swood721

On 2/19/2019 at 8:54 PM, thibodba57 said:

I've never flown the 75/76 so can't comment on it.  But we keep the aileron input thru rotation even on a engine failure panels or not.  I suspect we have a tighter tolerance on pod strikes than the 75/76 especially on the 748.

Very cool. Always interesting to find out the variances between different airlines and aircraft types.

22 hours ago, thibodba57 said:

 

I'd hate to tell you guys, but in the 74 you do apply aileron input.  You start to 'fly' the aircraft on the ground and its important to maintain level wings throughout rotation and after landing, as that wing will snap up in a crosswind if you aren't careful and bring the pods ever closer to the ground.

Interesting. My airline teaches to keep the ailerons neutral on the 75/76. I know the Boeing manual says that input may be applied but our manual says not to due to the possibility of putting to much aileron in and raising spoiler panels.

59 minutes ago, downscc said:

Same for 737/747 Sean, I've not watched the video but the technique mentioned in used in all GA aircraft I've flown but the heaviest of those come in around 12000 lb  MGW.  This technique is not applicable to transports in general.

I figured as much, Boeing technique is pretty standard across models, I just didn’t want to assume. We did use the traditional crosswind technique when I flew the EMB-145, but it didn’t have roll spoilers so it was pretty much like flying a big Cessna or Piper. 🙂

For what it’s worth, this is not proper technique in the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual, at least for the 757/767. The issue in using aileron deflection on the ground during takeoff and landing is that, during takeoff for example, if you deflect the ailerons then the spoiler panels also extend which seriously degrades takeoff performance. The opposite happens on landing. Aileron deflection in one direction causes the spoiler panels on the opposite wing to close which increases landing distance. 

The APP light bar on the MCP stays illuminated on the 757/767. Also, in order to get out of approach mode, not only do the flight directors need to be turned off but the autopilot must be off as well. I’ve never flown the 747 but I assume it’s similar to the 757/767. 

On 1/4/2019 at 4:41 AM, Captain Kevin said:

Trip fuel, 10% trip time,  holding fuel at destination,fuel to alternate (alternate required), holding fuel at alternate, and fuel to hold at 1,500 feet for 30 minutes, if I remember this all correctly. Domestic fuel requirements, on the other hand, only require an alternate if the weather is bad enough or if the flight time is more than six hours.

You’re correct but that’s not for Flag specifically. We use those fuel planning numbers under Part 121 Supplemental but only for international flights (including flights to Puerto Rico).

On 1/2/2019 at 6:03 PM, VHOJT said:

In addition, most fuel policies (EASA, CASA, FAA Domestic, ICAO) permit a plan to be filed without an alternate, with various restrictions as to when you need an alternate and when you don't.  In fact I think FAA Flag is the only major set of rules that specifically requires an alternate.

In Australia, for example, flights are not routinely planned with an alternate unless weather is below certain minima in relation the airport, crosswind limits, airport is isolated etc.  This applies to international flights as well, with certain variations for some countries.  Holding fuel for WX/published ATC delays is required, however.  For example, if you're destination was forecasting TEMPO thunderstorms, you would be required to carry either an alternate, or 60 minutes holding fuel, but not both.

A lot of other regulators allow alternates not to be planned under certain conditions, however, from what I can see, most airlines do anyway.

Cheers,
Rudy

 

 

I can’t recall flag rules offhand, but 121 supplemental always requires an alternate with the exception of operating a flight releases under island reserves. No complaints by me because on a nice day I get extra gas. And to the points made earlier about airline policy, my airline (FAA 121 Supplemental) gives the following guidance:

Fleet planned landing

-757: 9,000 lb

-767: 12,000 lb

Fleet minimum landing for both aircraft: 7,000 lb

The long and the short of it is that I can land below 9 or 12,000 lb but I better be evaluating my options. Below 7,000 and it’s paperwork and probably a carpet dance in the chief pilot’s office. 

On 11/13/2018 at 9:11 AM, scandinavian13 said:

haha - nah. I refuse to fly Cirrus. The way the pilots/instructors talk about them, it's almost like they think you need a PhD to fly one. No thanks. There's plenty out there more complicated and fun to fly without an intensive checkout of word not allowed I already know...

Funny you say that. I have a bit of time in an SR-20 and they’re nice but they do have a certain....following.

I was at AirVenture over the summer and wanted to check out the new Bose Proflight headset. I was going through the presentation and talking with the rep when a guy comes up and immediately starts telling everyone that he’s trying out the new headset to see if it’ll work in the Cirrus jet he had literally just signed for. So that’s all we heard for the next ten minutes even though the Bose rep told him flat out that the Vision Jet comes with A20s as standard equipment. But I was lucky enough to listen to how awesome he was for ten minutes so I gues you can consider me blessed. 😉 

Loss of airspeed is a memory item at my airline. Depending on flap configuration the procedure is to turn all automation off (autopilot, auto throttles and flight directors) then set 4 degrees pitch and 75% N1 for flaps up or 10 degrees pitch and 80% N1 for flaps extended. From there, run the QRH. This is for the 757/767 only.

On 10/15/2018 at 4:46 AM, kevinh said:

To be fair, a long haul flight may well get a direct to waypoint ATC routing in flight. Also the same FMC logic applies in the short haul 737.

It’s just a question of ergonomics. The Boeing FMC doesn’t need a direct to function because upselecting a waypoint for does the same thing. The Airbus FMGC doesn’t work the quite same way so a “Direct To” function is very useful.

 

The old boxes used to have a Direct Intercept button. Then someone figured out it’s way better to line select stuff and that button went away. My airline has a very....”varied” fleet so it’s always fun flying a Pegasus box, then getting into a legacy airplane and wondering for a few minutes why the darn thing won’t go direct when you line select a fix up to the top. 😂

On 9/23/2018 at 7:26 PM, 559AS said:

Unless your ETOPS program is approved for APU On Demand.  In that case, the APU may remain off while in the ETOPS segment as long as that aircraft is approved to fly under APUOD for that flight.  If not, you're required to operate under the APU Continuous Run procedures. 

My airline has one 757 with a 5kVA generator instead of a 10kVA that the rest of the fleet has. This requires us to run the APU during ETOPS until all fuel has been burned out of the center tank, while the other aircraft don’t have this requirement. A different scenario than you’re talking about, but just another consideration. Like we say at my airline, we had a standardized fleet....until we got our second plane. 🙂

On 9/15/2018 at 8:41 AM, JRBarrett said:

One system whose behavior has to be modified for high altitude airport operations is the pressurization system.

Ordinarily the cabin altitude will slowly increase during climb - beginning at the ambient pressure altitude of the departure airport and ending up at a final altitude of between 7000 and 8000 feet, giving a pressure differential of typically 8 to 9 psi (airframe-specific) between the inside and outside of the aircraft at typical cruise altitudes.

This becomes a problem for a standard pressurization controller at a high altitude (8000 foot +) airport where the ambient pressure altitude in the cabin (on the ground) may already be well above the maximum altitude the controller would normally maintain in cruise before pressurization even begins.

In essence, the controller will have to work in reverse of its normal schedule in climb, actually decreasing the cabin altitude once the doors are closed and pressurization starts upon takeoff.

The opposite problem occurs in descent. The normal descent pressurization schedule is to decrease cabin altitude in descent from the normal 7000-8000 foot altitude found in cruise at higher flight levels, ending up at the ambient pressure altitude outside of the aircraft on landing. With a high-altitude destination, the controller will have to increase cabin altitude above it’s normal maximum, just to insure that the cabin is unpressurized once the aircraft is on the ground.

When there is a “high altitude” switch in the cockpit, it will normally be used to put the pressurization controller in the alternate climb / descent schedule required for airports located at higher altitudes than the normal max cabin altitude when fully pressurized.

I should have guessed. That’s the procedure we have in our books about flying into BOG  and other high elevation airports. So basically, AA has the ability to do automatically what we have to perform manually.

American Airlines has an extra button on the overhead for a high altitude airport. No idea what it actually does as I don’t fly for AA, my airline just uses their sims. The 757/767 has a limitation to 8400ft PRESSURE altitude for takeoff and landing. That’ll get you in and out of BOG but not much higher unless you have some kind of modification/performance data from Boeing.

On 9/3/2018 at 1:34 PM, kevinh said:

The FMC APPROACH REF page shows the current calculated gross weight. If you use that figure, by the time you actually touchdown the weight will be less and Vref might be a knot or two less as a result. I'm not a real world pilot but from what I've read some pilots calculate the estimated gross weight at touchdown and enter that figure in the APPROACH REF page, overriding the FMC calculated value.

Not that I do this in PMDG's sims myself, my flying isn't accurate enough to make it worthwhile, but if you want to be very precise then it's something to consider.

You’re correct, we do calculate the landing weight and enter the weight/speed we will assume to be at touchdown. When I brief, it’s usually 30-45 minutes before landing or roughly 10 minutes to T/D and the speed will have changed by the time we land. A very down and dirty calculation in the 767 is a 1 knot reduction for every 5000 lbs of fuel burned. Another thing that’s nice to know is how much extra runway you’ll use per extra knot of airspeed. In the 767, it’s a little over 200 feet per knot. If you cross the threshold 5 knots fast, that’s an increase of over 1000 feet assuming you don’t slam on the brakes to stop in a shorter distance. Certainly something to think about.

I was/am underwhelmed as well. I’m sure many will enjoy the product and PMDG will of course create a superb rendition, but this does nothing for me personally. I fly for a living and use FS as an escape of sorts, so recreating exactly what I deal with at work isn’t incredibly appealing, but I do wish them all the best and perhaps I will take a look once it has been released. To all those who do end up purchasing, I hope you enjoy it!

15 hours ago, Budbud said:

I don't the technical response nor the regulation in the matter but at least if your aircraft and the crew are both certified for ILS catIII approach, with the airport configuring the runway and ILS with the correct protections, then you would be safe.

Maybe you would be also allowed to perform an autoland following a catI or catII ils in this case as well?

Anyway, if you cannot see anything through the windshield, I would try to go as much as possible for an autoland. But this is only my logic and is based on no real pilot experience or procedure/regulation knowledge.

A manual landing totally blind would be very risky since performing the flare based only on instruments seems quite tricky to me.

I can’t speak to how Airbus works as I fly a Boeing, but I assume it is similar in that the aircraft can perform an autoland as long as an ILS is available; it need not be a CATIII ILS. I’m not sure what this crew decided to do, but I would venture a guess that if they were able, they performed an autoland an then I believe I read that they were towed to the gate due to the lack of forward visibility.

ATI

14 hours ago, berts said:

ETOPS (meaning Extended Twin Operations or Extended Operations) are rules which were originally created to allow two-engine airliners to fly beyond 60 minutes from an airport. Different ETOPS ratings are available. Typical two-engine ratings are ETOPS-120 (minutes) and ETOPS-180 (minutes). The higher the rating, the more demanding and costly it is to receive and maintain approval.

EDTO (meaning Extended Diversion Time Operation) is a flight by a turbine powered aircaft where, assuming ISA and still air conditions, the time at the one engine inoperative cruise speed from a point en route to an adequate diversion airfield is greater than the following;

a) Twin engine aircraft certificated to carry more than 19 passengers or 3410 kilograms payload - 90 minutes.

b) Aircraft engaged in passenger carrying operations but not certificated to carry more than 19 passengers - 180 minutes.

c) Aircraft with more than 2 engines - 180 minutes

Incidentally, there are a few destination airfields around the world where no adequate alternate is available, such as the Seychelles. it is normal in these cases to plan to arrive overhead carrying sufficient fuel to hold for two hours (this is called Island Reserve).

Bertie Goddard

My airline flies to three destinations that require Island Reserve (Wake Island, Ascension Island and Diego Garcia) and perhaps it’s a difference of the regulating body, but our reserve fuel is two hours at normal cruise. So, fuel to destination plus two hours. 

International operations is as you described in that we need fuel to destination, plus 10% of time enroute at last cruise altitude, plus fuel to alternate plus 30 minutes at holding speed 1500 feet above field altitude. 

My airline also operates under 121 Supplemental and not 121 Flag, so that may account for the difference as well.

I’m hoping to make it. Depends on my unpredictable work schedule, but fingers crossed.

Chances are you’d cause some serious damage before you even got to the runway. Taxiing around with a large door open like that could cause lots of stress.

Different scenario, but a year or so ago I was flying from SEA-LAX. The ground crew came up and said the K loader was broken and they couldn’t move it away from the aircraft. Their solution was to push the plane back 20 feet or so and then close the door. Our manuals strictly prohibit ever moving the aircraft with the cargo door open because of the potential for massive structural damage. Granted, a main deck cargo door is larger than a passenger boarding door, but I still wouldn’t want to find out how much structural damage could result.

And in case you’re wondering, the ground crew ended up hooking up three or so gigs and pulling the K loader away, so all ended well. ;)

1 hour ago, HighFlier said:

If I may ask, where was this? I did a quick google search but nothing came up for a Level D 777 sim in Miami. If I ever go down to Florida I'll be sure to book myself a couple hours as well. Sounds like you had a great experience!

Speaking of Level D sims, does anyone know of one within reasonable distance of central New Jersey. Preferably a 737, 777, or 747 sim because those are the PMDG aircraft I have experience with.

Not sure if they have a 777, but Alteon in MIA is the Boeing facility down there. I know for sure they have a 767 but beyond that I can’t say. Probably the better part of the Boeing lineup though. 

5 hours ago, Bluestar said:

Don't confuse speed with aggressiveness.  There is  a certain flow to Boeing cockpits and the pilot's can go through the checklist in a hurry.   

Exactly my thoughts. I fly the 757/767 so we have the Korry switches. Things can get “aggressive” in the speed flows are completed, but by no means do we treat our aircraft poorly. Plus, as freight pilots, we at my airline are used to old and worn out (but still terrific) equipment and it occasionally takes a little more coaxing to get things to do what we need.

23 hours ago, downscc said:

Of course the B737 can, but I am referencing the PMDG NGX product and its limits.  Sorry, the TLA NGX refers to a PMDG simulator and not the real aircraft, which is a NG.

Understood, thanks.

13 hours ago, downscc said:

There is a wealth of information in the NGX FCTM on how to fly a non-ILS approach, including RNP using LNAV/VNAV beginning on page 5.42.  I suggest it  is required reading for students of this aircraft, and a good review for weathered veterans.

(I tend to avoid RNAV approaches in the 777 because it lacks IAN, and the 747 because it is not qualified for RNP0.5 ((to my knowledge)), so basically my focus for RNAV approaches in restricted to the NGX, which unfortunately cannot do RNP0.30 (RNP0.50 only).

I’ve never flown a 737, but in my time at Horizon I’m almost certain the 737 at Alaska can go to RNP .15 or at the very least, RNP .3

Amusingly enough, we were approved for RNP .10 on the Q400 at Horizon, which is as low as you can go with RNP at this point. Pretty impressive what RNP can do. After leaving Horizon, I’m flying the 757/767 and my airline didn’t even have RNAV approach OpSpecs when I got hired (we have them now, but no RNP). Quite a change!

I fly the 757/767 and the altimeter tolerance, per our company manuals, is 75 feet from a known field elevation, plus the difference between the Captain and FO altimeters is 40 feet a sea level (field elevation) 45 feet at 5000 ft (field elevation) and 50 feet at 10,000 ft (field elevation). 

On top of that, tolerance must be within 200 feet in RVSM airspace.