The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

eatmyshorts

If we need extra thrust, it's done in the order of:

1) APU-to-Pack take off.
2) Packs off take off.
3) Take Off Bump.

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

For us its part of the after takeoff checklist, PACKS ON - ANTI ICE AUTO and should be completed by 3,000 feet..

That must be a customer option. After Take Off Checklist on ours is just Anti-Ice Auto and Flaps Up

smurfjed

So when do u select PACKS ON after takeoff?

We include landing gear, packs, anti ice, landing light, passenger signs...... All read after flap retraction even though the last two are done much higher!

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

So when do u select PACKS ON after takeoff?

We include landing gear, packs, anti ice, landing light, passenger signs...... All read after flap retraction even though the last two are done much higher!

Having not done the procedure in a long time, I just checked the FCOM. Turns out we don't do Packs Off take offs. Just APU-to-Pack and/or Bump.

fricatus

eatmyshorts wrote: »

If we need extra thrust, it's done in the order of:

1) APU-to-Pack take off.
2) Packs off take off.
3) Take Off Bump.

Great thread lads... what does this mean?

Bsal

The bump can be occasionally used when the basic maximum takeoff thrust does not provide the required performance, on the Airbus A321 and A320 these bumps provide between 6 and 10% more thrust, Im not sure what the specs for Boeing aircraft are.

Tenger

As always this is a great thread with lots of nuggets of info. I would just ask that our members protect themselves when posting images of company SOP's.

Some employer's may take a less than lenient view of this sort of thing. (Even though you may tell some awful stories down in the local boozer!)

pepe the prawn

Out of curiosity, if a twin engined aircraft such as an A330 or B757/767 etc is travelling transatlantic and suffers an engine failure at the midpoint, what is the procedure? Continue as planned? Any need for descending, or increasing power on the good engine?
Thanks

Tenger

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if a twin engined aircraft such as an A330 or B757/767 etc is travelling transatlantic and suffers an engine failure at the midpoint, what is the procedure? Continue as planned? Any need for descending, or increasing power on the good engine?
Thanks

There is always a closest alternate planned, this changes enroute as each planned divert point becomes the 'closest'.

eatmyshorts

fricatus wrote: »

Great thread lads... what does this mean?

Take off Bump is a procedure where the computers controlling the engines will allow 1 or 2% extra engine speed above the normal limit for take off when required. It allows us to lift extra weight when needed. I've only ever used it once.

basill

Out of curiosity, if a twin engined aircraft such as an A330 or B757/767 etc is travelling transatlantic and suffers an engine failure at the midpoint, what is the procedure? Continue as planned? Any need for descending, or increasing power on the good engine?
Thanks

By law on a twin engine aircraft if you suffer the loss of an engine (50% of your available thrust) then you are required to divert to the nearest suitable alternate. Our Ops Manual requires us to do this in the minimum time meaning in practical terms that you don't fly over or adjacent to an airport which would be suitable in order to land at one which might be more preferable for other operational reasons but is further away.

Most commercial twin engines (if not all) that I am aware of are unable to sustain a normal cruising altitude with an engine loss necessitating a controlled descent to a lower level. Typically it would be something in the range of FL230-FL270 but varies significantly depending on weight. In such a situation the serviceable remaining engine would be running at MCT (max continuous thrust). Our company policy is to fly below the max single engine ceiling by a given amount to reduce the work that the remaining engine is undertaking. At a lower level the engine would be in the relight window due to the denser air lower down should it have failed for some reason such as a flameout and the crew decide to attempt a restart.

There are also contingency procedures when on the Atlantic or in other MNPS airspace (whether on a planned or random track) so that you don't hit anyone whilst descending and turning for your alternate as a potential exists for a loss of separation since there is no radar coverage.

eatmyshorts

basill wrote: »

you are required to divert to the nearest suitable alternate. Our Ops Manual requires us to do this in the minimum time meaning in practical terms that you don't fly over or adjacent to an airport which would be suitable in order to land at one which might be more preferable for other operational reasons but is further away.
e.

The criteria for defining "suitable" can be used to justify diverting to somewhere that's not the closest in time, but may be possible to land at.
If it's 50 minutes to Sondestrom with a circling approach, or 60 minutes to Keflavik, then I'd choose KEF. It's not the closest, and Sondestrom is technically "suitable" by the definition, but as long as I can justify the decision, via the criteria defining suitability, then I'll make that choice.

pepe the prawn

basill wrote: »

By law on a twin engine aircraft if you suffer the loss of an engine (50% of your available thrust) then you are required to divert to the nearest suitable alternate. Our Ops Manual requires us to do this in the minimum time meaning in practical terms that you don't fly over or adjacent to an airport which would be suitable in order to land at one which might be more preferable for other operational reasons but is further away.

Most commercial twin engines (if not all) that I am aware of are unable to sustain a normal cruising altitude with an engine loss necessitating a controlled descent to a lower level. Typically it would be something in the range of FL230-FL270 but varies significantly depending on weight. In such a situation the serviceable remaining engine would be running at MCT (max continuous thrust). Our company policy is to fly below the max single engine ceiling by a given amount to reduce the work that the remaining engine is undertaking. At a lower level the engine would be in the relight window due to the denser air lower down should it have failed for some reason such as a flameout and the crew decide to attempt a restart.

There are also contingency procedures when on the Atlantic or in other MNPS airspace (whether on a planned or random track) so that you don't hit anyone whilst descending and turning for your alternate as a potential exists for a loss of separation since there is no radar coverage.

Exactly the type of answer I was looking for, very informative, thanks.

dulpit

Over the past few days I've read this thread with extreme interest, the inputs and insights people have are great, nice work guys.

One thing I noticed from those pilots is that there seems to be a genuine love of the job and a continual emphasis on learning, up-skilling, re-educating, etc. From what you've seen, is it very much a case that only those with this attitude get by, or is there an element of brown-nosing to be done too? Do you come across jaded people in the cockpit, and are there any checks put in place by airlines to combat/avoid this?

Some other random questions I've always wondered about too:

1. Is there a superiority complex for the pilots of the big planes over the little guys? Recently flew into MAN on an ATR (ORK - MAN) and we parked next to an A380, we were dwarfed next to it.
2. On a related note - is there a massive leap between a little turbo-prop and the giant jets, or is it more down to experience/training?
3. I've always liked how Aer Lingus flights refer to themselves with the callsign Shamrock, are there any other cool callsigns out there?
4. With regards to flying passengers versus cargo - is there much of a difference from a pilot's perspective?
5. When I fly I tend to suffer from dry skin, stuffiness and/or snottiness, it's just from the pressurised cabin. Is it the same for those in the cockpit? Or is it just something you get used to?
6. I get a great kick out of watching the layout of airports, and all the ground equipment at work. Is it largely similar around the world, is one airport similar to another? Or is there a large variety?

Sorry if these questions are a big all over the place, just things I've always wondered.

dulpit

Oh, two other questions I meant to ask:

1. When flying commercial planes, do you have much leeway about where you can fly, or are you limited to certain air-routes/corridors?
2. With regards to earlier questions about autopilot and autoland, is there something to be said for having autopilot/autoland being remotely triggered? Say if both pilots were incapacitated, then A/C could trigger the plane to fly to X and land. I doubt such technology exists, but what do people think?

duskyjoe

eatmyshorts wrote: »

and Sondestrom is technically "suitable" by the definition, but as long as I can justify the decision, via the criteria defining suitability, then I'll make that choice.

Id never consider BGSF suitable unless it was the last chance saloon. It is rarely used as an ETOPs alt with YYR and KEF the go to places unless your on fire. Further north Iqualit is used

Re BGSF....I'd take a 20kt tailwind onto 09 as against the circle to land which is a lethal approach even with all systems operating.

Just my 2c

JCX BXC

Question, would you rather land in a
a) 25kt direct crosswind (No head/tailwind)
b) 25kt tailwind. (No crosswind)

Tenger

dulpit wrote: »

......
[*]I've always liked how Aer Lingus flights refer to themselves with the callsign Shamrock, are there any other cool callsigns out there?
........

Sorry if these questions are a big all over the place, just things I've always wondered.

America West were "Cactus", this transfered to US Airways but is now no more after th AA/US merger.

BA are "Speedbird"

http://airodyssey.net/reference/airlines/

Mega Maldives (Maldives) Sandbar

Hi Fly Malta (Malta) Moonraker (lucky feckers!!!!)

Alsie Express/MMD (Denmark) Mermaid

China Airlines (Taiwan) Dynasty

eatmyshorts

Tenger wrote: »

America West were "Cactus", this transfered to US Airways but is now no more after th AA/US merger.

BA are "Speedbird"

http://airodyssey.net/reference/airlines/

Mega Maldives (Maldives) Sandbar

Hi Fly Malta (Malta) Moonraker (lucky feckers!!!!)

Alsie Express/MMD (Denmark) Mermaid

China Airlines (Taiwan) Dynasty

Some interesting callsigns flying around the Gulf these days...

Sandman
Whistler
Batman
TopDog
GunShy

And recently held short or the runway in Doha while "Bone One One", (in a real slow Texas drawl), a USAF B1 bomber did a touch and go.


Routing up through Bahrain airspace a few months ago, we had a TCAS target with no altitude readout 10 miles ahead of us. Asked the controller for traffic info, to which he replied: "Yeah, he's been there all morning. Unknown traffic operating above FL650. Let us know if you see him!"

Bigcheeze

Tenger wrote: »

BA are "Speedbird"

I don't think you can get cooler than Speedbird, particularly when Concorde, Heathrow-JFK was flying as "Speedbird 1"

JCX BXC

Bigcheeze wrote: »

I don't think you can get cooler than Speedbird, particularly when Concorde, Heathrow-JFK was flying as "Speedbird 1"

There's a Speedbird 1,2,3 and 4 today as well. Its a little transatlantic A318.

Growler!!!

Carnacalla wrote: »

Question, would you rather land in a
a) 25kt direct crosswind (No head/tailwind)
b) 25kt tailwind. (No crosswind)

Answer A. As it is within our company limits for landing.

25 kt tailwind is 15 kts higher than most commercial aircraft's max tailwind limit. If the wind is that strong down the runway it would be easier to request the reciprocal runway.

smurfjed

With regards to earlier questions about autopilot and autoland, is there something to be said for having autopilot/autoland being remotely triggered? Say if both pilots were incapacitated, then A/C could trigger the plane to fly to X and land. I doubt such technology exists, but what do people think?

Present drone technology demonstrates that it can be done under normal conditions, but at the moment most of our training is based on component failures and the subsequent limitations to the rest of the aircraft systems, it doesn't take a lot to kick off the autopilot, without a crew, then there is no way to reengage it again

You also have to remember that the present autopilots have no means of altering the aircrafts configuration.

So i think that it will be a long time before you see externally controlled autopilots.

highlydebased

When HLX Hapag Llyod Express were around (must be 10 years ago now) they used the callsign "Yellowcab"!

sysprogrammer

what is the most difficult European international airport you have flown into, and what makes it a tricky approach ?

what attributes of flying cross over into your everyday life? i.e. : do you retard the brakes when driving? or is your dog called lapmo ?

IRLConor

sysprogrammer wrote: »

or is your dog called lapmo ?

This has me laughing at the idea of this video and a dog called LAPMO.

"Direct LAPMO. Jesus Christ... LAPMOOOOOOO!!"

amen

dulpit wrote: »

Oh, two other questions I meant to ask:

1. When flying commercial planes, do you have much leeway about where you can fly, or are you limited to certain air-routes/corridors?
2. With regards to earlier questions about autopilot and autoland, is there something to be said for having autopilot/autoland being remotely triggered? Say if both pilots were incapacitated, then A/C could trigger the plane to fly to X and land. I doubt such technology exists, but what do people think?

I'm not a pilot but RE question 1 generally there are define air routes between locations which a pilots flies. So if you were flying Dublin to Rome, you may fly a route towards Paris, then Zurich then Rome (fictional routing).

If you were flying Dublin to Berlin may fly Dublin towards Paris then Berlin etc

Normally planes flying the same route but in different directions are separated by 1,000 feet.

Each airport also has an established entry/exit point for take off/landing.

I'm sure Pilot will give you a much more detailed answer.

crazygeryy

www.engadget.com/2015/05/15/fbi-security-researcher-claimed-to-hack-control-plane-in-fligh/

Can this really happen and could it go as far as taking control of the plane?
And if it can be done from inside the plane can it be done from the ground?

eatmyshorts

crazygeryy wrote: »

www.engadget.com/2015/05/15/fbi-security-researcher-claimed-to-hack-control-plane-in-fligh/

Can this really happen and could it go as far as taking control of the plane?
And if it can be done from inside the plane can it be done from the ground?

The whole story is an absolute load of b*llocks. There is no way the Flight control computers or engine FADEC computers could be controlled from a pax seat.
He's just some kind of Walter Mitty character seeking attention

faceman

On another one of my transatlantic adventures and have a few questions. No doubt they're silly!

On this trip (I'm heading transatlantic westbound to east Coast. En route the pilot said we would be taking one transatlantic route but changing en route for another. Who does he inform that he's doing this to? Does it matter when you're over the ocean?

Also what about speed? I get the whole picking a flight path and an altitude over the Atlantic but how about speed? Different planes fly at different speeds. Are you stuck at a certain speed when over the Atlantic? What if you hit turbulence and need to slow down?

Sorry if these questions are stupid, as a nervous flyer it all helps.

Oh and as afinal comment, I'll be on an E190 from BOS to DTW. Should I be nervous? First time on an E190. JetBlue too.