The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

LeftBase

smurfjed wrote: »

Would you please expand on this statement please? Where does it come from?

smurfjed

My company's SOPs state that in the case of runway infraction you diverge from runway heading after 200' AGL to avoid overflight of the traffic(if it is on the runway) below 500' AGL

Flier wrote: »

You could argue that in a decent powered twin, a simple engine flameout isn't much of an 'issue', however,
regardless of how many engines you start out with, a shutdown is an incident and is required to be reported.

I didnt say you wouldnt report it. I just dont think it would necessarily make avherald.

eatmyshorts

LeftBase wrote: »

My company's SOPs state that in the case of runway infraction you diverge from runway heading after 200' AGL to avoid overflight of the traffic(if it is on the runway) below 500' AGL

I hope you're not applying that procedure if on an RNP-AR approach.

On reflection, to be honest that's a ridiculous procedure. Try doing that somewhere like JFK, ORD, BOS, SFO or any number of highly constrained airports around the world and you're going to open up a world of hurt.

Rabbitt

LeftBase wrote: »

A go around will be called even if an aircraft over runs the hold short marker. They don't actually have to "enter the runway". Some airports have a system that alerts the tower of an over run and they can order an abort.
The sharp right was most likely due to the fact that you cannot overfly an aircraft on the ground below a certain altitude.

So would you know how I could find out exactly what it was that caused the abort?

smurfjed

On reflection, to be honest that's a ridiculous procedure.

I was just imagining us turning left following an go-around in LeBourget, I could envisage the CDG controllers having synchronised heart attacks! There are also a number of airports that are located in valleys, the missed approach flight path is required to ensure sufficient distance to achieve the required terrain clearance, so I would question that if you turned any direction, what would you do next?

@eatmyshorts, nope none of ours, while we can go to 450, we follow the regulation that BOTH crew must be on O2 above 410, as this is uncomfortable, we avoid it.

Anyway, 3 hours before sunrise, time to go to work

smurfjed,

Flier

LeftBase wrote: »

I didnt say you wouldnt report it. I just dont think it would necessarily make avherald.

Actually,this is what you said :
"if the aircraft landed above final reserve and the engine was shut down by choice and for no other reason than to conserve fuel. It is simply a diversion and not really an incident.


I am simply making the point that it is, in fact, an incident, and must be reported as such. What the avhearld does about it is really not my concern. Time for you to open the books again.

smurfjed

PRECAUTIONARY (NON-SCHEDULED) LANDING GUIDANCE
As a general guideline, Precautionary Procedures should be used unless aircraft or personnel are considered to be at risk. As examples, the following situations may warrant a Non-Scheduled Landing, but are not normally regarded as being so serious as to justify declaring an EMERGENCY.
A. Engine failure or precautionary shutdown on a 3- or 4-engine aircraft with no indications of actual fire or damage..

Shutting down an engine in a 3 or 4 engine airliner is not considered an EMERGENCY, for us it is considered an INFLIGHT ABNORMALITY, this requires letting everyone know about it, filing an Air Safety Report, the crew will subsequently get grounded pending investigation and if it was found that they shut the engine down to save fuel, the Captain would probably spend the next couple of years as a co-pilot and he might even get to pay the costs for the additional landing etc.

smurfjed

scudzilla

smurfjed wrote: »

Shutting down an engine in a 3 or 4 engine airliner is not considered an EMERGENCY, for us it is considered an INFLIGHT ABNORMALITY, this requires letting everyone know about it, filing an Air Safety Report, the crew will subsequently get grounded pending investigation and if it was found that they shut the engine down to save fuel, the Captain would probably spend the next couple of years as a co-pilot and he might even get to pay the costs for the additional landing etc.

smurfjed

Does this happen, surely if an engine on a plane was shut down the other 3 would have to work harder, meaning higher fuel burn??

smurfjed

@scudzilla, no it doesn't happen, Left Base originally offered it as a justification in response to someone stating that an engine was shut down on a flight.



This has nothing to do with the flight in question, but it shows that shutting down an engine and descending will actually increase your fuel burn. There are much better options available to save fuel.

smurfjed

BrakePad

When an aircraft diverts like happened with a lot of them the other night at Dublin the company pay for the hotel costs right? However is it true Ryanair crew have to orgaise/pay for their own digs of they divert?

Another question. Can any pilots give an example of their work schedule for a week(ie days worked and sectors/routes flown in a day)

smurfjed

Can any pilots give an example of their work schedule for a week(ie days worked and sectors/routes flown in a day)

Guess that the lack of a response proves that Leftbase was right, there are no real pilots here :)

smurfjed

Bessarion

BrakePad wrote: »

When an aircraft diverts like happened with a lot of them the other night at Dublin the company pay for the hotel costs right? However is it true Ryanair crew have to orgaise/pay for their own digs of they divert?...... give an example of their work schedule for a week(ie days worked and sectors/routes flown in a day)

From 2 weeks ago,
a roster of a flight deck colleague:

Mon- Off
Tue- Off
Wed- DUB-CDG-DUB-CDG-DUB.
Thu- DUB-MUC-DUB-MAN-DUB.
Fri- DUB-LHR-DUB-LHR.
Sat- LHR-DUB-FAO-DUB.
Sun- DUB-LPA-DUB.
Mon- DUB-AMS-DUB-LHR-DUB.
Tue- Off


In theory the company are responsible for organising overnight accommodation. However sometimes it can go a bit pear shaped. I do know that during last weeks high wind related diversion a pilot stuck in Edinburgh had to book 12 rooms on his own credit card. (2 crews)This was at 1-2 am. He will be able to claim back from the company.

BrakePad

Bessarion wrote: »

From 2 weeks ago,
a roster of a flight deck colleague:

Mon- Off
Tue- Off
Wed- DUB-CDG-DUB-CDG-DUB.
Thu- DUB-MUC-DUB-MAN-DUB.
Fri- DUB-LHR-DUB-LHR.
Sat- LHR-DUB-FAO-DUB.
Sun- DUB-LPA-DUB.
Mon- DUB-AMS-DUB-LHR-DUB.
Tue- Off


In theory the company are responsible for organising overnight accommodation. However sometimes it can go a bit pear shaped. I do know that during last weeks high wind related diversion a pilot stuck in Edinburgh had to book 12 rooms on his own credit card. (2 crews)This was at 1-2 am. He will be able to claim back from the company.

Cheers!

Wow that is a pretty hefty bill to have to pay out....

I guess you are still handing over the plastic to pay out awful sums even when you get a job!:D

smurfjed

To compare Bessarions short haul schedule with a long haul schedule, friend flies a B747-400, this month he will operate 9 flights, totalling 78 block hours, and have 12 days off with another 4 on reserve. Unfortunately the days of 200 hour layovers are gone So he gets to stay in Manila for a maximum of 49 hours.

Downside of long haul is that the flights are operated with double crew, so one crew will takeoff, the other will land, so in the course of a month, a single pilot may only do 1 takeoff and 1 landing (or two of either).

smurfjed

amen

I am not a pilot but

so one crew will takeoff, the other will land

I though the the takeoff crew had to takeoff/land as they are crew in charge and the other crew are relief.

smurfjed

Nope, total handover during the flight (FAA rules). I believe that this will change when they introduce the new duty time regulations.

smurfjed

BrakePad

Question I've always wondered about.

What is a "Cruise Captain?"

amen

So in the case of total handover who is the captain that is legally responsible?

Flier

BrakePad wrote: »

Question I've always wondered about.

What is a "Cruise Captain?"

It's the guy who takes command (usually a co-pilot) in an augmented crew when the captain goes on his rest break.

smurfjed

@amen, there is a total transfer of authority, 1st Captain signed all the legal documents prior to takeoff, 2nd Captain signs a transfer form when he takes over, so legally he is totally responsible. This transfer may also be transmitted to Dispatch through HF or ACARS.

@BrakePad, it all has to do with Duty Time regulations, for longer flights they need additional crew in order to increase the duty time, you may have noticed me talking about TWO crews on the same aircraft, this is called DOUBLE CREW (For obvious reasons ). This gives the maximum allowed Duty Time. If the flights are shorter, then the requirement is only for 1 more crewmember. Some airlines use First Officers, some use Cruise Captains, the difference is that the First Officer can actually takeoff and land, the Cruise Captain isn't allowed to fly below 10,000 feet. The reasons behind all of this is cost, someone qualified as a cruise captain has less experience than a real captain, so he is paid a lot less. To me, it also has to be most boring job in the world.

smurfjed

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Nope, total handover during the flight (FAA rules). I believe that this will change when they introduce the new duty time regulations.

smurfjed

Interesting, I didn't realise the FAA rules did it that way. Seems to be a bit overly complicated for me!

For us, there is an operating crew and an augmenting crew.
The operating crew does the take-off and landing, the augmenting crew provides the inflight relief. The operating Captain is the legal Commander for the whole flight.
On the return leg, the roles reverse.

smurfjed

So how do you decide the rest periods? Are they defined or subject to operating captains desires? For us, most senior crew fly 1st half outbound, 2nd half inbound. Best thing is that duty time, flight time and pay time are all based on the complete time, not just seat time.

smurfjed

Lustrum

When you talk about Cruise Captains not being as experienced as "full" (for want of a better word) Captains, are they also less experienced than the F/Os if they can't fly below 10,000ft?

I know Air Atlanta Icelandic were hiring last year for cruise relief pilots, and the type rating wasn't a full rating, or something to that effect. Is there a minimum amount of hours to do as a cruise pilot that allows you to step up to fly below 10,000ft? For the guys in your companies that are in this position, what's their next logical step for progression?

BrakePad

At an Open Day in PTC a while back I heard a guy say he was a cruise Captain in Aer Lingus. Didnt think they flew far enough for there to be a need to augment the crew. Maybe to LAX back in the day perhaps?

Flier

BrakePad wrote: »

At an Open Day in PTC a while back I heard a guy say he was a cruise Captain in Aer Lingus. Didnt think they flew far enough for there to be a need to augment the crew. Maybe to LAX back in the day perhaps?

EI don't employ "cruise captains". We do have the occasional duty which requires an augmented crew, usually 3 pilots (obviously if SFO goes ahead next year that will become a regular occurrence). These are three fully type rated line pilots, usually one Captain and two copilots. The most senior copilot (provided he has done the supplementary relief commander training) is usually designated "relief commander" and will take command (from his usual operating seat) while the captain goes on his rest break. The captain remains as the captain and commander of the flight the entire time. Hope that helps.

Tenger

BrakePad wrote: »

......a while back I heard a guy say he was a cruise Captain in Aer Lingus. Didnt think they flew far enough for there to be a need to augment the crew. Maybe to LAX back in the day perhaps?

I have never heard the term being used.....relief commander is the EI term.

matthew2008

just wanted to say all the contributions are excellent here, only been on boards a few times and hasnt been overly helpful or intresting until this. my question is how difficult did youse find it learning to fly with your 'worse' hand? my left hand dexterity is considerably less then my right hand and i understand (think?) every pilot has to use there 'bad hand' at one stage or another?

smurfjed

I learned to fly in a Rallye, that aircraft had a joystick and the throttles were in the middle, so you had to use both hands. I'm right handed, so would consider my left hand as my weakest, because the amount of movement required was limited, I really didn't find a problem.
After that i flew a Cessna 172, this had a more traditional control column, so once again I had to use both hands, but it wasnt a major issue.
I would suggest that you go to Weston or any airfield, do a trial flight in a Rallye and see how it goes.

smurfjed

LeftBase

matthew2008 wrote: »

just wanted to say all the contributions are excellent here, only been on boards a few times and hasnt been overly helpful or intresting until this. my question is how difficult did youse find it learning to fly with your 'worse' hand? my left hand dexterity is considerably less then my right hand and i understand (think?) every pilot has to use there 'bad hand' at one stage or another?

When you learn to fly you generally learn in the left seat. This means you operate the control wheel with your left hand the the throttle with your right. It is not that hard at all. When you become an airline FO however you sit on the right hand side and so must now fly using your right hand. I am right handed and actually found it a little bit harder when I switched from flying with my left(bad hand) to flying side stick on the A320 with my right. However I got used to it after a little bit. It's like anything really...you adapt and it becomes less of a issue after a short while.

keith16

I watched the film "Flight" recently and thought it was ridiculous.

They found the two empty bottles of vodka, but there was no mention of him being asleep prior to the crash. Also, the flying upside down part was ridiculous.

Do you find yourself getting annoyed or laugh at such films?

LeftBase

keith16 wrote: »

I watched the film "Flight" recently and thought it was ridiculous.

They found the two empty bottles of vodka, but there was no mention of him being asleep prior to the crash. Also, the flying upside down part was ridiculous.

Do you find yourself getting annoyed or laugh at such films?

I cant remember the exact details but the crew were covering for him. That's why they didn't mention the fact he was clearly drunk when he arrived in the cockpit.

Films are for entertainment and should be interpreted as such.