The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

Growler!!!

Darwin wrote: »

A more general question concerning aviation phraseology...I'm curious about the copious use of the letter 'x'? So we have pax, wx (lots of that about today), rx, tx, vx.....any others? I've heard it relates back to the days of telex machines, and that 'x' is used in place of a period to abbreviate words or is there some other explanation?

It's an older version of txt spk.

Before RT (radio telephony) there was WT (wireless telephony) or Morse. To recieve (rx) a message (msg) one would have to get a radio operator to transmit (tx) the text via morse code to an operator at the other end. The operators used abbreviations to shorten the longer words. At the time radio operators worked for large companies such as Marconi and were all trained in house. Therefore abbreviations were understood and written down as such in radio logbooks.

Before aircraft travel almost all long distance travel was by sea. Many of the abbreviations have crossed over from the maritime side to aviation.

Another example are Q codes - 3 letter codes which represent longer sentences. QSY is the oft heard one. I am changing frequency to 118.7 becomes QSY 118.7

Rabbitt

How hard is it to hit a building with your wing on takeoff?

Growler!!!

Rabbitt wrote: »

How hard is it to hit a building with your wing on takeoff?

Depends on how hard you're trying:D

pclancy

Rabbitt wrote: »

How hard is it to hit a building with your wing on takeoff?

:rolleyes:

Apparently not too hard in Johannesburg. Normally its quite hard to do as most airports don't plonk buildings beside runways and many airlines would be disappointing with their pilots hitting buildings. As would their clients.

Bigcheeze

basill wrote:

On the thrust setting topic there is also an ice shedding procedure which is another variation on the theme. You will see this performed on claggy days where we are taxiing in fog for extended periods. If time permits we will make a quick PA to reassure people as nervous flyers would no doubt find it quite disconcerting having us stand on the brakes with a load of power on before release.

Experienced that during the bad weather of December 2010. One of the first flights of the day out of Dublin and the Ryanair pilot kept the thrust and brakes on for a good few seconds on the runway. Wasn't sure why at the time but assumed it was weather related.

He also fully extended and retracted the flaps during the taxi .

Tenger

pclancy wrote: »

......Normally its quite hard to do as most airports don't plonk buildings beside runways and many airlines would be disappointing with their pilots hitting buildings. ....

"To Fly, To Swerve"

rbniner

Newbie question here;

While listening to ATC tonight an aircraft approx. 1 hour out from arrival into Manchester asked ATC if they could find out which runway was in use, and if it wasn't 05L, if they could request it.

ATC replied that runway in use was 23R, and would hand them over early to local ATC to help with request.

Why would the pilot have requested this runway when another was in use?

Thanks

MoeJay

Could be a few reasons but mainly it would be:

First of all weather conditions and aircraft performance allow use of the different runway.
Shorter distance to fly saving both time and fuel;
Shorter taxi time after landing to parking;
Make up for earlier delays;
Allow crew to get home sooner...

rbniner

MoeJay wrote: »

Could be a few reasons but mainly it would be:

First of all weather conditions and aircraft performance allow use of the different runway.
Shorter distance to fly saving both time and fuel;
Shorter taxi time after landing to parking;
Make up for earlier delays;
Allow crew to get home sooner...

Thanks,

It may have been the shorter distance to fly...they seemed to have been refused their request - when watching fr24 they had to perform a loop around to land in the direction of 23

keith16

Why does the aviation industry use units of measurements such as "knots" and "feet"?

Would there ever be any desire / need to change over to metric units? I'm guessing it will never happen / be required.

Also, what's the difference between air speed and ground speed and why the distinction?

LeftBase

keith16 wrote: »

Why does the aviation industry use units of measurements such as "knots" and "feet"?

Would there ever be any desire / need to change over to metric units? I'm guessing it will never happen / be required.

Also, what's the difference between air speed and ground speed and why the distinction?

It harks back to the old days of shipping by sea and the use of knots for speed. Feet were the unit of choice for distance in the past and it has just been kept that way. In Russia they use metres for altitude though.
In Europe we give QNH in Millibars/hectopascals and in the states they use inches of mercury. They also give vis in statute miles while we use kilometres. They upload fuel in pounds and we use kgs. It's all a bit of a mess and should be standardised in my opinion.....however I can see the Yanks winning that one some how....

Indicated Airspeed - Speed of air over the wings

True Airspeed - Speed of aircraft through the air

Groundspeed - Speed of Aircraft over the ground

eatmyshorts

LeftBase wrote: »

In Russia they use metres for altitude though.

Russia is now RVSM and uses FL's in feet above the transition altitude, and metres/QFE below it.

eatmyshorts

keith16 wrote: »

Why does the aviation industry use units of measurements such as "knots"

Knots make more sense for navigation add 1 knot equals 1 nautical mile per hour, which is 1 degree of latitude per hour.

James74

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Knots make more sense for navigation add 1 knot equals 1 nautical mile per hour, which is 1 degree of latitude per hour.

Are you sure about that?

hidinginthebush

From wiki, 1 knot is, for practical purposes, equal to 1 minute of latitude, so fits in with charts used by planes and ships

eatmyshorts

James74 wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

Oops... Minute of latitude!

adam88

That plane landing in cork last night. Was that a fuel situation.

Growler!!!

adam88 wrote: »

That plane landing in cork last night. Was that a fuel situation.

No. It was not, at time of 2nd go around there was 1.5 hours fuel left. That equates to roughly 900 kg. Minimum legal requirement is Alternate plus Final Reserve of roughly 500kg.

The extra 400kg equates to nearly 40 more minutes above minimums. So NO it was not a fuel situation.

adam88

Growler!!! wrote: »

No. It was not, at time of 2nd go around there was 1.5 hours fuel left. That equates to roughly 900 kg. Minimum legal requirement is Alternate plus Final Reserve of roughly 500kg.

The extra 400kg equates to nearly 40 more minutes above minimums. So NO it was not a fuel situation.

So the least amount of fuel they can land with is 500 kg. is that correct?????

Why did the emergency plan get activated. If it was over the weather why did they not divert

Growler!!!

adam88 wrote: »

So the least amount of fuel they can land with is 500 kg. is that correct?????

Why did the emergency plan get activated. If it was over the weather why did they not divert

In essence Yes. But I can't really answer your question without knowing your understanding of the fuel carried on a commercial flight. It breaks down like this: TTCAFE

Taxi fuel - fuel used for taxing
Trip fuel - fuel used getting from departure airport to arrival airport
Contingency fuel - 5% of trip fuel
Alternate fuel - fuel used to get from arrival airport to diversion airport
Final Reserve - fuel to hold at 1500ft above aerodrome
Extra - any additional fuel carried above the minimums

Now the aircraft in question would have burned is taxi and trip fuel to get to cork.
After 2 missed approaches and holding for whatever amount of time it would have been burning the extra fuel carried. (Fuel is cheaper in MAN and would be carrying fuel for the flight the next day).

If the fuel remaining Onboard was getting close to alternate plus final reserve the capt would have diverted. If the capt were to land below final reserve or if the possibility existed then a "MAYDAY FUEL" would have been called.

I hope this answers your question. At no time was fuel a worry to the crew.
A normal figure for final reserve fuel would be around 200kg.
This is all the legal fuel framework. A prudent captain knowing the weather forecast would never carry the legal minimum.


As to the second part of your question, you'll have to listen on live atc and read the other threads to sort the facts from the fiction.

adam88

Growler!!! wrote: »

In essence Yes. But I can't really answer your question without knowing your understanding of the fuel carried on a commercial flight. It breaks down like this: TTCAFE

Taxi fuel - fuel used for taxing
Trip fuel - fuel used getting from departure airport to arrival airport
Contingency fuel - 5% of trip fuel
Alternate fuel - fuel used to get from arrival airport to diversion airport
Final Reserve - fuel to hold at 1500ft above aerodrome
Extra - any additional fuel carried above the minimums

Now the aircraft in question would have burned is taxi and trip fuel to get to cork.
After 2 missed approaches and holding for whatever amount of time it would have been burning the extra fuel carried. (Fuel is cheaper in MAN and would be carrying fuel for the flight the next day).

If the fuel remaining Onboard was getting close to alternate plus final reserve the capt would have diverted. If the capt were to land below final reserve or if the possibility existed then a "MAYDAY FUEL" would have been called.

I hope this answers your question. At no time was fuel a worry to the crew.
A normal figure for final reserve fuel would be around 200kg.
This is all the legal fuel framework. A prudent captain knowing the weather forecast would never carry the legal minimum.


As to the second part of your question, you'll have to listen on live atc and read the other threads to sort the facts from the fiction.

Unless and dare I say it, he flew for an airline that had league tables. ????

eatmyshorts

adam88 wrote: »

Unless and there I say it, he flew for an airline that had league tables. ????

adam88 wrote: »

So the least amount of fuel they can land with is 500 kg. is that correct?????

Why did the emergency plan get activated. If it was over the weather why did they not divert

adam88 wrote: »

That plane landing in cork last night. Was that a fuel situation.

You sound like a journo fishing for a sensationalist headline.

Tenger

adam88 wrote: »

Unless and there I say it, he flew for an airline that had league tables. ????

Its comments like that, that result in public apologies, legal fee's and damages paid by several media organisations in recent months.

crazygeryy

Going for a spin in a boeing 737 800 simulator next week.anyone been in one?is it just like being in the real thing? Any advice/ tips lol ?

thecommander

When you watch a plane landing in crosswinds, you can see the landing wheels turn and skew so they're at the right angle for landing. Is this something done automatically by onboard computer or is the co-pilot adjusting it?

See here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvLuUJFHYk

smurfjed

you can see the landing wheels turn and skew so they're at the right angle for landing

The wheels don't adjust to the wind, the pilot must use the flight controls to get the aircraft aligned with the runway just before landing. The only aircraft that i know about that can adjust the undercarriage is the B52 bomber.

adam88

Tenger wrote: »

Its comments like that, that result in public apologies, legal fee's and damages paid by several media organisations in recent months.

I'm always one to cause a stir. No just guessing. Sorry if I have offended anyone.

Growler!!!

adam88 wrote: »

Unless and dare I say it, he flew for an airline that had league tables. ????

I don't know which airline you are referring to. I've only read idle speculation from people outside of the industry ie. uninformed. Tell me, was the airline involved in the cork landing? If not I'm not sure why it was mentioned on an "ask an airline pilot" thread.

Unless it was to stir????????? (Added a few question marks, you seem to like them )

adam88 wrote: »

I'm always one to cause a stir. No just guessing. Sorry if I have offended anyone.

The only offence caused was, after asking a question you failed to "thank" the post answering your question.

I'm a thanks whore. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when I'm providing entertainment for the lads on the FR24 thread

hidinginthebush

crazygeryy wrote: »

Going for a spin in a boeing 737 800 simulator next week.anyone been in one?is it just like being in the real thing? Any advice/ tips lol ?

Depending on how advanced the sim is, it can be very close to the real thing. Not sure if you can get type rated on sim alone, but I'm quite sure some airlines count them as flying hours.

I actually had a go of an airlines trainer sim just yesterday, great craic, felt very real, even managed to get it on the ground without the motion packing it in

smurfjed

You can get rated on the simulator without ever flying the aircraft. For me, if I'm flying for work, then its a case of flying according to SOP's profiles etc, so this usually means using the autopilot. However, if i get into a simulator for fun, then i prefer to hand fly as much as possible. I used to love doing the Kai Tak approach in the B747 Classic or the Canarsie approach for New York, these were great fun when hand flying

Good luck and enjoy.