Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

1110111112114116

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,400 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    RULAV is the next point after LIFFY, it is off the Isle of Anglesey in Wales.

    Its a small shortcut to skip having to fly over LIFFY can go direct to RULAV, in the old days it was direct ROLEX which is off Llandudno


  • Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Do the airlines play around with MTOW to minimise charges at Dublin Airport?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,763 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    It’s a common practice, so the answer is most likely yes. Will also apply to overflight charges.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,350 ✭✭✭basill


    Do the airlines play around with MTOW to minimise charges at Dublin Airport?


    Not in mine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭billie1b


    Do the airlines play around with MTOW to minimise charges at Dublin Airport?

    Yes, most operators have different MTOW’s of their aircraft, usually 3, my operator has up to 5 on some aircraft, when flight plans are completed the line maintenance engineer with get a copy of what weight the specific aircraft needs and change it to match the flight plan, over the course of a year it can save thousands of euros in charges.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    OK. Thanks.
    Following on from the MTOW question can an officially de-rated 777 200 ER take off from Dublin and make it to East Coast North America.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,763 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    What do you mean by officially derated?

    Boeing 777’s have two type of derated thrust, fixed derate usually (10-25%) and these are selected by selecting TO-1 or TO-2nin the FMC. On top of this, they have another method called “assumed temperature method”, this basically tells the engine that the outside air temperature is hotter than it actually is and the engine therefore delivers less power. The 2 ratings can be combined so that the engine is operating at around 55% of the installed thrust.

    The last time I checked the numbers for Dublin, aircraft could easily get to the west coast.


  • Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    "777-200ER
    Aircraft landing approach. Side view of a twin-engine jet in flight with flaps and landing gear extended.
    A 777-200ER of British Airways, its launch operator
    The B-market 777-200ER ("ER" for Extended Range), originally known as the 777-200IGW (increased gross weight), has additional fuel capacity and an increased MTOW enabling transoceanic routes.[80] With a 658,000 lb (298 t) MTOW and 93,700 lbf (417 kN) engines, it has a 7,065 nmi (13,084 km) range.[177] It was delivered first to British Airways on February 6, 1997.[81] Thirty-three customers received 422 deliveries, with no unfilled orders as of April 2019.[2]

    As of July 2018, 338 examples of the -200ER are in airline service.[10] It competed with the A340-300.[178] Boeing proposes the 787-10 to replace it.[179] The value of a new -200ER rose from US$110 million at service entry to US$130 million in 2007; a 2007 model 777 was selling for US$30 million ten years later, while the oldest ones had a value around US$5–6 million, depending on the remaining engine time.[180]

    The engine can be delivered de-rated with reduced engine thrust for shorter routes to lower the MTOW, reduce purchase price and landing fees (as 777-200 specifications) but can be re-rated to full standard.[181] Singapore Airlines ordered over half of its -200ERs de-rated"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,763 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Pretty much all airliner engines come “derated”. The only smaller engines that I remember for the B777-200 were for the early versions, I think that the engine thrust was 76,000 lbs. these were the first aircraft that BA retired from service.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,400 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    The poster asking the question seems to be the hunt to find out if a 'US' carrier running DUB-US with a 777 has been playing around with the MTOW for ATC fees.

    1. The 777-200 ER has ~50 MTOW more than the plain -200, so you could register at a significantly lower MTOW as you won't need that extra 50 tons out of Dublin to East Coast US

    2. If you are running a 777-200ER at -200 weights then you clearly could do a derate (Boeing)/flex (Airbus) take off within the operational limits set down by the operator and manufacturer. If you are talking about actually going into the engine FEDEC and swapping some jumpers and making max trust lower so 100% is not 100%. The 737NG has this where the engines are plugged to a certain level but if you firewall the thrust levers it will give you max design thrust


    Airbus tried to offer a regional A350, lower thrust, lower MTOW. You could then pay for some nice person in Airbus to visit, give them another briefcase of cash and they would tinker with the systems and enable insane mode to get you a full A350.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The poster asking the question seems to be the hunt to find out if a 'US' carrier running DUB-US with a 777 has been playing around with the MTOW for ATC fees.

    1. The 777-200 ER has ~50 MTOW more than the plain -200, so you could register at a significantly lower MTOW as you won't need that extra 50 tons out of Dublin to East Coast US

    2. If you are running a 777-200ER at -200 weights then you clearly could do a derate (Boeing)/flex (Airbus) take off within the operational limits set down by the operator and manufacturer. If you are talking about actually going into the engine FEDEC and swapping some jumpers and making max trust lower so 100% is not 100%. The 737NG has this where the engines are plugged to a certain level but if you firewall the thrust levers it will give you max design thrust


    Airbus tried to offer a regional A350, lower thrust, lower MTOW. You could then pay for some nice person in Airbus to visit, give them another briefcase of cash and they would tinker with the systems and enable insane mode to get you a full A350.
    I'm just asking because the 777-200er is really cheap now and for specific missions might where not reaching the limits of its range be better than a 787 or 330 or 789. Obviously anyone who can legally reduce charges they should.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭TP_CM


    I have a general flying question.. When an aircraft is coming in to land during bad weather and, at the last minute, is struggling to get the wheels on the ground maybe due to air speed or a sudden gust of wind, instead of a go-around, why aren't the engines thrown into reverse thrust? It seems like that reverse thrust is only employed when the wheels are on the ground only. If you're a few feet from the ground, is it not tempting to turn on the reverse thrust? Is the reason due to safety? Or because it would not be effective?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,350 ✭✭✭basill


    Use of reverse thrust in the air in the situation you describe would likely lead to at best a hard landing and at worst a crash and collapse of the landing gear and other related structures.

    Airborne use of reverse thrust generally only features on military aircraft and typically is used to increase rates of descent into war zones to avoid ground to air threats whilst simulatenaously deploying chaff.

    Modern commercial jet transports reverse thrust is engaged by a combination of weight on wheels and spoiler activation to avoid inadvertent airborne deployment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Fritzbox


    TP_CM wrote: »
    I have a general flying question.. When an aircraft is coming in to land during bad weather and, at the last minute, is struggling to get the wheels on the ground maybe due to air speed or a sudden gust of wind, instead of a go-around, why aren't the engines thrown into reverse thrust? It seems like that reverse thrust is only employed when the wheels are on the ground only. If you're a few feet from the ground, is it not tempting to turn on the reverse thrust? Is the reason due to safety? Or because it would not be effective?

    well, Russians (or former Soviets at least) like to do it that way...





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,400 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    Concorde and the Trident were certified for reverse trust in flight, DC8 inner engines could be reversed in flight. You get a fairly insane decent rate...

    737 can select reverse below 10 feet radar alt

    Once selected in the flare you better be sure to land...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 527 ✭✭✭de biz


    I remember Flight Safety telling us about a GIV Captain deploying the buckets on finals to Palma!VERY lucky to recover....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,763 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    remember Flight Safety telling us about a GIV Captain deploying the buckets on finals to Palma!VERY lucky to recover..
    it isn’t designed from work in the air and is governed by a weight on wheels system called a nutcracker.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭bkehoe


    TP_CM wrote: »
    If you're a few feet from the ground, is it not tempting to turn on the reverse thrust? Is the reason due to safety? Or because it would not be effective?

    Presuming use of reverse in flight was permitted on an aircraft, generally once you select reverse thrust you've committed to the landing. Up until selection of reverse, a go around is still an option. And if you've 'floated' past the touchdown zone the last thing you want to be doing is committing to a landing from which you potentially cannot stop before the end of the runway as the calculations the crew will have performed will usually have been on the basis of wheels touching tarmac about 300m from the start of the runway. If you ever watch a commercial aircraft training with touch and goes (landing and shortly taking off again) you'll see the reversers are never deployed for the same reason - no guarantee of ability to quickly provide forward thrust once the actuators start to deploy the reversers (it takes several seconds).

    A comment here suggests it's possible on the 737. This is correct but only due to systems redundancy - it's impossible to deploy the reversers as long as the aircraft is in 'flight' for safety and use of reversers in flight is prohibited (even below 10ft). In case the normal weight on wheels sensors for the air/ground logic do not function as normal the system is designed to also use the radio altitude.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,400 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    Fairly sure it is possible on all first generation jets though not in the book as authorised, the unfortunate Lauda 767 incident refocused the industry.

    Several US airlines for a while permitted/allowed push back using reverse trust on the 727/DC9/MD80 families


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    I'd like to know when pilots are going to pull together and discuss the obvious


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭1123heavy


    I'd like to know when pilots are going to pull together and discuss the obvious

    ??


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 10,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    I'd like to know when pilots are going to pull together and discuss the obvious

    If this is any of the utter tripe I have seen on twitter over the last week there will be a forum ban involved


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,345 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    Fairly sure it is possible on all first generation jets though not in the book as authorised, the unfortunate Lauda 767 incident refocused the industry.

    Several US airlines for a while permitted/allowed push back using reverse trust on the 727/DC9/MD80 families


    Types on which reverse in flight was possible and permissible were the Douglas DC-8 and HS.121 Trident. There was a discussion of this on the Pprune forum recently. https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/640540-raf-vc-10-flight-reverse-thrust-use.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭1123heavy


    Tenger wrote: »
    If this is any of the utter tripe I have seen on twitter over the last week there will be a forum ban involved

    I genuinely have no idea what is being discussed here but this now has increased the curiosity :confused:

    A quick explanation or even a PM if acceptable would be much appreciated!

    Edit: disregard, a quick google of "twitter pilot" seems to have revealed it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Tenger wrote: »
    If this is any of the utter tripe I have seen on twitter over the last week there will be a forum ban involved

    Don't know what that story is about. I'm talking about an apparent "gag order" on pilots discussing certain things or speaking with the media at all under threat of termination of contract or even worse.

    I'm sure reasons are for "security" purposes but I want to know the extent of this order and what exactly they are not allowed discuss...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,162 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    There's not a chance you're going to get info on that here. So please stop trying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭1123heavy


    If it means anything, I am a pilot employed in an airline and I have received no gagging order nor has anyone told us not to speak to any media (are they even trying to speak to us!?)

    Whatever it is I can assure you it is not anything of a hot topic among the community otherwise we'd be aware


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,039 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    I’m not a pilot but any company I’ve worked for including an airline, we were simply told to give the email for Public / media Relations ....and make no comment....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,854 ✭✭✭lintdrummer


    Likewise, I don't know of any gag order on any airline staff. Would such a thing even be possible? Most employees in any large organisation are bound by a social media policy, but that's generic.
    Would Markus Antonius care to elaborate on what specifically pilots are not supposed to be talking about?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭1123heavy


    Strumms wrote: »
    I’m not a pilot but any company I’ve worked for including an airline, we were simply told to give the email for Public / media Relations ....and make no comment....

    Yes that is always the case I believe, but it seems the poster is indicating in the last week or so some notice regarding a specific incident has gone out and we aren't to discuss it with the media


Advertisement