Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
AMEX Velocity Platinum Card Benefits
Australia's highest-earning Velocity Frequent Flyer credit card: Offer expires: 21 Jan 2025
- Earn 60,000 bonus Velocity Points
- Get unlimited Virgin Australia Lounge access
- Enjoy a complimentary return Virgin Australia domestic flight each year

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

jb747 said:
They start to pressurise during the take off roll, and the vent any remaining pressure at touchdown. The aircraft initially pressurises itself to a level lower than the airport.
Click to expand...

And if it happens to be taking off from Schipol Airport?? :p

I remember my dad used to regale people with stories from when he was in the RAF in Palestine - flying in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, the altimeter read quite a few feet below sea-level and they were very much in the air...
 
petercr said:
the altimeter read quite a few feet below sea-level and they were very much in the air...
Click to expand...
I simply see it as a number. As long as the altimeter is set correctly, and the number it reads is greater than the number as required by rules and the level of the terrain, I'm happy.
 
And what did you think to the 737? Many pilots say it is built like a you-know-what, to withstand all the cycles, approaches and landings. But, gets the job done with the minimum amount of fuss. Do you think the European A318-321 series is as strong?
 
Earlier posts have concentrated on the effect of aircraft speed on flight stability.
My question is why do aircraft still rely on the ancient pilot tube for speed measurement?
My old sail boat had a venturi tube to get rid of water in the boat, operated by water speeding through it creating a negative pressure and it seems to me that the pilot tube relies on a similar principal.
However there have been occasions when an aircraft has been brought down due to the pilot tube icing up and the air crew being un aware of the airspeed, this is in spite of the fact that the tubes have heaters.
Why then is a system based on satellites not used for speed measurement?
 
lastrow said:
Earlier posts have concentrated on the effect of aircraft speed on flight stability.
My question is why do aircraft still rely on the ancient pilot tube for speed measurement?
My old sail boat had a venturi tube to get rid of water in the boat, operated by water speeding through it creating a negative pressure and it seems to me that the pilot tube relies on a similar principal.
However there have been occasions when an aircraft has been brought down due to the pilot tube icing up and the air crew being un aware of the airspeed, this is in spite of the fact that the tubes have heaters.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that they'd be using a better system if one existed. Flying without airspeed is relatively simple, and many airlines practise it. The systems are normally at least triplicated...sometimes more.

Why then is a system based on satellites not used for speed measurement?
Click to expand...

Think about what you are trying to measure? Airspeed is a measure of the local airflow over the aircraft. For an aircraft moving at exactly the same speed through the air, the airspeed will vary with altitude (i.e. constant IAS varying TAS). A satellite system (i.e GPS speed) is a measure of your groundspeed. It is of no use whatsoever for actually flying the aircraft. In any event aircraft have innumerable speed displays and systems. Within a few seconds, I can be looking at IAS, TAS, G/S, GPS speed and IRS speed. Only IAS makes the wings work. TAS corrected for wind gives me G/S. GPS and IRS are showing G/S worked out in slightly different ways.
 
por930 said:
And what did you think to the 737? Many pilots say it is built like a you-know-what, to withstand all the cycles, approaches and landings. But, gets the job done with the minimum amount of fuss. Do you think the European A318-321 series is as strong?
Click to expand...

I have no Airbus experience so can't comment but yes, the 737 is built like a truck. Pretty versatile beast.
 
Major said:
As a matter of interest what hours will your log books show for the year ? I notice JB still has 2 sectors to complete and no doubt Boris still has flying ahead of him as well.
Click to expand...

I've still got one more flight to go on Wednesday, bringing me back on NYE then a flight departing on the 3rd. This month has been one of my busiest with 3 trips, a sim, and a day course. Next month will be a little bit more relaxing, so I will have more time to come on here.

Total time for this year will be 685hrs.
 
por930 said:
And what did you think to the 737? Many pilots say it is built like a you-know-what, to withstand all the cycles, approaches and landings. But, gets the job done with the minimum amount of fuss. Do you think the European A318-321 series is as strong?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, I'm the only one of the regular posters who has flown both Airbus and Boeing, and then only at the heavy end of the spectrum.

The A320 was designed with the same goals as the 737, and they have been flying for approaching 30 years now, so in similar roles I think they've proven their longevity. But, the 737 dates back much further, being based on the 707/727 era aircraft. As such it misses out on things like FBW, which nobody would now build a jet without. The inability to use cargo bins is a major issue. The newest versions of the aircraft are apparently being outsold by the A320NEO family by about 3 to 1.

I think Boeing is well behind the curve with this family of aircraft, and probably should have done something serious back when they still had the 757.
 
jb747 said:
As far as I know, I'm the only one of the regular posters who has flown both Airbus and Boeing, and then only at the heavy end of the spectrum.

The A320 was designed with the same goals as the 737, and they have been flying for approaching 30 years now, so in similar roles I think they've proven their longevity. But, the 737 dates back much further, being based on the 707/727 era aircraft. As such it misses out on things like FBW, which nobody would now build a jet without. The inability to use cargo bins is a major issue. The newest versions of the aircraft are apparently being outsold by the A320NEO family by about 3 to 1.

I think Boeing is well behind the curve with this family of aircraft, and probably should have done something serious back when they still had the 757.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The 737 NG is really 1980s technology - no ECAM is very backward for a modern aircraft.
 
AviatorInsight said:
I've still got one more flight to go on Wednesday, bringing me back on NYE then a flight departing on the 3rd. This month has been one of my busiest with 3 trips, a sim, and a day course. Next month will be a little bit more relaxing, so I will have more time to come on here.

Total time for this year will be 685hrs.
Click to expand...

How many sectors would that be roughly? 50?
 
The difference between short, medium and long haul. For the same number of hours, the short haul pilot has to fly a lot more sectors. It's hard work, and wears you down even more than the time zone changes of long haul.

As an example, the year I got my highest hours in the 767, I flew 219 sectors. A year or so prior to that, I'd flown 100 less hours, but 20 more sectors.

Highest hour year:
767, 219 sectors, averaging 3.5 hours
747, 82 sectors, averaging 9.0 hours
380, 70 sectors, averaging 12.1 hours

You can imagine what a year would look like if you just flew the east coast with sector averages around 1.3 hours. It's why MEL-SYD-BNE is called the monorail.
 
It's still Christmas here. Wishing all all th pilots here a very Merry Christmas!!. Hopefully you have spent it at home
Thank you for lurking in these "woods", keeping the takeoff to landing ratio 1.0 and enlightening us with flight deck insights!
 
jb747 said:
The difference between short, medium and long haul. For the same number of hours, the short haul pilot has to fly a lot more sectors. It's hard work, and wears you down even more than the time zone changes of long haul.

As an example, the year I got my highest hours in the 767, I flew 219 sectors. A year or so prior to that, I'd flown 100 less hours, but 20 more sectors.

Highest hour year:
767, 219 sectors, averaging 3.5 hours
747, 82 sectors, averaging 9.0 hours
380, 70 sectors, averaging 12.1 hours

You can imagine what a year would look like if you just flew the east coast with sector averages around 1.3 hours. It's why MEL-SYD-BNE is called the monorail.
Click to expand...

This year i have done 292 sectors for 388.5 hours. Take out leave and training course and that was only 7.5 months.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 5 more.
Total: 361 (members: 55, guests: 306)
Back
Top