Aer Lingus crew do us proud.

cml387

I don't think this was posted previously

EI 110 had to return to JFK last September after a loss of hydraulics on one system.
This is the ATC recording of the incident.
Note (for a change) the generous comments on the professionalism of all concerned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjpBcGGsE6w

afatbollix

You can take the lad out of Kerry but by god they talk at a million miles an hour.

Well done to all concerned.

phonypony

ASL crew doing us proud surely?

Bussywussy

phonypony wrote: »

ASL crew doing us proud surely?

Not necessarily,there is EI pilots there on secondment

kub

Bussywussy wrote: »

Not necessarily,there is EI pilots there on secondment

Really? I thought all EI pilots are Airbus operators, does this suggest something about future fleet orders?

goingnowhere

Some of the longer serving EI pilots would have previously held 737/747 ratings

Quite a few like the feedback you get on the old fashioned wire and pulley controls that Boeing use over Airbus.

Bussywussy

kub wrote: »

Really? I thought all EI pilots are Airbus operators, does this suggest something about future fleet orders?

No,some already had 767 from years ago and a good few got 757 type training,apparently younger lads went for the TA experience.

JCX BXC

The accent was very hard to understand, and I'm irish! With such a strong accent, could there have easily been a misinterpretation? Should the other pilot not have been the primary communicator with ATC?

Tenger

phonypony wrote: »

ASL crew doing us proud surely?

The B757 operation has EI cabin crew and (I think) a 50/50 mixture of EI/ASL Flight Crew.
Im told that overall the operation adhers to ASL SOPs and is under their AOC.

martinsvi

Carnacalla wrote: »

The accent was very hard to understand, and I'm irish! With such a strong accent, could there have easily been a misinterpretation? Should the other pilot not have been the primary communicator with ATC?

hmm, as a foreigner and even worse - not native English speaker, I understood everything and I don't see any issue with his accent (there are some controllers in this country that make me shiver thou, in Cork to be more precise)

What caught my ear, however, was the pronunciation of altitude, e.g. 16000 - One - Six thousand.. I would absolutely assume it means 1600ft if under stress and hearing it for the first time. This makes me think about the recent blunder in Kerry where our American friends thought FL200 is 2000ft

This also makes me think about the on-going consultation process between CAA/IAA and EASA to introduce a harmonized transition level across EASA land to be at 18000 ft like in the US.. fun times ahead.

pepe the prawn

martinsvi wrote: »

hmm, as a foreigner and even worse - not native English speaker, I understood everything and I don't see any issue with his accent (there are some controllers in this country that make me shiver thou, in Cork to be more precise)

What caught my ear, however, was the pronunciation of altitude, e.g. 16000 - One - Six thousand.. I would absolutely assume it means 1600ft if under stress and hearing it for the first time. This makes me think about the recent blunder in Kerry where our American friends thought FL200 is 2000ft

This also makes me think about the on-going consultation process between CAA/IAA and EASA to introduce a harmonized transition level across EASA land to be at 18000 ft like in the US.. fun times ahead.

It's common practice in the US to report altitude this way, as in "passing sixteen - one six thousand for eleven - one one thousand." The US is still working on altitude to a much higher level than we do. Flight levels over there start around the 200's as far as I know, hence the reason to be absolutely clear about the altitude when reporting it.


Ps: what's the problem with the cork controllers :pac:

Peregrine

Thanks for sharing that. Loved every minute of it.

Carnacalla wrote: »

The accent was very hard to understand, and I'm irish! With such a strong accent, could there have easily been a misinterpretation? Should the other pilot not have been the primary communicator with ATC?

I thought he was very clear.

martinsvi

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Ps: what's the problem with the cork controllers :pac:

none whatsoever, lovely chaps, just don't understand one or two of them

pepe the prawn wrote: »

It's common practice in the US to report altitude this way, as in "passing sixteen - one six thousand for eleven - one one thousand." The US is still working on altitude to a much higher level than we do. Flight levels over there start around the 200's as far as I know, hence the reason to be absolutely clear about the altitude when reporting it.

US transition altitude is 18000. In Ireland, UK and some other EU countries, transition is at 5000ft.

Growler!!!

afatbollix wrote: »

You can take the lad out of Kerry but by god they talk at a million miles an hour.

Well done to all concerned.

The Captain is from Tipp and works for ASL:D

pepe the prawn

martinsvi wrote: »

none whatsoever, lovely chaps, just don't understand one or two of them



US transition altitude is 18000. In Ireland, UK and some other EU countries, transition is at 5000ft.

Exactly. Maybe I phrased it wrong. In the US they have to report altitude much more than we do over here because we transition to flight levels sooner than they do. So the language must be clearly defined to prevent misunderstandings over there, ie mistaking 1600 for 16000.

pajor

Peregrine wrote: »

Thanks for sharing that. Loved every minute of it.

I thought he was very clear.

Same, thought it was a great clip to listen to. Was listening/more of the vids from that channel earlier. There's some good ones.

I laughed when I heard his accent first, very professional though.

BeardySi

Well handled indeed, fair play to all involved.

Curious though, what's the significance of warning them in advance that the gear doors would be open?

Growler!!!

Treadhead wrote: »

Well handled indeed, fair play to all involved.

Curious though, what's the significance of warning them in advance that the gear doors would be open?

With no hydraulics the doors won't close after gear extension. When the aircraft lands and the oleo's compress there is a danger of the extended doors hitting the runway and leaving debris behind.

BeardySi

Makes sense, ta!

Dardania

It was weird that they had to report the fuel in lbs, and not kg as they were accustomed to on board

sailing

The 757 operation is operated by ASL. Pilots are made up of a mixture of ASL pilots and Aer Lingus pilots on secondment for a defined period of time. Cabin crew are Aer Lingus employees. New pilot positions on the ASL 757 Aer Lingus fleet are first advertised within Aer Lingus and if there is a shortfall in interest ASL make up the difference. It's operated under the ASL AOC so on secondment you work for them.
The operation is to be taken back in house within Aer Lingus when a future fleet decision is made within AIG is made in the future. ie A321 LR etc. The 757 allows for operating a smaller aircraft on thinner routes.

vicwatson

Dardania wrote: »

It was weird that they had to report the fuel in lbs, and not kg as they were accustomed to on board

Thought that too, I'd have thought there would be an international agreement on the likes of this - let's all use pounds or kgs etc in these instances

Growler!!!

vicwatson wrote: »

Thought that too, I'd have thought there would be an international agreement on the likes of this - let's all use pounds or kgs etc in these instances

There's is. Under ICAO we all follow an international set of rules and standards. But there are exceptions, these exceptions are published in each countries AIP.

Ie. The US uses Lbs instead of kg for fuel mass. In the old Soviet Union height is measured in metres not feet and wind speed measured in metres per second rather than knots.

pepe the prawn

Growler!!! wrote: »

There's is. Under ICAO we all follow an international set of rules and standards. But there are exceptions, these exceptions are published in each countries AIP.

Ie. The US uses Lbs instead of kg for fuel mass. In the old Soviet Union height is measured in metres not feet and wind speed measured in metres per second rather than knots.

ATIS in ORK was giving the wind in M/sec one afternoon a few months ago, Cityjet on stand queried it and asked if ATC knew the conversion factor which they didn't but said they would look into it and report back as soon as they had it to ensure it cross checked with the actual kts version... Cue this ATPL student who was backtracking for departure proudly striding into the RT conversation with answer at the ready :pac: ( M/sec x 0.5144 = Kts)


The fact that it was in M/sec surprised both the crew and ATC (and me), but ATC mentioned soon after that it would be returned to Kts for the next broadcast..


.
.
.

Ps: I was a bit miffed Cityjet didn't offer me a right seat there and then for my timely and brilliant display of knowledge :pac:

CiboC

Growler!!! wrote: »

In the old Soviet Union height is measured in metres not feet

Is it not measured in metres nearly everywhere...?

Growler!!!

CiboC wrote: »

Is it not measured in metres nearly everywhere...?

Not in aviation. The subject of this forum. Unless you're in the motherland:D

Peregrine

CiboC wrote: »

Is it not measured in metres nearly everywhere...?

Not in aviation.

Aviation units may be different to the units used in the country for other uses. We use feet and knots in aviation.