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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

16465666769

Comments

  • Posts: 2,827 [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: 10,295 ✭✭✭✭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: 2,827 [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: 10,295 ✭✭✭✭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: 4,215 ✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 2,827 [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 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: 1,349 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 492 ✭✭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: 4,215 ✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 526 ✭✭✭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: 10,295 ✭✭✭✭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: 2,153 ✭✭✭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: 4,215 ✭✭✭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: 2,374 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭1123heavy


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

    ??


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,948 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: 3,085 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭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: 69,627 ✭✭✭✭L1011


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭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: 25,906 ✭✭✭✭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: 1,805 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭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
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    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...
    So all the airlines across the globe (or is it just Europe?) have issued the same "gag order" for the same reason?
    We have pilots on this forum from at least 4 different airlines. Somehow I doubt they all got the same "order".

    Sounds very QAnon-adjacent to me. (a global cabal keeping secrets from the sheep population)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,295 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    So are we now officially banned from talking about Chemtrail dispersal procedures ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭basill


    Likewise we have no "gag order" in our airline. What we do have is a social media policy. We also have people within the organisation who are specifically trained in dealing with media requests and who will be "on message".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Likewise, I don't know of any gag order on any airline staff. Would such a thing even be possible?
    basill wrote: »
    Likewise we have no "gag order" in our airline. .

    This is exactly what someone with a gag order would say :pac:

    Tell me then what the real stance is on the so called "Santa's Shortcut". I've heard some ridiculous claims about weather being too bad (despite most commercial planes flying above weather systems) and also other things like radiation exposure and navigation systems going cuckoo when flying too close to magnetic north

    Seems like a big fish story to me


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Growler!!!



    Tell me then what the real stance is on the so called "Santa's Shortcut". I've heard some ridiculous claims about weather being too bad (despite most commercial planes flying above weather systems) and also other things like radiation exposure and navigation systems going cuckoo when flying too close to magnetic north

    The real stance? What you're referring to is called Polar Ops by those of us who operate that far north. In the distant past large twin engine aircraft had to remain within 1 hours flying time of a diversion airport. As reliability increased, ETOPS was extended dependant on routes/ aircraft and operator to a max of 207 minutes on the type Im qualified on. Air New Zealand have a max ETOPS certification of 330 minutes or the ability to operate on a single engine for 5 1/2 hours!! The Santa Shortcut is used by many airlines to reduce flight times to the US west coast.

    The weather is generally quite calm in that region but you will have misinterpreted the term "bad" when referring to the weather. As an aside modern jets tend to fly above most weather but not all. During monsoon season its not unusual to see thunderstorms with tops extending up to 60 thousand feet! Polar weather will refer to the extremely cold polar airmass which aircraft will spend a significant time in. This causes problems for fuel if the fuel temperature reduces close to its freezing point (for example jet A freezing point is -40 degrees C). Dispatchers will reroute aircraft away from such cold air masses. If the fuel temp gets close to the freezing point and sets off a caution message then a decent into warmer air or a rerouting will cost time and fuel.

    Space weather affects polar flights and indeed all flights but more so in polar regions. This can affect radio signals and cause black outs, solar radiation can expose pax and crew to more radiation than normal. The NOAA have a very good website describing this: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov

    Nav systems don't quite go cuckoo anymore. Modern nav systems will switch over to True north when the aircraft goes above a certain latitude. If this fails there is the TRU button in front of the Captain which does the same thing but manually.

    Boeing produced a very good article in their Aero magazine (link below) a number of years ago which covers the major issues with Polar ops. Can I suggest that you read and understand this as it is quite informative and is all open source information. It is readily available to non aviators as is everything else unless its a company specific policy.

    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_16/polar_story.html#4


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭basill


    Tip to the OP.....The magnetic north pole ain't where you think it is and is constantly on the move. And get off the conspiracy channels on youtube.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    basill wrote: »
    Tip to the OP.....The magnetic north pole ain't where you think it is and is constantly on the move. And get off the conspiracy channels on youtube.

    It's exactly where I thought it was and how is it being on the move got any relevance to my question?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭Board Walker


    Hi Guys.

    Just wondering are there any A330 Captain's/FO's that use Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020?

    Obviously it does not matter which airline you fly for.

    I have been asked by an acquaintance who is developing the A330 for same to do some flight testing of the flight model/Physics of the aircraft behavour.

    It's for a well established developer in the simulation development sector.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5 PHOEBEKEELY


    I once asked Denis Slattery how much he'd charge to haunt a house??? He didn't respond. He only died in May of this year at the age of 98.



  • Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭Astral Nav


    A legend and gentleman (even if he was a tad pedantic). Certainly left a legacy to Irish aviation. May he rest in peace and all the navigation stars shine brightly above him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,295 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    An absolute legend who got so many of us through the exams. May he RIP.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Not sure where the best place to ask this question may be, so thought perhaps here.

    I was on a flight the other day and the usual happens, where one of the pilots needs to go to the toilet and a member of cabin crew enters the flight deck. One thing crossed my mind, which was the need for this process to begin with. I believe it started after that intentional crash of Germanwings flight 9525.

    Then I started to wonder, what benefit does this relatively new process actually have?

    Let's say, for example, that a rogue pilot intended on crashing a plane in the same way, just quicker. What difference would having a member of the cabin crew in the flight deck have in such a situation? After all, I assume it could take as little as a minute to down a plane?

    So my question is: is the change that happened actually effective, or is it done for optics?

    Because otherwise I cannot see a situation where a rogue pilot couldn't down an aircraft in the same way that happened with the Germanwings flight (again, assuming the pilot wanted to down it far quicker). I also just learned that many German airlines dropped the rule 2-years after the Germanwings crash anyway.

    I would be particularly interested to hear what airline pilots consider on this question.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,085 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    I doubt you'll get many professionals replying to such a question. The most obvious thing to me is that the cc member could presumably open the cockpit door as required.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,815 Mod ✭✭✭✭artanevilla


    It's an added layer of protection to help mitigate the risk of the cockpit door being locked.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Germanwings and other German airlines dropped this requirement in 2017, so clearly these airlines do not see the merit of this added "layer of protection".

    It's a legitimate question to ask if the security that it's supposed to provide is of any meaningful value at all.

    If it was meaningful, then it wouldn't explain why some airlines dropped the requirement.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,085 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    Unless you actually know why some airlines changed their practice, I think you are just surmising. You have apparently rejected the two responses you received and have ignored what was said.



  • Registered Users Posts: 526 ✭✭✭de biz


    Denis's archive has been donated to the Shannon Aviation Museum.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Sometimes the reason this is done has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons you mention. It can be to do with the lack of cctv so the pilot can't see who is trying to get in without getting out of their seat. Also it has happened before were a pilot on a 737 tried to open the door but was moving the switch beside it which was the rudder trim and the plane ended up in an upset condition. This wouldn't happen if a cabin crew member was there etc.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Fair enough, I hadn't considered those reasons.

    I assumed that because it was introduced immediately after the German crash, that it was directly linked to that and that alone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,239 ✭✭✭MarkN


    Many airlines did it before Germanwings, Ryanair being one. But as a professional pilot told me before, a male pilot (for example) will probably be able to overpower a member of cabin crew should they wish to do something reckless or indeed use some of the fire escape tools to incapacitate. A rare occurrence, thankfully.

    I've also sat in 1A on an EasyJet and noticed a male cabin crew member hold up an item similar to a weight bag like you'd get in a gym for doing leg lunges outside the flight deck door while a pilot went to the jacks.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I've also sat in 1A on an EasyJet and noticed a male cabin crew member hold up an item similar to a weight bag like you'd get in a gym for doing leg lunges outside the flight deck door while a pilot went to the jacks.

    Why was this, though?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,239 ✭✭✭MarkN


    I'm assuming it was to charge at somebody should the need arise. Seemed a bit over the top when I saw it.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    I've seen some very small male pilots in my time. And they are in a seated position from the start.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭john boye




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,295 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    He taught us that the conversion for LBs/KGs was 2.204622622, for some reason I have never managed to get this number out of my head :)



Advertisement