The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

smurfjed

For what they cost, i would have expected them to be covered in gold leaf

In the older days, Performance Monitoring was done by basically having the crew complete a cruise report form showing engine parameters, speed, altitude, temperature etc. The analysis itself was based on trends, so you had to have a lot of readings in order to weed out any anomalies, such as the station manager loading up furniture for his new house. I would actually say that this was more detrimental to the airlines than beneficial as the resulting deteriorations and increase in fuel burns lead to increased average fuel biases and the requirement to carry more fuel.

As technology improved and the cost of transmitting the data became affordable, now we got into the world of automated aircraft performance readings and engine condition monitoring. With these programs in place, the ability was there to reduce the inflight contingency fuel figures from the standard figure of 10% to a figure ascertained from the monitoring, so fuel savings finally started to appear. In the last few years tail number flight planning started to appear, this meant that the flight plan fuel was based on that specific aircrafts fuel burns rather than a fleet average, I know that we don't assign aircraft to a specific flight due to fuel burns, and i don't know if any airline actually does that, i would assume that any aircraft that was below the fleet average would be inspected in accordance with the manufacturers fuel conservation maintenance programs as its certainly not in the airlines interest to accept increased fuel burns for one specific aircraft.

smurfjed.

conor_ie

smurfjed wrote: »

Our crew meals are slightly different to the standard Ryanair crew meals



smurfjed

where's the beef??

Dr.Rieux

A question for smurfjed, I've read all your posts about what you do with fascination, how did you get into it? As in how did you get into flying Gulfstreams (I think it is) for royalty etc. instead of flying for someone like Ryanair say or another "normal" airline

Tenger

conor_ie wrote: »

where's the beef??

That's got to be against regs.....not a hang sambo in sight on that crew tray!!!!

smurfjed

not a hang sambo in sight on that crew tray!!!!

IF one shows up, it will cause such a stink that it will become front page news...... as it did about 2 months ago on a regular flight Use your imagination, if thats the cheese plate, just guess what the rest is like.

Dr.Rieux, I do work for a normal airline, but just in a specific division of it. So it was a case of right place, right time.

smurfjed

scudzilla

smurfjed wrote: »

IF one shows up, it will cause such a stink that it will become front page news...... as it did about 2 months ago on a regular flight Use your imagination, if thats the cheese plate, just guess what the rest is like.

Dr.Rieux, I do work for a normal airline, but just in a specific division of it. So it was a case of right place, right time.

smurfjed

So how many different planes are you qualified to fly?

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Dr.Rieux, I do work for a normal airline, but just in a specific division of it. So it was a case of right place, right time.

smurfjed

Saudia, I'm assuming?

smurfjed

Qualified and Current, one type three variants....

smurfjed

Tenger

smurfjed wrote: »

IF ....Use your imagination, if thats the cheese plate, just guess what the rest is like.

I don't want to upset myself next time I look at deep frozen crew "meals" on a 11-12 hour multi sector day.

basill

Don't worry he will be having nightmares for years to come eating all that cheese!

crazygeryy

if the pilots crew and all the passengers on a plane fall asleep due to hypoxia( helios flight 522) is there anything anyone can do to land the plane?even if the plane has full fuel capacity is on auto pilot and has another 6 hours flying time?
I'm just curious if that happens is that it are they all doomed?

basill

Yep all doomed I am afraid. Only thing that could be done to mitigate this would be the installation of remote control from ground station technology.

It's so statistically remote on modern airliners that I wouldn't give it any further thought. Now on private aircraft and old crappy airlines with poor training and standards then all bets are off.

Hopefully though you will be unconscious for the impact:)

basill

Originally Posted by lord lucan
Do pilots,particularly with large ops such as EI & FR for example,have favourite aircraft they like to fly and are there some aircraft that when they see the reg on the flightplan they groan at the thoughts of flying it?

Anyone that has undertaken a PPL will know that generally there is a real dog of an aircraft on the line and you hope that you don't get it to often and certainly not on a test day. The thing will be bashed and bent and very hard to trim plus never gives the right speed for the power settings.

Fortunately airline flying is very different to club flying. For a start there are the legal requirements to maintain aircraft to a high standard. Then there are the commercial interests for an airline to maintain their aircraft and ensure a positive customer experience.

All modern jets of the same type will fly the same. The only possible grimace for the flight crew will be any carried forward defects which could have an impact on your work day. Fortunately at my airline we carry forward very little and all defects are cleared promptly which makes for a nice working environment.

Suasdaguna1

I despise flying the older 330s with their crap CRT screens and utter sh!te radar. Newer models with multi scan radar and LCD screens are streets ahead. Other than that it's all the same in my world.

Darwin

Hi I have a question in relation to go-arounds. Recently I watched four consecutive incoming flights into Nice and each of them had to go around. I checked the airport TAF and it reported 15 knot winds (not gusting) from East-North-East (060), the weather seemed quite ordinary but there must have been a crosswind over the runway. Anyway, two landed on the second attempt, one diverted somewhere else after two attempts, and the final took three attempts and about 30 minutes to get down. Is there a standard company SOP regarding the number of attempts to land or is it always at the discretion of the PF? I know go-arounds are routine practice, but does it get unsettling on the flight deck after say the second attempt has failed?

Shamrock231

I think the rule in most companies is that if you don't make it after the second attempt you have to divert, but I'm open to correction.

basill

It's the type of thing that is company specific and would be outlined in the Ops Manual. A second approach is no bother. Just need a reasonable contemplation of making a succesful approach and landing. Subsequent approaches require very significant improvements weather or else a diversion is mandated.

As an aside when we brief for an approach we always brief the go around procedures as standard. We view each approach as an approach to a potential go around. A landing is a bonus. We also have a no blame company policy. No paperwork is required at all for a normal go around and that's the way it should be to.

LeftBase

Darwin wrote: »

Hi I have a question in relation to go-arounds. Recently I watched four consecutive incoming flights into Nice and each of them had to go around. I checked the airport TAF and it reported 15 knot winds (not gusting) from East-North-East (060), the weather seemed quite ordinary but there must have been a crosswind over the runway. Anyway, two landed on the second attempt, one diverted somewhere else after two attempts, and the final took three attempts and about 30 minutes to get down. Is there a standard company SOP regarding the number of attempts to land or is it always at the discretion of the PF? I know go-arounds are routine practice, but does it get unsettling on the flight deck after say the second attempt has failed?

Where I work if you do not get in on the second attempt then you divert. That's in the case of weather or other non-pilot related issues. If for example an FO messed up 2 approaches then the Captain may take control for a 3rd attempt....however generally speaking most commercial aircraft will not have uplifted the fuel to make 3+ attempts and get to suitable alternate with legal reserves intact. It's worth remembering that in the approach/landing configuration an aircraft is burning much more fuel due to the drag created by flaps/slats and gear being deployed. It's very easy under pressure to burn through your fuel trying time and time again to get in to an airport(Cork for example) only to find that the final attempt is in effect a forced landing as a go-around is no longer possible as there is nowhere to actually "go" to(besides down)!

Many pilots have been killed/injured by feeling they "almost had it" on the previous approach and thus trying it again only to find they well and truly "get it".

smurfjed

During approach, we usually turn off the autopilot at around 1000 feet and the auto throttle a little but later, so I'm wondering what's the standard on newer aircraft such as the A330/330 and 737's? How often do you fly with auto throttle off for the practice or do raw data approaches?

Anyone?

smurfjed

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

During approach, we usually turn off the autopilot at around 1000 feet and the auto throttle a little but later, so I'm wondering what's the standard on newer aircraft such as the A330/330 and 737's? How often do you fly with auto throttle off for the practice or do raw data approaches?

Anyone?

smurfjed

For us, it's SOP to use autothrottle at all times, unless it is MEL'd s unserviceable.
Autopilot is mandatory above 10,000 AAL.
Practice raw data approaches are never done.

IngazZagni

I think it's unhealthy for an airline to heavily restrict you manually flying the aircraft. My airline points to how many incidents that have happened during manual flight but does not pose many restrictions on you to not do it. So most of the time I will disconnect at 1500 feet or so but every so often I will disconnect both a/p and a/t at 10,000 feet (max allowed for normal ops is 20,000 feet) at an airport I'm familiar with and when the weather is good. If I'm feeling even more ambitious I will do it raw data. Sometimes you can dispatch with an inop autothrottle. I've also had the autopilot simply "break" during flight so it's good to practice these things for when you are suddenly forced into a situation to manually fly.

keith16

IngazZagni wrote: »

I think it's unhealthy for an airline to heavily restrict you manually flying the aircraft. I've also had the autopilot simply "break" during flight so it's good to practice these things for when you are suddenly forced into a situation to manually fly.

Isn't this really the crux of what happened to AF447? Autopilot disconnected and crew completely lost control? Tragic.

Back on the subject of fuel...I was reading up some more on the different "categories" of fuel such as Taxi, Alternate, Trip, extra, tankered etc. etc. and how they all have to be carefully calculated for proper flight planning.

But does the aircraft itself distinguish between these different categories? Does it really care as long as there is enough fuel in the tank?

To ask another way, does the flight planning system say, "well, you added 10kg of taxi fuel, but you only used 8kg" and if so, how does it know?

ElWalrus

Just something I noticed last time I was boarding a plane from the rear. On a Ryanair plane, Boeing 737-800 i think, there were a row of small plastic-looking fins evenly spaced between the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, not much bigger than an open hand. What are these and what purpose do they serve?

And I suppose, while we're on plane parts, on the same planes, on the wing further out from the engine there are 2/3 long oval 'tank' like things hanging on the underside of the wing? What are these for? (I'll feel silly if they are actually tanks! :pac:)

Cheers.

El_robbo1980

Those "fins" at the rear of the tail between horizontal and vertical stabiliser are called vortex generators, an aerodynamic feature used to reduce vibration over the elevators and elevator tab and reduce drag around the rudder. Many an engineer has nearly split their head open on them while inspecting the fuselage in that area and forgetting they were there when bending down for close examination of the surface.

The other "tanks" I think you are referring to are called Flap Track Fairings (or Boat Fairings due to their shape and size, especially on larger aircraft). The flaps are attached to three or four tracks through rollers/carriages which slide up and down the track allowing the flap to be extended/retracted. These tracks are in turn fixed to the underside of the wing. The fairing is an aerodynamic cover for the whole assembly to allow air flow smoothly and reduce drag in flight. These fairings will change position as the flap moves. Depending on the aircraft you may sometimes be allowed fly without one to get an aircraft back to base for maintenance, depending on the CDL (configuration deviation list)

lord lucan

Have those of you who've been flying into irish airports the last few days been enjoying making the PA announcement informing pax of the current temp?! :-)

roundymac

A couple of times I'v been on a plane that has missed it's slot for take off. Both times the a/c has been switched off and the f/a's have opened the rear doors, (the front doors may have been opened too) why could they not run the a/c?. One flight was from Cork, there was "power point" available to power the dammed thing. We sweated bricks for an half hour. The other time was in Verona at a remote stand where power may or may not have been available. The two airlines in question were Aer Lingus and CSA.
Thanks in advance.

smurfjed

One flight was from Cork, there was "power point" available to power the dammed thing

That is an electrical power point and it doesn't supply power for the aircraft cooling.

The aircraft needs the APU running (most airports have a time limit on this due to environmental issues and noise), engines running or an external REFRIGERATION UNIT connected. The other issue with running the APU is that it uses fuel from the main tanks, so if additional fuel wasn't accounted for the APU, you might eat into the required fuel for departure and hence require refuelling and miss the next slot. Kinda catch 22.

smurfjed

smurfjed

This is doing the rounds since the SFO accident, some might find it interesting...

http://vimeo.com/64502012

smurfjed

Sitec

Does jet-lag get easier to deal with the more you're subjected to it?

IRLConor

Sitec wrote: »

Does jet-lag get easier to deal with the more you're subjected to it?

As a passenger, yes. You learn how to minimise the effects.

Pilots are typically (but not always) on shorter turnarounds than passengers and have odder schedules so I suspect they also have well-developed coping strategies.