The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

Bearcat

St Elmo's fire is not where you want to be as your either in or close to an area of electrical activity. Sometimes this can't be avoided when deviating around CB weather. Cacking yourself......haven't heard that for a while. Especially on descents with st Elmo's fire expect moderate to severve airframe icing. That said haven't seen it for a while:)

bladeruner

Lustrum wrote: »

Have any of you ever experienced St Elmo's Fire? Is it only in thunderstorms that it happens? What was you reaction the first time you saw it (did you cack yourself or were you expecting it?)

It's pretty cool to look at, better turn up the lights quick though as you might be just about to be flash blinded by real lightening
Elmos fire I saw was pinky purpley.

mosesgun

This is surely the best thread ever in the history of the interweb. Probably a silly question but I’ve always wondered why on mainly overland routes, say coast to coast USA, life jackets are under the passenger seats when parachutes would surely be a better bet in the event of something going seriously wrong. Is it a cost issue or a, speed issue or something else?

Our man in Havana

I know that some United aircraft used in the states on overland sections did not have life jackets at all. The seat cushion detached and these were to be used as a floatation device.

Tenger

mosesgun wrote: »

This is surely the best thread ever in the history of the interweb. Probably a silly question but I’ve always wondered why on mainly overland routes, say coast to coast USA, life jackets are under the passenger seats when parachutes would surely be a better bet in the event of something going seriously wrong. Is it a cost issue or a, speed issue or something else?

Parachutes used by untrained people are not a good idea. And they do take up quite a bit of space.

Safer (and easier) to design the aircraft and pax seats to be able to handle a crash landing rather than trying to fly slow and level to allow the pa to hop out.


As already stated many US and Canadian aircraft are exempt from needing life-jackets as they are rarely over large bodies of water. Some aircraft are equipped with them as so they can operate certain routes (ie USA/Canada to Caribbean)

.......funnily enough the A320 that 'landed' in the Hudson river was equipped with life-jackets but many pax getting off did not use them as they are so used to hearing "your seat cushion will act as a floatation device".

orionm_73

To be honest, to get 300+ untrained people off an aircraft using parachutes would mean the aircraft flying at a steady and low altitude, using only doors aft of the engines, and presumably over land. If you can manage to do all that, then the probability is that the aircraft could land safely at the nearest suitable airfield.

pclancy

Any fun stories from empty ferry flights or times you've just flown without passengers?

Priority Right

pclancy wrote: »

Any fun stories from empty ferry flights or times you've just flown without passengers?

No great stories. But I can confirm that an empty 321 with everything stripped out (cabin seats, etc) on toga thrust (for performance reasons you see ) accelerates rapidly, rotates quickly, has a good climb rate and can handle quite nicely!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Priority Right

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I've only flown airbus so this isn't an all round answer. But if you compare the 321 with the 319. Same plane really just a bit stretched and the engines have different power ratings. The 321 with fuel and pax will just sit on an ils (which is great) and if you have to move is isn't as responsive as the 319. A 319 will move around more and feels more nimble. Nearly the same plane but do feel different when flying.

xflyer

Maybe it's not the same with modern airliners but older aircraft even within the same sub type often had noticeable differences in handling and performance. Pilots would have their favourites and regard some as 'dogs'. I remember Electras and 727s, some were favoured some not.

Certainly it's still true of lighter aircraft particularly when they get a bit older and have been modified or bashed about. Flight schools often have a favoured trainer which although externally identical to all the others seemed to feel and fly better.

Weight and loading of course makes a difference. A type I fly can be flung around like a fighter when empty and land on a postage stamp. Fill it up with six or seven people and it feels like a mini airliner and effectively has to be flown as such.

A320

Any Preference to CFM56 or V2500 engines Priority Right or does it matter,i know a few little differences regarding indication etc but performance wise????

Delta Kilo

I'd be interested in the answer to that too A320.

I know from an operations point of view, the CFM56-5B on the A320 is preferred to the V2500. Most operators tend to choose this option on the A320 fleet. Its a more expensive engine but perceived to be more reliable and efficient than the IAE.

But from a pilots point of view, is there a notable difference between the two? Do the engines behave differently etc?

A320

From a maint point of view i prefer the CFM,some of the wiring in the v25 tends to be routed poorly and thus chafing

Priority Right

I prefer the CFM engines. They startup faster, and respond faster. Which when you're starting out in the flare that extra time it takes the power to reduce can help you out but normally it's better to have a faster reacting engines. (very small difference but noticeable).

When I moved from V25 and was in the first day in the sim with CFM. They started in such a short time I asked the instructor if that was a sim anomaly. He just stared at me and I'm sure was thinking I was mental. But when I explained that I was used to the V25s he understood. They do take ages to start. CFM you can wait until half way through the pushback before starting.

bladeruner

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

a heavy 321 is a dog in the climb , not enough power (engine dependent of course but its no 757 now matter what way you cut it )
on the other hand its a tad more stable coming in for landing...every cloud and all that ...

pclancy

I for one have run out of questions for our folks up front. Anyone got any good ones?

IrishB.ie

Runway length dictates the takeoff weight of an aircraft.

We've seen aircraft 'lift' from a standing position during a storm, so my question
is, does headwind ever influence the allowed takeoff weight of an aircraft?
Can the weight be increased if the headwind is strong enough?

bladeruner

IrishB.ie wrote: »

Runway length dictates the takeoff weight of an aircraft.

We've seen aircraft 'lift' from a standing position during a storm, so my question
is, does headwind ever influence the allowed takeoff weight of an aircraft?
Can the weight be increased if the headwind is strong enough?

Yes generally increased head wind = increased RUNWAY RESTRICTED take off weight.
Conversely, taking off with a tailwind would reduce the RUNWAY restricted Max take off weight.

There are some reasons such as max brake energy speeds/weights why u may not get head wind increase but most of the time you do.

Obviously only a constant wind could be used for these calculations - gusts could not.

eatmyshorts

IrishB.ie wrote: »

Runway length dictates the takeoff weight of an aircraft.

Runway length is only one of the contributing factors.

Others are:
Temperature
Density altitude
Wind velocity
Air pressure
Runway surface condition (dry, wet, contaminated, etc)
Engine rating
Aircraft CofG position (some aircraft)
Obstacles within the take-off cone
Use of engine anti-ice
Some active Configuration Deviation List items
Some active Minimum Equipment List items

Any variation in any of these is enough to have an effect on the Regulated Take Off Mass allowable.

Our man in Havana

What is the most difficult airport that any of our pilots have used?

LLU

Saw a documentary the other day about that famous safe landing in the Hudson river in 2009 and apparently one of the key saving factors was that the captain switched on the APU very early on in the process, even though this step came much later on in the emergency procedures. This meant that his instrumentation and controls continued to work throughout and were not impacted by the loss of main engine power. They said that this enabled the planes systems to keep it in a safe envelope throughout.

To me it seems like a brilliant piece of thinking but I can't help wondering if he would have been hung out to dry for this if there hadn't been such a happy outcome (and assuming he still lived). So is there any scope for thinking on your feed in a situation like this? Is there an emergency procedure for *everything* which needs to be stuck to?

Thanks!

Priority Right

Hardest airport. Well some places in mid Africa and Moscow can be fun because the ATC is daft sometimes. Hard airports to fly into can turn out to be fun if you're safe and can be easier than big "easier" airports.

There is a checklist for every emergency. It was good thinking to start the apu but we do it a fair bit if ground staff disconnect the apu. Straight away you turn on the apu. But to do that in an emergency is harder to do. You can deviate from the checklist sometimes because some are checklists not a do list.

Keedowah

Is there a key to open the aircraft or cockpit and is it a key that is used to start the aircraft? If so how does this key(s) get handled in the airport going from one crew to the other?

bladeruner

Priority Right wrote: »

Hardest airport. Well some places in mid Africa and Moscow can be fun because the ATC is daft sometimes. Hard airports to fly into can turn out to be fun if you're safe and can be easier than big "easier" airports.

There is a checklist for "NEARLY" every emergency. It was good thinking to start the apu but we do it a fair bit if ground staff disconnect the apu. Straight away you turn on the apu. But to do that in an emergency is harder to do. You can deviate from the checklist sometimes because some are checklists not a do list.

FYP

bladeruner

Keedowah wrote: »

Is there a key to open the aircraft or cockpit and is it a key that is used to start the aircraft? If so how does this key(s) get handled in the airport going from one crew to the other?

No key for door and no key to start up.
Airports are secure places to park !

Priority Right

bladeruner wrote: »

FYP

Very true. I'd hate to see the QRH for every eventuality they could imagine!

lord lucan

Are pilots bad passengers? By that i mean do you find yourself monitoring various aspects of the flight and being critical/judgemental or do you sit back and chill out and not give it a second thought?

donvito99

Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic? And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

bladeruner

donvito99 wrote: »

Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic?

Yes, ships are too slow and sea lions proved unreliable.

donvito99 wrote: »

And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

I can't speak for every airline but I'm 99% sure no European airline has guns in the cockpit.
That was an American "initiative".
Guns have no place on an airliner.

Skuxx

donvito99 wrote: »

And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

I've never seen a gun in a cockpit, but most do have an axe! Worked on a turkish plane before that had an axe in the cabin, on the aft lav wall behind the last row of seats!! Seemed a bit accessable!!

Our man in Havana

A gun in a pressurised vessel is a very bad idea.

Bearcat

donvito99 wrote: »

Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic? And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

No and No

bladeruner

Bearcat wrote: »

donvito99 wrote: »

Is diplomatic mail still carried by airlines across the Atlantic? And is there a gun in the cockpit.....:cool:?

No and No

Quite often some poor junior at an embassy will be sent on a "mail run" to deliver diplomatic bags/mail.
That is my take on airlines still carrying diplomatic mail.

Bearcat

Europe yes, USA no..... Tbh as time marches on mail is more electronic orientated as against some suit dropping a bag into a cockpit. On many occasions no one was there at the other end to collect same which Kinda makes a mockery of the diplomatic tag.

xflyer

lord lucan wrote: »

Are pilots bad passengers? By that i mean do you find yourself monitoring various aspects of the flight and being critical/judgemental or do you sit back and chill out and not give it a second thought?

Don't know about others but my wife hates me when I turn to her looking concerned and say: 'I don't want to worry you but.....' It's amazing how often she gets caught.

As for guns, well only in America as they say. American airline pilots are authorised to carry guns but only after a training course and being deputised as law enforcement officers. As for the danger of a discharge in a aircraft, it's not that big a deal unless it hits something vital. Despite the the movie cliche. The aircraft won't disintegrate if someone puts a bullet through window at 34000 feet.

amen

So you are cruising along at 10,000m and auto pilot is set with altitude hold.

After a period of time due to the earths curvature you are going to be higher then 10,000m.
So does the Auto pilot
1: Constantly adjust trim to keep you at the desired altitude
2: wait until you are x % from the require height and then adjust

On a similar vein if you encounter severe turbulence and the plane changes altitude does the autopilot disengage and you manually fly back to the required altitude ?

tricky D

amen wrote: »

So you are cruising along at 10,000m and auto pilot is set with altitude hold.

After a period of time due to the earths curvature you are going to be higher then 10,000m.
So does the Auto pilot
1: Constantly adjust trim to keep you at the desired altitude
2: wait until you are x % from the require height and then adjust

You'd need to be travelling at a few kilometres per second to have to worry about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

BostonB

amen wrote: »

So you are cruising along at 10,000m and auto pilot is set with altitude hold.

After a period of time due to the earths curvature you are going to be higher then 10,000m....

Why. The height is relative to the ground/sea. As such its not a straight line, as I think you are visualising it. It follows the curvature in general.

View Profile

On a similar vein if you encounter severe turbulence and the plane changes altitude does the autopilot disengage and you manually fly back to the required altitude ?

If the turbulence is severe enough the autopilot may disengage. The pilot will then take manual control until the turbulence has passed and he/she can re-engage the AP.
Sometimes in turbulence you may notice the AP struggling to keep the altitude or speed in which case you will intervene and take manual control.

However for moderate turbulence the AP is generally quite good at keeping speed/heading/altitude.

Tenger

View Profile wrote: »

However for moderate turbulence the AP is generally quite good at keeping speed/heading/altitude.

I think the poster who asked the question had an image of an inflight cruise control in mind when they pondered the aircraft diverging due to surface curvature.

pclancy

Having never flown anything bigger then a cessna I wonder how hard it is keep your large aircraft steady at 35,000 ft by hand. Are you just constantly adjusting the trim or actually hand flying it trying to stay at the altitude you want?

airbus125

Hi,
I;m 14 and have been interested in aviation since a very young age. I was just wondering is there any hope of me getting a job as an aer lingus pile when I'm older. They seem to be getting deliveries for airbus a350s in 2018 so will they be hiring them. This is kind of stupid but it is any use contacting them now and does anyone know what type of qualifications you need.
Thanks

CaptainSkidmark

i enjoyed turbulence for the first time ever today! i knew take off was going to be rough as i seen the flight before us all over the shop and i knew it was no problem to it, amazing how worse things seem from inside!

Tenger

CaptainSkidmark wrote: »

i enjoyed turbulence for the first time ever today!

Welcome to the world of professional flyers.....

....of course PiC's really hate crosswinds!!!

roundymac

airbus125 wrote: »

Hi,
I;m 14 and have been interested in aviation since a very young age. I was just wondering is there any hope of me getting a job as an aer lingus pile when I'm older. They seem to be getting deliveries for airbus a350s in 2018 so will they be hiring them. This is kind of stupid but it is any use contacting them now and does anyone know what type of qualifications you need.
Thanks

Beware, this is the OP for the thread Aer Lingus Pilot Job. A troll perhaps?

cyrusdvirus

roundymac wrote: »

Beware, this is the OP for the thread Aer Lingus Pilot Job. A troll perhaps?

Or it could just be a 14 yr old kid asking questions??

Bearcat

View Profile wrote: »

If the turbulence is severe enough the autopilot may disengage. The pilot will then take manual control until the turbulence has passed and he/she can re-engage the AP.
Sometimes in turbulence you may notice the AP struggling to keep the altitude or speed in which case you will intervene and take manual control.

However for moderate turbulence the AP is generally quite good at keeping speed/heading.

Airbus recommend in severe Turb that AP remains engage and the use of manual thrust at a designated N1 setting. Boeings especially earlier types had difficulty remaining engaged in primary levels of automation and often lapsed into basic modes of control wheel steering (cws) in SEV Turb.

amen

You'd need to be travelling at a few kilometres per second to have to worry about that.

No you wouldn't

I think the poster who asked the question had an image of an inflight cruise control in mind when they pondered the aircraft diverging due to surface curvature.

Why. The height is relative to the ground/sea. As such its not a straight line, as I think you are visualising it. It follows the curvature in general.

Well I know its following the earth's curvature but I wanted to know how the autopilot determine when/if a change we required to ensure the correct altitude was maintained by following the curvature.

Taking that that the earths curvature is roughly 0.2m per KM ie. if I start at point A and walk at a tangent to the earth then after walking 1000m I should be 0.2m above the surface of the earth.

So if the plane flies 5000KM (Transatlantic) starting at 10,000m then at the other end if should be at 11,000m allowing for level flight.

If my calculations are correct then at which stage does the autopilot correct the plane to ensure altitude is maintained at 10,0000m?

BostonB

amen wrote: »

...Well I know its following the earth's curvature but I wanted to know how the autopilot determine when/if a change we required to ensure the correct altitude was maintained by following the curvature....

Your question seems to be how often does the autopilot, refresh. Its only my guess, I'm not a pilot. I don't know. But I would assume continuously, as in many times a second. There's probably redundancy built in too.