Ask The Pilot

[Flying Fox]

Is it true that pilots are not allowed to have the same meals when flying or is this BS?

Thanks

 

[jb747]

Is it true that pilots are not allowed to have the same meals when flying or is this BS?

True enough. We're provided with different meals.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

That's my personal feeling on the practice. I note that many of my colleagues are amongst the first into their PJs when paxing. If the company felt strongly about it, then they could just give out the pyjamas later...plus many passengers wear clothes that provide little to no protection anyway. Thinking about it, the idea most likely comes from my early days, when I always wore nomex when flying.....

Ding! :idea: Nomex PJs (Pat. pending)

[/counting millions] Now, how could Qantas resist that idea? [/counting]

 

[straitman]

Ding! :idea: Nomex PJs (Pat. pending)

[/counting millions] Now, how could Qantas resist that idea? [/counting]

I 'suspect' that nomex PJs would cost just a bit more than standard PJs.

 

[RooFlyer]

I 'suspect' that nomex PJs would cost just a bit more than standard PJs.

I'm surrounded by pygmies with no vision! Never mind the width, feel the quality! :mrgreen:

 

[mjt57]

That's my personal feeling on the practice. I note that many of my colleagues are amongst the first into their PJs when paxing. If the company felt strongly about it, then they could just give out the pyjamas later...plus many passengers wear clothes that provide little to no protection anyway.

I'm lost here.

What's this about? Particularly the bit about clothes which offer little to no protection?

What am I missing here?

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm lost here.

What's this about? Particularly the bit about clothes which offer little to no protection?

What am I missing here?

Apologies if the above is one for JB.

As I read it, one should have regular clothes (at least) and shoes on during take-off and landing, the point being that in the event of an emergency and you need to evacuate, your regular clothes will afford a modicum of protection against fire and shoes will allow you to walk across glass and other sharp debris to clear the area. Given that you have to take your shoes off when using the emergency slide, slip-ons are obviously the thing to wear on board . Something like PJs - especially if acrylic based - would not be an asset if there is fire about.

 

[jb747]

As I read it, one should have regular clothes (at least) and shoes on during take-off and landing, the point being that in the event of an emergency and you need to evacuate, your regular clothes will afford a modicum of protection against fire and shoes will allow you to walk across glass and other sharp debris to clear the area. Given that you have to take your shoes off when using the emergency slide, slip-ons are obviously the thing to wear on board . Something like PJs - especially if acrylic based - would not be an asset if there is fire about.

Women have to remove high heels. They can deflate the slides. Normal mens' shoes are fine. Actually, I've never understood why any woman would feel the need to wear high heels on an aircraft.

Whilst this whole topic has been a bit of a joke, it started from a comment I made quite a while ago to the effect that putting the issued pyjamas on, and removing ones' shoes, before take off wasn't the best idea. If you end up with something going wrong on take off, and need to use the slides (or get through debris/fire), the pjs don't offer much protection. The lack of shoes could be even more limiting.Going down an escape slide, with bare skin on the surface, will, at the very least, give you a friction burn....and they're long slides. Arriving at the bottom, into who knows what, in bare or stockinged feet, is equally unattractive. Whilst the pjs don't offer much protection, have a look around at what some passengers wear.

The military green flying suits were nicknamed 'green pyjamas' many, many years ago.

 

[markis10]

have a look around at what some passengers wear.

Reminds me of the numerous times I spot moped/bike riders with their helmets on, but wearing shirts, shorts and thongs.

 

[Quickstatus]

Women have to remove high heels. They can deflate the slides. Normal mens' shoes are fine. Actually, I've never understood why any woman would feel the need to wear high heels ...

Its to be one up on other women... Its a challenge to look better than Miranda Kerr...

On the issue of clothing in an emergency, what material is more or least fire resistant?...

 

[giantkingsquid]

Nomex is the most fire and heat resistant of 'common' fabrics. I know my racing suit can protect the user for at least 32 seconds from direct flame. Enough to alight from a burning racing car anyway.

 

[jb747]

On the issue of clothing in an emergency, what material is more or least fire resistant?...

Almost anything is better than uncovered. But, if possible, steer clear of the polyester. Molten clothing is bad. Wool is very good.

 

[mjt57]

Apologies if the above is one for JB.

As I read it, one should have regular clothes (at least) and shoes on during take-off and landing,.

Oh, OK, thanks. Now I get it.

Being a perpetual economy pax the concept of being able to put the "jammys" on when travelling by air, is as an alien concept as there could be.

Aside from female business travellers (domestic, say MEL-SYD) wearing high heels as a part of their work attire, the idea of wearing them on a long haul flight, for me, sounds insane, personally.

And double this for FAs who are constantly on their feet...

 

[erkpod]

Oh, OK, thanks. Now I get it.

Being a perpetual economy pax the concept of being able to put the "jammys" on when travelling by air, is as an alien concept as there could be.

Aside from female business travellers (domestic, say MEL-SYD) wearing high heels as a part of their work attire, the idea of wearing them on a long haul flight, for me, sounds insane, personally.

And double this for FAs who are constantly on their feet...

I have noticed especially on long haul that the female FAs will often change shoes after take off & again before landing.

 

[Flashback]

I have noticed especially on long haul that the female FAs will often change shoes after take off & again before landing.

I've noticed it on BA as soon as they step on the aircraft, which makes sense.... rather than waiting for take off / landing!

 

[Trakman]

I recently flew CX SYD-HKG and the plane arrived 45min early - it arrived at 4.15am instead of 5.00am. I wondered why the plane didn't just fly a bit slower and land on time? There would be no problems with landing slots at that time and it would have saved fuel. Why would they not keep to the scheduled time - even with tail winds, can't they still just fly a little slower?

 

[jb747]

I recently flew CX SYD-HKG and the plane arrived 45min early - it arrived at 4.15am instead of 5.00am. I wondered why the plane didn't just fly a bit slower and land on time? There would be no problems with landing slots at that time and it would have saved fuel. Why would they not keep to the scheduled time - even with tail winds, can't they still just fly a little slower?

Aircraft drag curves look like an inverted bell. Normal cruise speed is slightly faster than the min drag point, but only slightly. In cruise it's quite normal for there to be as little as a few knots between cruise and min drag.

At cruise speed, if you have speed excursion onto the high side, you get more drag, and the aircraft will slow. Conversely, a small speed reduction will give less drag, and the aircraft will tend to go back to the original speed. That's without any thrust changes...the aircraft is speed stable.

Back at min drag, and those same speed excursions have a different effect. If displaced faster, you get more drag, and the aircraft will tend to decelerate. But, if displaced to the slow side, you'll also get more drag, and the excursion will increase.

Slower than min drag, and an increase in speed will give less drag, and so the speed will increase further, whilst on the slow side the opposite happens, so it's speed unstable in both directions.

If you get more than a few knots below min drag, you may not have enough power available to correct any speed excursion.

The upshot of all of that is that there is only a very narrow speed range that can reasonably be used. To correct the timing error you mention would need around .09 mach slower than usual...most likely only about .03 or .04 would be available. If you must fly slower, the only way to do so is to fly lower...and that plays havoc with the fuel burn.

Additionally, around the min drag speed, the auto throttle tends to become more active..the more active the less efficient.

Flying time also costs money. We use a number called a "cost index", which balances the fuel vs the flying time costs. A cost index of zero will give the least cost...but also normally only a .02 mach speed reduction.

 

[Quickstatus]

I would want to get there ASAP if I was in whY. But if I was in J/F I would be a bit unhappy based on a $paid per time spent in J/F.

So not only are there competing forces at work from a technical POV, intra cabin forces want aircraft to go faster and slower at the same time. In the end we get there alive and hopefully with luggage and a pleasant experience

My nontechnical rule of thumb : faster= higher, slower=lower.

 

[harvyk]

We use a number called a "cost index", which balances the fuel vs the flying time costs. A cost index of zero will give the least cost...but also normally only a .02 mach speed reduction.

What is the standard scale of the cost index (eg 0 - 100), is there a cost index which is typically used? Do the cost index numbers mean the same between different types (eg would the cost index of say 50 mean the same thing on a B747 an A380 and a B767).

 

[RooFlyer]

Aircraft drag curves look like an inverted bell. Normal cruise speed is slightly faster than the min drag point, but only slightly. In cruise it's quite normal for there to be as little as a few knots between cruise and min drag.

<snip for space>

Although my head is spinning with 'drag', that's one of the most useful bits of info I've had here (and I've had LOT's of useful ones). I can never see the point of arriving early on long haul either; usually either you do loops to kill time at the end, or sit on the tarmac waiting for the plane in front to move away from the airbridge. I guess the first can't be predicted till you get there and the second shouldn't be a real problem for anyone (except frustration at a lost opportunity if a pax was hoping to arrive early).

Another "Why the heck did they do it that way" crossed off the list, so thanks again