The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

Growler!!!

Not been lased in dub but have been in ORK, man, bhx and edi. As I mentioned on another thread about lasers it's very distracting and it like somebody randomly shouting in your headset when I should be concentrating.

Unfortunately the eye is drawn to movement and the sweeping of the laser tends to draw the eye. If it's on my side I'll hand over control to the f/o and put up my window blinds. Problem solved:)

eatmyshorts

jasonb wrote: »

So my question is this: Is it possible for ACARS data sent from the aircraft to the ground to include whether a future course change has been programmed into the Flight Computer?

Thanks...

J.

Yes, as long as the change is the next waypoint or the one after. Standard position report format.

jasonb

Ah, so it is possible? Thanks for confirming that...

Jason.

KnotABother

I heard there were some lads lasered whole doing a night rating in a 172 in Shannon last year.

robertxxx

Growler!!! wrote: »

Unfortunately the eye is drawn to movement and the sweeping of the laser tends to draw the eye. If it's on my side I'll hand over control to the f/o and put up my window blinds. Problem solved:)

That is a major problem, the law has to come down hard on these people.

wil

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Cabin crew are required to check the cockpit at regular intervals to check that both crew are still alive, (and more importantly, don't need more coffee:), but take a look at Helios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

Many airlines changed their procedures after that crash, so that in the event of a depressurisation, if the cabin does not get communication from the cockpit, they are required to go to the cockpit to physically check on the crew to see if they are conscious. While the masks drop down automatically in the cabin, there is no automatic system in the cockpit, so it could happen that there is a loss of pressurisation and the cockpit crew may not be aware.

Does this procedure not have an obvious flaw? The cockpit door is locked.

ProfessorPlum

wil wrote: »

Does this procedure not have an obvious flaw? The cockpit door is locked.

No, it doesn't. Can't tell you anymore, or as they say, I'd have to kill you

pclancy

Yep, the one thing that we don't want to discuss here is anything security related.

pclancy

On the Boeing MCP, can someone explain why and when you would use "Level Change" instead of just selecting a different altitude?

eatmyshorts

pclancy wrote: »

On the Boeing MCP, can someone explain why and when you would use "Level Change" instead of just selecting a different altitude?

Selecting a different altitude in the window is simply telling the system what altitude you want it to capture. You then have to select a way to get there.
Level Change is one of the modes that the system can then use to attain the target altitude. Engaging Level Change commands the autopilot/autothrottle to attempt to acquire the target altitude in a time frame of 2 minutes, while maintaining the selected speed in the speed window. If this is not possible, then the autothrottle will command IDLE (or HOLD) for a descent or THR REF (or THR) for a climb.
If the altitude selector knob is pushed while the active pitch mode is in VNAV, then the autopilot/autothrottle will command a VNAV SPD or VNAV PTH climb or descent using THR REF or IDLE.

Neilw

I thought I had....

Is there a way for cabin crew to access the flight deck from outside, say for example if the pilot/fo are unconscious?

Suasdaguna1

Neilw wrote: »

I thought I had....

Is there a way for cabin crew to access the flight deck from outside, say for example if the pilot/fo are unconscious?

Classified for public forums

Neilw

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

Classified for public forums

Ok thanks, understandable.

bkehoe

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Selecting a different altitude in the window is simply telling the system what altitude you want it to capture. You then have to select a way to get there.
Level Change is one of the modes that the system can then use to attain the target altitude. Engaging Level Change commands the autopilot/autothrottle to attempt to acquire the target altitude in a time frame of 2 minutes, while maintaining the selected speed in the speed window. If this is not possible, then the autothrottle will command IDLE (or HOLD) for a descent or THR REF (or THR) for a climb.
If the altitude selector knob is pushed while the active pitch mode is in VNAV, then the autopilot/autothrottle will command a VNAV SPD or VNAV PTH climb or descent using THR REF or IDLE.

That sounds like the 777 'FL CH' mode. On the 737 (Classic and NG), 'LVL CHG' is much more simple than this...no time logic whatsoever.
Level change simply commands a pitch angle to deliver the selected speed and if in a climb delivers the maximum Climb N1 or in a descent, retards the thrust levers and then puts the auto thrust into the ARM mode (ready for when it hits alt acq and needs thrust again). Because LVL CHG is quite 'crude', we use V/S when approaching the MCP selected altitude (to achieve 1000fpm when 1000ft above of below cleared altitude) to avoid TCAS TA/RAs and it also helps with passenger comfort.

The altitude selector cannot be pushed on the 737 and if in VNAV, selecting the lower cleared altitude on the MCP leaves one with two possibilities - if ATC says descend 'when ready', no further action is needed; once the calculated top of descent point arrives, descent will commence to the MCP selected altitude. Or we can press the Alt Intervent button which will commence a 1000fpm descent until the idle thrust descent profile is intercepted.

eatmyshorts

bkehoe wrote: »

That sounds like the 777 'FL CH' mode. On the 737 (Classic and NG), 'LVL CHG' is much more simple than this...no time logic whatsoever.

Yes, to clarify, my description is from the 777.

NewSigGuy

bkehoe wrote: »

That sounds like the 777 'FL CH' mode. On the 737 (Classic and NG), 'LVL CHG' is much more simple than this...no time logic whatsoever.
Level change simply commands a pitch angle to deliver the selected speed and if in a climb delivers the maximum Climb N1 or in a descent, retards the thrust levers and then puts the auto thrust into the ARM mode (ready for when it hits alt acq and needs thrust again). Because LVL CHG is quite 'crude', we use V/S when approaching the MCP selected altitude (to achieve 1000fpm when 1000ft above of below cleared altitude) to avoid TCAS TA/RAs and it also helps with passenger comfort.

The altitude selector cannot be pushed on the 737 and if in VNAV, selecting the lower cleared altitude on the MCP leaves one with two possibilities - if ATC says descend 'when ready', no further action is needed; once the calculated top of descent point arrives, descent will commence to the MCP selected altitude. Or we can press the Alt Intervent button which will commence a 1000fpm descent until the idle thrust descent profile is intercepted.

Wow the "Boeing Way" sure sounds complicated, you guys need to try Airbus.. Push/Pull its absolutely intuitive.

eatmyshorts

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Wow the "Boeing Way" sure sounds complicated, you guys need to try Airbus.. Push/Pull its absolutely intuitive.

I've flown both Airbus and Boeing. To be honest, it's pretty much the same system just different names for the modes.

robbieVan

eatmyshorts wrote: »

I've flown both Airbus and Boeing. To be honest, it's pretty much the same system just different names for the modes.

Did you fly the 330 for aer lingus and then head for the desert to fly the 777?

Is this being way too nosey? lol

pclancy

Cheers. So the norm would be to let the autothrottle just chop power when it approaches TOD and the aircraft starts to descend, rather then a slow gentle manual retardation of thrust to reduce speed before descending?

I remember watching an old 737 Classic documentary (think it was an airline called Go Fly at the time) and the Irish captain spoke of the "Good Airmanship" of manually retarding the throttles before TOD to reduce engine wear due to the massive changes in heat in the engines.

Which method would be more gentle on the passengers? I guess you want to avoid negative G sensation when you hit TOD.

wil

pclancy wrote: »

Yep, the one thing that we don't want to discuss here is anything security related.

I can well understand, and almost goes without saying, absolutely sensible.

However, with a touch of devils advocate, I might ask, under mod advisement, and in light of all recent news (sorry) are you more aware or concerned about your social security.
Of course I don't mean PRSI payments, I am referring to your online presence, social networking etc that could be trawled through or abused.
I would have thought there would be guidelines, either company or professional organisation issued. This may be a broad assumption considering one of the persons involved posted both his employer, aircraft class, face and location on at least one publicly accessible networking site, along with various political views and links to other family members.
I would have thought that unwise, for a multitude of reasons.

Now that may appear bordering on paranoia, but different countries have different degrees of concern and if I was a bank manager in Ireland, I wouldn't be publishing my name, address, place of work and family members etc for probably obvious sensible reasons.

basill

Cheers. So the norm would be to let the autothrottle just chop power when it approaches TOD and the aircraft starts to descend, rather then a slow gentle manual retardation of thrust to reduce speed before descending?

I remember watching an old 737 Classic documentary (think it was an airline called Go Fly at the time) and the Irish captain spoke of the "Good Airmanship" of manually retarding the throttles before TOD to reduce engine wear due to the massive changes in heat in the engines.

Which method would be more gentle on the passengers? I guess you want to avoid negative G sensation when you hit TOD.

Descent planning is a bit of an artform. Firstly the aircraft will compute its on TOD point but as with most computers its very much a case of garbage in, garbage out. It will only be as accurate as what is in the fmc/fmgs. Secondly, the fadec takes care of the engines and wont allow them to under/over temp. There isn't really a chopping of power anymore. In fact even when at IDLE the N1 on the modern day CFMs and GEs is actually around 20-30%. Finally, the airline might specify in their OPS manuals how they want their aircraft flown and have an SOP to cater for this.

From a practical perspective I personally like to start a gentle descent at something around the 1000fpm mark and get slightly below the profile. This avoids large pitch/power changes for the pax and also keeps the speed under control and stop it racing towards the barbers pole. Then I gradually increase the rate to 1500-2000fpm before picking up the ideal profile when lower. There will be by now a much greater margin on the barbers pole which means I can wind up the speed if needed without the worry of overspeeding.

guyjohn

sopretty wrote: »

Howdy.

Is it even remotely possible that an aircraft could have a fire onboard which would incapacitate certain navigational systems and also pilots and then continue on flying for 5 hours? :rolleyes:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/ check this out.

I did see a pilot on CNN say that if the aircraft was trimmed properly its possible to fly manual for 5 hours .
My own response is that the weather conditions would have a factor.

sopretty

guyjohn wrote: »

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/ check this out.

If I see that article being quoted to me one more time, I will spontaneously combust myself!!!

guyjohn

sopretty wrote: »

If I see that article being quoted to me one more time, I will spontaneously combust myself!!!

You are not the only poster here ?

sopretty

guyjohn wrote: »

You are not the only poster here ?

You quoted my post - I replied to you. The reason I actually asked my question here (directed at pilots) was as a result of reading that article!

PapaQuebec

pclancy wrote: »

Cheers. So the norm would be to let the autothrottle just chop power when it approaches TOD and the aircraft starts to descend, rather then a slow gentle manual retardation of thrust to reduce speed before descending?

I remember watching an old 737 Classic documentary (think it was an airline called Go Fly at the time) and the Irish captain spoke of the "Good Airmanship" of manually retarding the throttles before TOD to reduce engine wear due to the massive changes in heat in the engines.

Which method would be more gentle on the passengers? I guess you want to avoid negative G sensation when you hit TOD.

Capt John Mahon

crazygeryy

In today's paper in reference to MH370 it says and i quote " shutting down the ACARS deliberately is a complicated process and beyond the training of most pilots" .

Is that true? Any of the pilots in here able to do it?

View Profile

Thought it might be as easy as pulling the breaker but maybe not?!

Aphex

pclancy wrote: »

Cheers. So the norm would be to let the autothrottle just chop power when it approaches TOD and the aircraft starts to descend, rather then a slow gentle manual retardation of thrust to reduce speed before descending?

I remember watching an old 737 Classic documentary (think it was an airline called Go Fly at the time) and the Irish captain spoke of the "Good Airmanship" of manually retarding the throttles before TOD to reduce engine wear due to the massive changes in heat in the engines.

Which method would be more gentle on the passengers? I guess you want to avoid negative G sensation when you hit TOD.

John Mahon for ITVV? I have learned a lot from them great programmes. He was speaking on the Air France A330 episode of Air Crash Investigation. I believe he is in that line of work now.

Sorry for the off topic post. This was just a brief heads up, which I think you will find interesting. There won't be any further chat from me, I promise

pclancy

Yeah I've seen him pop up on a few different programs, nice to put a name to the face, cheers. I wonder does he frequent Boards.ie.