say it is type specific. Our A330s don't have a requirement for a serviceable APU. Whilst it would be nice there are other ways to start an engine and the electrical side of things is covered by additional systems to take the load.

Also we would still be RVSM, ETOPS, RNP-10 and MNPS compliant with a duff APU so there would be no problem entering or continuing the North Atlantic Track System.

You are probably thinking of the smaller aircraft such as 737s or 757s. These would have shorter ETOPS approvals and since they were not originially designed to go across the Atlantic then I would surmise that their MELs are more restrictive. Also some operators would require crews to start up the APU prior to Oceanic entry and if unable to obtain a reclearance that would take them closer to landfall ie: off the track systems.

LeftBase

smurfjed wrote: »

how would you know that it had failed?

Would you not have to check it's serviceability before entering your ETOPs route?

greenybaby

LeftBase wrote: »

The APU is not on usually on aircraft in flight. They are used for power in pre-flight etc and to rotate the compressor to high enough speed etc to start the engines. From there the engines provide power for all the odds and ends on board. Long Range aircraft must have APUs that are startable in flight to make up for the loss of power of the dead engine. APUs must be startable in flight for aircraft on ETOPs routes. If you took off to cross the Atlantic and you got an APU failure off Donegal you could continue as long as you flew a non ETOPs route. I cant see that being allowed in an airline's SOPs really but the only time a startable in flight APU is needed afaik is for ETOPs certification.

What is an APU, SOP and ETOP

Tenger

greenybaby wrote: »

What is an APU, SOP and ETOP

Auxilliary Poweer Unit.....used for power generation on the ground.

Standard Operating Procedures.....follow these or get into trouble.

Extended Twin Engine OPerations.....refers to operating 2 engine aircraft over water for long distances. ETOPS 180, ETOPS 240 are 2 types of procedure, the number refers to how far in minutes the aircraft is allowed to be from any diversion airfield enroute.

Suasdaguna1

LeftBase wrote: »

Long Range aircraft must have APUs that are startable in flight to make up for the loss of power of the dead engine. APUs must be startable in flight for aircraft on ETOPs routes. If you took off to cross the Atlantic and you got an APU failure off Donegal you could continue as long as you flew a non ETOPs route. I cant see that being allowed in an airline's SOPs really but the only time a startable in flight APU is needed afaik is for ETOPs certification.

On the 330 you can depart with the APU u/s on an etops flight....I've done it and didn't feel to keen with it u/s. as long as you have aback up source of generation if one of the engine gens calf that being the emergency generator powered by the green hyd system .....it's gives out the same juice as a standard gen. It's a rarity to depart with the APU u/s long haul and there are very strict time limits to when it has to be repaired.

If you had dispatched with an eng gen u/s and your APU calved over donegal as mentioned, you are down to Emerg gen and an engine generator. Common sense would dictate that a return to base would be the best option......now if you were in the middle of the night coming back from Seattle / Chicago on a northerly routing over green land and this happened, the option there is to continue as against making a dogs dinner of it going into BGSF.....no thanks.

Re Etops flights....if a failure occurs during flight that would have rendered the flight non etops on the ground, this is not applicable in the air and re routing to an non etops route can't be done as you would not have the juice.

On the reciprocal a non etops flight can turn into a etops flight using the 90/60 rule. Ie an engine changed. Flight is operated 90 mins within 60 mins of the nearest adequate airport....if all ok after 90mins the flight can re file onto an etops route.....makes a hell of a difference if you going to Orlando and your looking at seeing Greenland on your route as part of the non etops part.

Hopefully this takes the black art mystic and magic out of etops.

smurfjed

Left Base, the rules and procedures can be airline and/or aircraft specific, but for some modern aircraft they have an APU Inflight Start Monitoring program, this means that a specific number of starts are conducted in order to form a trend. Strangely enough, these starts are conducted one hour prior to the TOP OF DESCENT, and usually on the way home. They are not required to be done prior entering the ETOPS area.

smurfjed

LeftBase

Well I dont fly ETOPs and I think I saw APU startability in the air as a requirement for ETOPs certification, but I suppose it is aircraft/route specific. I thought it was a must for ETOPs though.

Suasdaguna1

smurfjed wrote: »

Left Base, the rules and procedures can be airline and/or aircraft specific, but for some modern aircraft they have an APU Inflight Start Monitoring program, this means that a specific number of starts are conducted in order to form a trend. Strangely enough, these starts are conducted one hour prior to the TOP OF DESCENT, and usually on the way home. They are not required to be done prior entering the ETOPS area.

smurfjed

I think it utter madness starting APU s at high altitude. Apart from cold soak and gasping on thin air what happens if you get a fire warning....now the rustle of newspapers will be most audible on the FD.

I have been part of an APU etops certification programme years ago re etops. We started apu s at the top of decent. Loads of time they failed....I hated starting them up there. A330 now they recommend FL300 as in flight start of APU and air avail at 22.5 I recall.

smurfjed

http://www.newairplane.com

Just found this and thought that some might find it interesting.

smurfjed

smurfjed

It's always interesting to compare how manufacturers deal with the same regulations.



smurfjed

Suasdaguna1

smurfjed wrote: »

Statistically they cannot fail "loads of times", they have to achieve 95% reliability. It's always interesting to compare how manufacturers deal with the same regulations.



smurfjed

Read my post, we were doing proving flights. By the time the APU s were put forward for certification they were as you say 95% ok.

Ta

Stealthirl

I noticed a fare few times when im out at Dub that control will direct traffic to land/take off with the wind behind them [with the heavier stuff asking for the opposite obviously ]

Why would control not just switch from 10 to 28 or vice versa quicker ?

LeftBase

Stealthirl wrote: »

I noticed a fare few times when im out at Dub that control will direct traffic to land/take off with the wind behind them [with the heavier stuff asking for the opposite obviously ]

Why would control not just switch from 10 to 28 or vice versa quicker ?

Changing Runways will require re-sequencing of departures/arrivals and also vectoring to approach/area arrival etc. If the wind was varying from NW to NE and it was light then they would just stick with the current runway unless an aircraft cannot accept the runway for performance reasons.

ElWalrus

Just a quick one ( i hope :pac:) Before take off, how do you get the correct weight of the plane taking into account all the variability passengers bring to the table. I guess for the checked in luggage, it's weighed so you can just add that up.

Cheers.

smurfjed

Checked in luggage is weighed as is cargo. Passengers are allocated a "statistical weight" based on sex and race or even occupation, crews may also make other adjustments for things like Holy Water! So in the end you have a very close estimate of the weight and not an exact weight. Some cargo aircraft have weight measuring units in the gear struts, but as they are affected by wind, they aren't totally accurate.

smurfjed

amen

so in the end you have a very close estimate of the weight and not an exact weight

Didn't that cause a commuter turbo prop to stall and crash on take off in the USA a few years ago?

Actual weight was in excess of max take off weight but estimated was less.

smurfjed

Correct, that's why I added "occupation", the commuter crash was a beech 1900 carrying an ice hockey team, they weighed much more than the standard weights.

Smurfjed

pclancy

Can any of you describe your experiences with Windshear/Microbursts?

eurofoxy

anyone fly through central europe today? how was the turbulence?
In the 6 hours i was on position we had 9 severe reports, and i was too busy to ask but from a pilots point of view what happens when you report severe turbulence?

Joshsjmcd

Hi everyone,

Can someone advise me on where the best place to do 1 hour flight lessons for beginners please.
I live in Dublin and was thinking about doing it with the NFC.

Many thanks,
Josh