Dublin Airport Spotters

stopthepanic

Ethiopian 777 freighter due in qt 1130 with an engine for the 787 that got stuck in Dub yesterday

Madme

Ethiopian B777F landing this morning:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96469421@N07/22244680898/

de biz

Saudi Medevac inbound.

smurfjed

Saudi Medevac inbound.

It's tough to get a ride on these guys, so someone must be extremely sick and needs to get back to Saudi.

EchoIndia

smurfjed wrote: »

It's tough to get a ride on these guys, so someone must be extremely sick and needs to get back to Saudi.

Yes, a patient pick-up was mentioned over the tower frequency.

Qatar 777 arriving at 1350

Lockheed

I heard that an Ethiad A340-600 may be coming into dublin at 13:15 on the 1st of Novemeber? Can anyone confirm?

Shannon757

Deleted User wrote: »

Qatar 777 arriving at 1350

Anyone get any pictures?

Lockheed

From today's planespotting, unfortunatley couldn't get any good video of the 777, why did it use 10 when I was sure it could land on 16? I've seen Emirates 777s use 16 before

JCX BXC

Lockheed wrote: »

From today's planespotting, unfortunatley couldn't get any good video of the 777, why did it use 10 when I was sure it could land on 16? I've seen Emirates 777s use 16 before

I could be totally wrong here but I think the reason for this is that pilots of a 777 always prefer 10/28, due to its length. If it was to land on 16/34 it would have to break harder causing alot more wear and tear to an aircraft.

EchoIndia

Lockheed wrote: »

From today's planespotting, unfortunatley couldn't get any good video of the 777, why did it use 10 when I was sure it could land on 16? I've seen Emirates 777s use 16 before

The aircraft requested and was granted 10 rather than 16. It's fairly safe to assume that the crew preferred the longer runway, as 6,500 feet would be pretty short compared with anywhere that Qatar normally operates to.

Pat Dunne

Carnacalla wrote: »

I could be totally wrong here but I think the reason for this is that pilots of a 777 always prefer 10/28, due to its length. If it was to land on 16/34 it would have to break harder causing alot more wear and tear to an aircraft.

You are totally wrong, on this one. The aircraft will land with the automatic brakes system deployed, so it's going to stop in the same place and at the same rate on a 10,000 ft or 6600 ft runway.

Pat Dunne

Pat Dunne wrote: »

You are totally wrong, on this one. The aircraft will land with the automatic brakes system deployed, so it's going to stop in the same place and at the same rate on a 10,000 ft or 6600 ft runway.

Not correct either Pat, stopping distance will depend on whether the pilots have chosen 1,2,3,4 or MAX on the autobrakes. Yes if they select 2 for both runways it will stop in the same distance on both runways. But it won't if they choose 2 for 10 and 3 for 16 etc.

EchoIndia

In fact the Qatar 777 rolled to the end of runway 10 to exit, which suggests that it didn't brake heavily.

Pat Dunne

Deleted User wrote: »

Not correct either Pat, stopping distance will depend on whether the pilots have chosen 1,2,3,4 or MAX on the autobrakes. Yes if they select 2 for both runways it will stop in the same distance on both runways. But it won't if they choose 2 for 10 and 3 for 16 etc.

I note what you are saying. However, having read Carnacalla's "factoid" on the matter, I was really using a "common sense" approach. That you will stop within the same distance using the same level of deployment of the automatic braking system be it on a 10,000 foot ruway or a 6,600 foot runway.

J.pilkington

Pat Dunne wrote: »

I note what you are saying. However, having read Carnacalla's "factoid" on the matter, I was really using a "common sense" approach. That you will stop within the same distance using the same level of deployment of the automatic braking system be it on a 10,000 foot ruway or a 6,600 foot runway.

Except if you are landing on a 10,000 ft runway you would nearly always choose a less aggressive braking setting than if landing on a 6,000 ft runway.

So it's not necessarily going to stop in the same place and at the same rate on a 10,000 ft or 6600 ft runway.

JCX BXC

Pat Dunne wrote: »

I note what you are saying. However, having read Carnacalla's "factoid" on the matter, I was really using a "common sense" approach. That you will stop within the same distance using the same level of deployment of the automatic braking system be it on a 10,000 foot ruway or a 6,600 foot runway.

Factoid? Did you even read the first part of my post?

So what I said isn't entirely wrong, you just felt like stating a patronising way that I was for the craic ya? I remember reading something along the lines of what I wrote, I felt like giving input based on this. Should this be a problem to you?

J.pilkington

J.pilkington wrote: »

Except if you are landing on a 10,000 ft runway you would nearly always choose a less aggressive braking setting than if landing on a 6,000 ft runway.

So it's not necessarily going to stop in the same place and at the same rate on a 10,000 ft or 6600 ft runway.

Exactly.

smurfjed

Settings include:
• MAX AUTO: Used when minimum stopping distance is required.
Deceleration rate is less than that produced by full manual braking
• 3 or 4: Should be used for wet or slippery runways or when landing rollout distance is limited
• 2: These settings provide a moderate deceleration effect and must be selected for all routine operations.
• 1: Not recommended due to brake modulation with reverse thrust.
Note: Autobrakes 2 or greater results in a continuous brake application, which
can increase carbon brake life.

As this was a light aircraft, the stopping distance required is much shorter than runway 16 using AUTOBRAKE 2, it would be 300 feet shorter if they elected to use AUTOBRAKE 3.

If it was to land on 16/34 it would have to break harder causing alot more wear and tear to an aircraft.

There are a myriad of reasons why a crew may elect to use a longer runway, but wear and tear in this case doesn't appear to be one of them.

Carbon Brake Life
Brake wear is primarily dependent upon the number of brake applications. For example, one firm brake application causes less wear than several light applications.
During landing, one hard, high energy, long-duration brake application produces the same amount of wear as a light, low-energy, short application. This is different from steel brakes that wear as a function of the energy input during the stop.
For normal landing conditions, autobrakes 2 or 3 optimizes brake wear, passenger comfort and stopping performance.

stopthepanic

Lockheed wrote: »

I heard that an Ethiad A340-600 may be coming into dublin at 13:15 on the 1st of Novemeber? Can anyone confirm?

The good news is the A340-600 is due in on 01Nov...bad news its the 0700-0830 rotation in the morning.

TheFitz13

Was in Howth today and at 3:10 I saw an EI A330 on approach, is that not rather late? Or was it just a delayed flight from Malaga or something?

billie1b

TheFitz13 wrote: »

Was in Howth today and at 3:10 I saw an EI A330 on approach, is that not rather late? Or was it just a delayed flight from Malaga or something?

Delayed SFO flight, left San Fran 4 hours late

Lockheed

what was the reg on the Falcon 7X today? it flew over me today when i was walking, lovely noise

Kenny2012

Lockheed wrote: »

what was the reg on the Falcon 7X today? it flew over me today when i was walking, lovely noise

There were 2 today N250LG arr 10:40 F-HFDA arr 15:40 see this blog for Dublin Movements http://notam-ireland.blogspot.ie/

Kenny2012

9H-VCG CL350 VistaJet Malta
A6-EGJ 777 Emirates
A6-EGS 777 Emirates
A6-EYI A330 Etihad new colours
C-FLKX A321 Air Canada
CS-DNR F2th NetJets Europe
CS-PHD EMB505 NetJets Europe
D-AIBF A319 Lufthansa
D-AIRL A321 Lufthansa
F-GZHG 737 Transavia France
F-HFDA FA7X Dassault Aviation
EI-DYI 737 Jeju Air parked on Rwy 29
EI-EJL A330 Alitalia
EI-FIW 737 Ryanair in service
HB-ION A321 Swiss
HB-IPX A319 Swiss
HL8056 737 T-Way Airlines
LN-NOO 737 Norwegian
LN-RGD 737 SAS
LX-LGF DHC-8 Luxair
LY-MCA ATR-72 Danu Oro Transportas opf Stobart
N100QS GL5T NetJets
N240LG F900 UIM Aircraft / Liberty Global
N250LG FA7X UIM Aircraft / Liberty Global
N730LM F900 Liberty Media
OH-LKG E190 Finnair
OY-KAP A320 SAS
SE-RJT 737 SAS
TC-JHN 737 Turkish Airlines
TC-JVE 737 Turkish Airlines

Pictures
CS-PHD https://flic.kr/p/AqjXiV
D-AIRL https://flic.kr/p/zsgXyt
EI-DYI https://flic.kr/p/AoaXbG
EI-EJL https://flic.kr/p/Apeudc
EI-EJL https://flic.kr/p/zsmvix
EI-FIW https://flic.kr/p/AqgZup
EI-RJU https://flic.kr/p/A7B2Dd
EI-RJT https://flic.kr/p/zsitZB
HB-IPX https://flic.kr/p/zs8ngs
HL8056 https://flic.kr/p/zS7gRm
LX-LGF https://flic.kr/p/AonYNW
LY-MCA https://flic.kr/p/AnZ8LG
N100QS https://flic.kr/p/AqmbZR
N240LG https://flic.kr/p/AnaMtA
N250LG https://flic.kr/p/A7YEar
N730LM https://flic.kr/p/zsByFe
OY-KAP https://flic.kr/p/A7Ejzb

arubex

1st November AAL54 767-300 N352AA landed 10:00.

Diverted from Manchester arrival due to equipment issue, possibly ILS inop.

airbusa320

https://www.flickr.com/photos/83304124@N07/22481976340/in/dateposted-public/

Italian Air Force P.180 Avanti MM62200 departing DUB this morning

airbusa320

https://www.flickr.com/photos/83304124@N07/22683078101/in/dateposted-public/

Ethiad Airways A340-600 A6-EHF departing Dublin 1/11/15

Madme

Etihad A340-600 lifting this morning:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96469421@N07/22684475365/

arubex

There will be no more Blue1 B712 flights into Dublin; operation of the type unexpectedly ended on Saturday, weeks ahead of schedule.

Only Volotea now as an operator of the type into Ireland but they're starting to transition to A319s.