The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

mr.anonymous

According to a recent Flight International article on Ryanair pilot training:

"... almost 50% (of applicant pilots in the simulator assessment) consistently fail, despite being the products of approved commercial pilot licence/instrument rating (CPL/IR) courses at [Approved Training Organisations.]"

In light of this, what are your views on training, flight schools in particular? And what do you think needs to change to ensure airlines like Ryanair can meet demand for pilots?

basill

Why does FR failing cadets in a sim assessment mean that they were poorly trained. What's the basis for this rationale. People fail sims for lots of reasons.

IngazZagni

basill wrote: »

Why does FR failing cadets in a sim assessment mean that they were poorly trained. What's the basis for this rationale. People fail sims for lots of reasons.

It doesn't necessarily mean they were poorly trained but I think it does highlight certain things like not training students to the standards that airlines require. An important aspect they highlighted was the lack of CRM training in flight schools. After all everything up to getting your CPL and Instrument rating is single pilot ops. After this many schools say goodbye to you.

The MCC is an extremely important part of training and many treat it like just a tick the box excercise when in reality it is a vital training aspect for training students into the airline world. So in short many may be good pilots but can't or are not used to working in a team environment and this is were they fall down.

Gmaximum

Just looking at the press reporting issues with Aer Lingus flights over the last couple of days (OTT reporting I know) but got me thinking. I fly once or twice a month with work mainly short haul to the UK. Been doing the same job for 3 years and haven't once been on board when there has been an issue requiring us to divert or return to the point of origin.

Is there a median number of flights where you'd expect this to happen?

Growler!!!

A quick back of a fag packet calculations gives:

Aircraft used on 4 flights a day for 30 days
4x30=120 flights

There are 40 A320 family aircraft in the fleet
120x40=4800 flights per month

You fly twice a month then
4800/2=2400

So there is a 1 in 2400 chance this will happen.
At 2 trips a month or 24 trips a year then the probability will be 1 event in 100 years!!

All figures are rounded and guessed at. Your chances will be increased or decreased around the above figures but it gives you an idea. The very next flight you are are on could be the one! That's why your crew are put through their paces every six months in a simulator.

pepe the prawn

Just wondering are most (if not all) airlines now using iPads for such things as jepp plates etc?

If so, is it a requirement to carry a paper copy "just incase" the iPad packs up?

smurfjed

The FAA is allowing them provided that there are at least two, charging points exist and proper mounts, the aircraft must have paper enroute charts as backup....

That move literally saves me about 2 hours a week

Cessna_Pilot

smurfjed wrote: »

The FAA is allowing them provided that there are at least two, charging points exist and proper mounts, the aircraft must have paper enroute charts as backup....

That move literally saves me about 2 hours a week

Similar time saving with my operator. Gives the Co pilots those few extra minutes to get the pre flight coffee order correct, sorry more time to go over weather and notams

JCX BXC

What visibility limits apply to a CATIII approach?

ProfessorPlum

Carnacalla wrote: »

What visibility limits apply to a CATIII approach?

There are two types of CAT III approach, a and b.

In EASA land (Europe) a CAT IIIa approach has a DH (decision height) lower than 100 feet and requires a touchdown RVR of not less than 200 metres.

CAT IIIb has a DH of lower than 100 feet, or no DH and a touchdown RVR of less than 200m but not less than 75 metres.

They are the system minima - each operator will also have their own limits which might be more restrictive.

The other big difference in visibility issues is the requirement for the 'visual reference', which for CAT III ops is either 3 lights, 1 light, or no visual reference required.

Also, the runway, the aircraft and the crew must be certified / qualified.

The rules in the US are also a little different.

smurfjed

[IMG][/img]

The concept of a First Officer in 1930..... I got a laugh out of this :)

Pat Dunne

smurfjed wrote: »

[IMG][/img]

The concept of a First Officer in 1930..... I got a laugh out of this :)

So, nothing much has changed then

duskyjoe

FairPlay to you smurf.....classic. I've sent same to a few of my colleagues ��

Indricotherium

I was in the airport the other day boarding a plane.

I saw an aerlingus a320 parked up beside the plane I was getting onto. I noticed, not for the first time, what looked like exhaust coming from what I would describe as the airplanes bum. The hole at the very back of the tube part.

This obviously isn't an engine or whatever. Does anyone know what it is?

eatmyshorts

Indricotherium wrote: »

I was in the airport the other day boarding a plane.

I saw an aerlingus a320 parked up beside the plane I was getting onto. I noticed, not for the first time, what looked like exhaust coming from what I would describe as the airplanes bum. The hole at the very back of the tube part.

This obviously isn't an engine or whatever. Does anyone know what it is?

It's the Auxiliary Power Unit. (APU)

Provides electrical power and air conditioning on the ground. It also provides air pressure or electrical power to start the engines.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit

notharrypotter

Indricotherium wrote: »

I was in the airport the other day boarding a plane.

I saw an aerlingus a320 parked up beside the plane I was getting onto. I noticed, not for the first time, what looked like exhaust coming from what I would describe as the airplanes bum. The hole at the very back of the tube part.

This obviously isn't an engine or whatever. Does anyone know what it is?

Auxiliary Power Unit

Indricotherium

eatmyshorts wrote: »

It's the Auxiliary Power Unit. (APU)

Provides electrical power and air conditioning on the ground. It also provides air pressure or electrical power to start the engines.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit

Thank you.

Googling Airbus bum was getting me nowhere

_Tombstone_

Is that not where the chem-trails come out of?

PapaQuebec

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Is that not where the chem-trails come out of?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

pastorbarrett

Hi all,

Any of the pilot's here care to share their thoughts and opinions on their favourite planes to fly/ reasons why/ bugbears they may have with certain planes, general experiences and so on.

As a pax I've always been curious about what those up front perceive and think of their respective work tools.

Many thanks!

smurfjed

A Saudi prince has been arrested after two tonnes of amphetamines were seized before they were due to be loaded onto his private jet in Lebanon, it has been revealed.
Lebanese officials say they have foiled one of the biggest drug smuggling attempts in the country's history after the haul of pills was found at Beirut airport.
Saudi prince Abdel Mohsen Bin Walid Bin Abdulaziz and four others were detained while allegedly 'attempting to smuggle about two tons of pills and some cocaine,' a security source said.

If this was an airline then its the airline that is responsible and not the crew, but if its a private aircraft and the drugs actually got onboard the aircraft, then it would the Pilots responsibility, so a totally innocent crew might find themselves with a long term residence in a Beirut jail.

martinsvi

meridiangroup wrote: »

Hi all,

Any of the pilot's here care to share their thoughts and opinions on their favourite planes to fly/ reasons why/ bugbears they may have with certain planes, general experiences and so on.

As a pax I've always been curious about what those up front perceive and think of their respective work tools.

Many thanks!

since no-one else will answer it, for me it's PA28 lol... cosy, forgiving and simple to fly

I don't think professional pilots get to change their aircraft that often to have a strong favorite among others. Generally you're stuck with what you're type-rated for and maybe change the type twice or three times in career with the new type typically being next-gen wonder with built in foot massagers, musical cup holders and autopilot who generally has a better sex life than you..

eatmyshorts

martinsvi wrote: »

since no-one else will answer it, for me it's PA28 lol... cosy, forgiving and simple to fly

I don't think professional pilots get to change their aircraft that often to have a strong favorite among others. Generally you're stuck with what you're type-rated for and maybe change the type twice or three times in career with the new type typically being next-gen wonder with built in foot massagers, musical cup holders and autopilot who generally has a better sex life than you..

I've been a type hopper. In 16 years I've flown 6 different types of medium and heavy jets. Counting all the variants and subtypes adds up to about 15 different aircraft.

Each one has their pros and cons.

Airbus cockpits are roomy, comfortable and we'll designed. Boeing tends to be a bit more "agricultural" .

Boring checklists and manuals are really user friendly, whereas Airbus tends to be less so. "Written in French and translated into English by an italian" would be an apt analogy.

Modern ECAM and EICAS systems are great, but there's a lot to be said for looking over your shoulder at the Flight Engineer for help when something goes wrong.

slow.loris

Hi all,

I would love to know answers to the following questions:

1. In commercial airlines such as Ryanair or AerLingus do Captain and First Officer always fly in the same pairs? Or does it change and you never know who would your FO/Captain be the next day?

2. Last summer when coming back from holiday I was "lucky" enough to be flying on a day of air controllers strike. The plane to take us home was coming from Dublin and was delayed by over 4 hours; we eventually got home in small hours of the morning. I presume it was the same team that flew the plane in and out as this was a small airport on an island and they wouldn't have a replacement crew available, or would they? How long are pilots allowed to be on duty? Would longer delay force them to rest overnight and flight to be cancelled/rescheduled for the morning?

Thanks

basill

AL - Each month we get a new roster which details the duties and the person(s) who you will be flying with as well as any relevant memos as to whether the flight is a training or check flight etc. People do go sick and on short haul disruptions on previous duties can mean a change of crew member(s). Also people will want to swap duties to fit in with other plans that they may have. We have an electronic bidding system for things such as earlies, lates, long stops, destinations etc. This will influence who you tend to fly with but as a general rule subject to the vagaries of the bidding system it is random.

Our duty day is governed by flight time limitations which impose limits on the length of duty that the crew can undertake and will be affectd by the time they report and the number of sectors. If the "planned" delay in relation to your ATC strike was known in advance then the outbound crew could well have been kept at home in order to keep them in hours.

faceman

Curious question. Currently flying SFO to Dublin and despite a slightly early departure we are due to land 15 minutes late. Early in the flight the pilot mentioned numerous weather cells would be across our route. However the route we took saw us fly south of Chicago before heading toward St. John's. Usually our routing takes us into Canada earlier and either over or close to Greenland.

I assumed our routing was weather related until I checked Flightradar and see that numerous SFO to LHR flights are taking the usual routings.

Any idea why we would take the route? Is it ATC related or did the pilot fancy taking the scenic route?

Tenger

faceman wrote: »

......Currently flying SFO to Dublin ................However the route we took saw us fly south of Chicago before heading toward St. John's................
I assumed our routing was weather related until I checked Flightradar and see that numerous SFO to LHR flights are taking the usual routings.

Any idea why we would take the route?.............. did the pilot fancy taking the scenic route?

Cant answer your question specifically but that is very odd. Usually EI SFO-DUB goes up over Idaho and into Canada, overflying Ontario and Hudson Bay.

Clonmel1000

Apologies if this is a bit of a silly question but here goes. Was on an FR flight from Malaga to Dub last Monday evening. It was quite wet and windy. My question relates to the speed and the thump we made on landing both seemed faster and harder than normal. Is this possible?

Thanks

martinsvi

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Is this possible?

yes

Faster speeds prevent nastiness from unexpected wind-shear, heavier landing squeezes water out from between the runway and tyres thus preventing aquaplaning and the dangers associated with it.

Tenger

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

.....Was on an FR flight from Malaga to Dub last Monday evening. It was quite wet and windy. My question relates to the speed and the thump we made on landing both seemed faster and harder than normal. Is this possible?....

As above, in manky weather you want a good solid landing rather than 'kissing the runway'