Ask The Pilot

[userlame]

JB,

I would again like to thank you for making this thread by far the most interesting thread on AFF.

My question is that every airport and aircraft I've ever travelled in had always arrived at the gate nose in and then been pushed back when exiting. Is there any reason why it can't be pushed in so that the nose faces away from the gate? Wouldn't this make exiting the gate and taxiing both quicker and safer?

Not sure if the jet blast is something you want to point towards a terminal building..

 

[harvyk]

JB,

I would again like to thank you for making this thread by far the most interesting thread on AFF.

My question is that every airport and aircraft I've ever travelled in had always arrived at the gate nose in and then been pushed back when exiting. Is there any reason why it can't be pushed in so that the nose faces away from the gate? Wouldn't this make exiting the gate and taxiing both quicker and safer?

I also expect wings may make that a little harder, unless you want to re-engineer the bridges to go over wings (yes it is possible, although very rare and I expect very expensive)

 

[markis10]

As for turbofan aircraft reversing, the C17 can do it - which makes me wonder how its reversers actually work, as they look pretty standard from the outside...

They are far from standard, throwing the exhaust forward and up, with the cascades blocked underneath but open on the top to prevent FOD, also allows passenger and cargo access on the port side with engines running.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0181.shtml

 

[QF WP]

Ask The Pilot

Excellent initial points.

That would mean exit rear Y would deplane first. Can you imagine J Dom pax being happy to exit last? Having to reconfigure aircraft and gangways would not be cheap.

Methinks they have the system correct now.

 

[simongr]

Also wouldn't it be a zero sum gain in terms of time.

Going in forwards 1 min, pushed back 9 mins - total 10 mins

Going in backwards 9 mins, driving out forwards 1 min - total 10 mins

 

[mjt57]

Re: Now Boarding ... Chicken or Beef?

Routine. Did I say routine? Must have been drunk!

Well, by "routine", I meant, as Mav said to Iceman that time, "just a walk in the park..." Albeit one where you're dodging dog droppings and swooping magpies...

Flight sims have pre programmed responses to failures. Inputting random strings of failures will not necessarily result in same results as in the aircraft, which is why the failures are constrained.

That makes sense, I s'pose...

The scenarios would be almost infinite, I would imagine, and you can only train up for the most likely ones, I'm guessing. So, it's more for procedures, different conditions on approach to different airports, diversions, etc.?

But as I've personally experienced with simulators, they can't simulate real life conditions if the programmers haven't considered them.

 

[AVC]

My question is that every airport and aircraft I've ever travelled in had always arrived at the gate nose in and then been pushed back when exiting. Is there any reason why it can't be pushed in so that the nose faces away from the gate? Wouldn't this make exiting the gate and taxiing both quicker and safer?

Great idea, they wouldn't need a tug for push back.

But they might need to strengthen the terminal windows. And the terminal.

 

[mannej]

Ask The Pilot

Great idea, they wouldn't need a tug for push back.

But they might need to strengthen the terminal windows. And the terminal.

Wouldn't they need the tug to get the plane in the bay in the first place?

 

[AVC]

What if they made the terminal with big drive through bays? Drive in, drive out. DIDO for a quick pick up of the FIFOs.

They would save heaps on tugs. They could integrate de-ice and plane washing into the building. Ground crews (and your luggage) would be undercover.

It's win win really.

 

[harvyk]

What if they made the terminal with big drive through bays? Drive in, drive out. DIDO for a quick pick up of the FIFOs.

They would save heaps on tugs. They could integrate de-ice and plane washing into the building. Ground crews (and your luggage) would be undercover.

It's win win really.

Prob is the engineering required to effectively build "bridges" which are a minimum of 7 stories high (to allow an A380 through), and a minimum of 80 meters span over the top. The alternative is by building the terminal all underground, again you need to be able to support a weight of 562T sitting over the top of the terminal.

In either case I expect the cost in doing so would be far more than simply buying some tugs.
Of course there is a simple option, use stairs for all boarding and make all bays remote bays without anything in front, but that doesn't exactly portray the glamour image which airlines so dearly love to have, esp during cold winter or whilst raining / snowing.

 

[anat0l]

What if they made the terminal with big drive through bays? Drive in, drive out. DIDO for a quick pick up of the FIFOs.

They would save heaps on tugs. They could integrate de-ice and plane washing into the building. Ground crews (and your luggage) would be undercover.

It's win win really.

I'm guessing that to have the drive-in-drive-out bays idea would result in a very, very large terminal. Economics wise, the extra capex required for the terminal space and facilities per gate (plus, say, more moving walkways or shuttles) would exceed the cost of having tugs (especially when you don't necessarily need one tug per gate). Imagine the larger airports - DXB, HKG, PEK, LHR....

I'm guessing you'd need some really, really long sets of terminals to accommodate this idea.

We could go back to the older days and have a huge tarmac, no aerobridges, and people walk up / are bussed to the plane. Then perhaps many aircraft could just do a 180 turn to move away (a common practice at regional centres and turboprops in Australia).

 

[SeatBackForward]

Great idea, they wouldn't need a tug for push back.

But they might need to strengthen the terminal windows. And the terminal.

There are plenty of airports where the planes are pushed back, turned around and are then directly in front of the terminal building..thats why they have deflectors

 

[AVC]

Of course there is a simple option, use stairs for all boarding and make all bays remote bays without anything in front,.

And don't mention this to the government. Someone might think that it's actually viable.

 

[Fruitcake]

Someone might think that it's actually viable.

They're way ahead of you - I believe it was called "Washington Dulles International" - but they've also realised it isn't viable .

 

[AVC]

They're way ahead of you - I believe it was called "Washington Dulles International" - but they've also realised it isn't viable .

How do the PAX get from the Terminal to the Concourses?

 

[Fruitcake]

How do the PAX get from the Terminal to the Concourses?

Mobile lounges:

Virtual Travelog | The Mobile Lounges at Dulles International Airport

Also:
Mobile lounge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Washington Dulles International Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dulles used to use them almost exclusively but over the past couple of decades they have been moving toward a more traditional configuration, with jetways from remote concourses, with the remote concourses linked to the main terminal via train. But the lounges are still used a fair bit.

 

[jb747]

This all seems a lot of effort, and I can't actually see the problem that you're trying to solve. Unless you totally rebuild every airport, the current design is what we're stuck with for the next 50 years or so. If Boeing/Airbus ever make the move to delta planform flying wings, with no fuselage as such, then there might be advantages to revisiting the whole concept of passenger loading/unloading. Until then, I'm quite happy for me to do the parking....

 

[AVC]

:shock:

ooooookay

 

[markis10]

This all seems a lot of effort, and I can't actually see the problem that you're trying to solve. Unless you totally rebuild every airport, the current design is what we're stuck with for the next 50 years or so. If Boeing/Airbus ever make the move to delta planform flying wings, with no fuselage as such, then there might be advantages to revisiting the whole concept of passenger loading/unloading. Until then, I'm quite happy for me to do the parking....

I agree, and things such as mobile lounges just add to the ground traffic that needs to be kept away from moving planes.

 

[simongr]

Bird strikes

Just wondering how common less serious bird strikes are? I am thinking that a sparrow getting sucked through the engines of an A380 isn't going to do much damage in reality. Is that a misconception?

Are we better at scaring birds away from airports?

We hear about "every" fault on QF aircraft that cause a minuscule delay (intended hyperbole on my part) but I don't recall every hearing aout a QF bird strike issue. Makes me think they don't happen or they don't matter.