|
Rubies posted:Bummer... Thanks tho at least I know now! I asked my dispatcher wife to plug sba into her computer and she said the a320 would be "no sweat". fwiw
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I asked my dispatcher wife to plug sba into her computer and she said the a320 would be "no sweat". fwiw Longest runway is 6052ft. Seems tight for bigger aircraft, but it should be doable under certain weather and weights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
 I'm still confused... two beer does she usually run the numbers as an empty plane or would she factor in the 150 people on a full flight plus they luggage? Sorry if I'm being a pain in the balls btw not trying to poo poo up the thread with my dumb questions  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Rubies posted:
She said it wouldn't go as a full flight but that it wouldn't be heavily restricted either. It wouldn't make it to the east coast without stopping somewhere for fuel, but the san diego flight needs to stop once in a while too depending on the wind. Edit: numbers were computed with a wet runway so even contaminated wouldn't be a huge factor. two_beer_bishes fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I asked my dispatcher wife to plug sba into her computer and she said the a320 would be "no sweat". fwiw I can't believe they take 73x into EYW. Runway 9/27 - 4801 x 100 ft. / 1463 x 30 m
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:I can't believe they take 73x into EYW. Runway 9/27 - 4801 x 100 ft. / 1463 x 30 m I took off as a passenger on a Delta 757 on Reagan's Runway 33 (5204 ft) once because of strong winds making Runway 1 unusable. I was fully aware of what a freak of nature the 757 is, but even then  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:I took off as a passenger on a Delta 757 on Reagan's Runway 33 (5204 ft) once because of strong winds making Runway 1 unusable. I think being a GA pilot has some disadvantages when flying commercially. I tend to be a little bit too aware of what is going on with the airplane and I get concerned about things like (what I perceive to be) low airspeed and high angle of attack (3407 was in my neck of the woods) for example. Recently I was on a flight departing Catania, Italy and we took off to the east, putting us over the sea almost immediately. We were at maybe 1500 or 2000 feet when the engines were suddenly throttled back alarmingly low, and you could feel the deceleration resulting from the change. At the same time the plane banked hard to the left and was no longer climbing. I've never in my life thought something was wrong with a plane on takeoff but that time I really did. I thought we were making the impossible 180, and it looked like we'd be making a water landing for sure. But we just sort of held our altitude for a little while, the turn leveling out on a northerly track, and eventually the engines throttled back up and the flight progressed like any other. I am still not sure what that was about, but I am guessing it is some sort of very aggressive noise abatement routine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Maybe some restriction because of Sigonella being nearby? I've flown out of there many times visiting family and never had to do that, sounds terrifying tho. Even tho working for an airline has shown me just how safe aviation is and how strictly safety guidelines are followed I'll always be scared on takeoff. Anyway thanks for the help with the Santa Barbara stuff, doubt JB is gonna go there if it's that iffy. I might just apply at another airline there even if I lose 7 years seniority 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
I don't think it had anything to do with Sigonella given the geography involved (taking off from Catania Fontanarossa eastward over the sea and then turning left towards the north and Milan). Sigonella is southwest of Catania Fontanarossa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:I took off as a passenger on a Delta 757 on Reagan's Runway 33 (5204 ft) once because of strong winds making Runway 1 unusable. MD-80s can give quite a ride too. Was that a static take off?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
DNova posted:But we just sort of held our altitude for a little while, the turn leveling out on a northerly track, and eventually the engines throttled back up and the flight progressed like any other. I am still not sure what that was about, but I am guessing it is some sort of very aggressive noise abatement routine. Perhaps some kind of noise abatement procedure?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
I can't imagine Santa Barbara ever having the traffic to have JetBlue regardless of runway length. They still operate motor coach service to lax because it's just not that far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Last Spring UA switched from the 744 to 777 for LAX-SYD. That was my first time doing a 7500nm trip on a 777 and I during the takeoff roll I wondered for a minute if we were just going to overrun onto Pershing Dr. I feel like we finally lifted off with almost no runway left and cleared the beach at less than a hundred feet. That entire climb-out was scary. I was in row 9 I think right ahead of an engine and those things were screaming until we started to level off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Don't modern airliners take into account the length of the runway they're using to calculate the necessary amount of thrust for takeoff, instead of going balls to the wall every single time? I heard that somewhere at some point, which could explain the longer-than-strictly-necessary takeoff runs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Don't modern airliners take into account the length of the runway they're using to calculate the necessary amount of thrust for takeoff, instead of going balls to the wall every single time? I heard that somewhere at some point, which could explain the longer-than-strictly-necessary takeoff runs. Pretty sure takeoff thrust is takeoff thrust. You wouldn't want an engine to fail between V1 and Vr and not have the other at max power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Pretty sure takeoff thrust is takeoff thrust. You wouldn't want an engine to fail between V1 and Vr and not have the other at max power. Reduced-thrust takeoffs are a common thing. Engines are loving expensive, and they don't fail often.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Pretty sure takeoff thrust is takeoff thrust. You wouldn't want an engine to fail between V1 and Vr and not have the other at max power. Most airliners use a reduced power setting for takeoff most of the time, since it saves a significant amount of wear on the engines, in addition to burning less fuel and being quieter than simply using full power. In the event of an engine failure on modern airliners, the good engine will automatically go to a higher power setting to offset the loss of thrust, and some airplanes are even set up to automatically add rudder towards the good engine to make the event less exciting for the pilots. The Q400's I fly actually have a button that allows a reduced power setting on takeoff, but since the engines are already massively derated for that airframe, the reduced power setting doesn't save any money on fuel or maintenance, so we never use it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
"Caution Wake Turbulence" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8EwvDTJeNs quote:The pilot in this video was not hurt critically; he had some scrapes and bruises, was shook up, but basically came out of it in good condition. I spoke with him yesterday and he was happy to share his experience for the good of safety. This event took place at a non-controlled airport. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Is the Denver bump still the term for the above normal power rated takeoff procedure?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Same idea in Addis Ababa which is at an elevation of nearly 8000'. I think when we rotated I looked out the window and saw the 1000' markers on the departure end of the runway going by 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
I thought YYC was pretty high at 3500'... we certainly have noticeably longer takeoff runs, and our new runway is the longest in Canada, largely because of the altitude. Taking off from Addis Ababa or La Paz or any place like that has got to be a rather interesting experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
If any of you goons are ever in Colorado and want to go to KLXV, the highest airport in North America, I'd be happy to take you. They even give you a little certificate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:Same idea in Addis Ababa which is at an elevation of nearly 8000'. I think when we rotated I looked out the window and saw the 1000' markers on the departure end of the runway going by I took off in a Comanche 250 out of Angel Fire one day when it was below freezing. KAXX Took off 17. We rotated at the piano keys. Of runway 35. We did everything right. All the calculations. Below freezing day, not even full fuel and just two of us. The thing that hurt us the most was the wind was a direct crosswind coming off the mountain and essentially useless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:I took off in a Comanche 250 out of Angel Fire one day when it was below freezing. KAXX The poo poo we read about in the books actually has real world application! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Most airliners use a reduced power setting for takeoff most of the time, since it saves a significant amount of wear on the engines, in addition to burning less fuel and being quieter than simply using full power. Like all things, that depends on a lot of factors and indeed the aircraft itself. For a lot of aircraft, yes you will use less fuel on the takeoff roll itself, but if you continue on a derated climb schedule you will burn more fuel by top-of-climb than if you just used a standard climb power setting. That said, the savings in maintenance in this case can more than offset the increase in total fuel burn, because it usually isn't a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:If any of you goons are ever in Colorado and want to go to KLXV, the highest airport in North America, I'd be happy to take you. This is on my GA bucket list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Arcella posted:This is on my GA bucket list. Same here. Courcheval would be awesome too but that's a lot less likely for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Arcella posted:This is on my GA bucket list. DNova posted:Same here. Courcheval would be awesome too but that's a lot less likely for me. Come on out, we can get beers and burgs at Perfect Landing afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Are there pre-requisites to taking the CFII written? Someone suggested with all the info still fresh in my mind I should get that one out of the way. Took a practice exam and scored a 94% so I'm thinking maybe he's right - that's assuming I can take it. I've been flipping through Part 61 but don't see anything about prereqs for a written exam.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:MD-80s can give quite a ride too. Was that a static take off? I think it was. It was a bit of a rollercoaster ride because they turned immediately right, then back left to join the Potomac. e- The quality's not great because I had to get the camera rolling, the camera itself, and the turbulence, but here's how it looked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTW602DuLfA I've experienced a static takeoff on an MD-88, too, actually. It was at DAB on 16 in July 2-3 years ago when 7L/25R was closed for heavy repairs. Certainly got the good out of the available takeoff distance. CBJSprague24 fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Like all things, that depends on a lot of factors and indeed the aircraft itself. For a lot of aircraft, yes you will use less fuel on the takeoff roll itself, but if you continue on a derated climb schedule you will burn more fuel by top-of-climb than if you just used a standard climb power setting. That said, the savings in maintenance in this case can more than offset the increase in total fuel burn, because it usually isn't a huge difference. According to a check airman I know, the Captain Apollo posted:We rotated at the piano keys. I think you may want to take a second to ponder the mutual exclusivity of those statements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:I think you may want to take a second to ponder the mutual exclusivity of those statements. Apollo? Look critically at HIS OWN actions? Never!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:Are there pre-requisites to taking the CFII written? Someone suggested with all the info still fresh in my mind I should get that one out of the way. Took a practice exam and scored a 94% so I'm thinking maybe he's right - that's assuming I can take it. I've been flipping through Part 61 but don't see anything about prereqs for a written exam. I took the instrument, CFII and ground instrument instructor in the same hour. Go for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Double post because I want to talk about *~me~* Had my first flight in the lear 60 the other day and I freaking love it. So much power in that takeoff, I couldn't stop smiling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
I thought there was an air travel megathread but I don't see it anymore. I have a question that is undeniably better suited for that thread, though. A friend of mine bought an insured ticket through delta for a trip she can no longer take. None of the reasons for refund listed in the site really match her circumstances, so I was hoping someone here would known if it was even possible to obtain a refund and how to go about it. (if someone knows where the air travel thread is and links it I'll cross post there, I know this isn't exactly the right place for this question)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
She can change the ticket to use it at a later date if she's willing to pay the change fee... If it's a non-refundable fare, then the insurance company would really be her only other option. So in my news, I need to build time as fast as I can, I've got my company interview mid march... and it looks now like I'm on reserve all next week and then with my vacation it's gonna be 5 weeks before I touch an airplane again. Fuckkkk my life. I need to find some airplane I can build a bunch of cheap time in. :/
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
The wonder twins of Sully and Schumer joined the families of Colgan 3407 to try and keep the 1,500 hour rule untouched today. Has there been enough push back from the industry to get to where this is necessary, or is this political marketing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
They better not touch it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Wizard of Smart posted:I thought there was an air travel megathread but I don't see it anymore. I have a question that is undeniably better suited for that thread, though. Here ya go
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:The wonder twins of Sully and Schumer joined the families of Colgan 3407 to try and keep the 1,500 hour rule untouched today. For the time being, it looks like the regional carriers are smart enough not to publicly call for a repeal of the ATP rule, but I'd be surprised if they aren't trying to do an end-run around it somehow. Since Congress only specified that airline FO's must have an ATP (but didn't specify what the requirements are to get said ATP), I wouldn't be surprised to see lobbying efforts to expand the restricted ATP program (by allowing smaller part 141 schools to participate), and if this "pilot shortage" continues, regionals may look at setting up ab initio programs (similar to what Asian carriers use), since that would give them a steady supply of pilots who would be chained to the airline for a few years by massive training contracts. The fact that regionals could also use ab initio programs as an excuse to keep pay low ("We just spent $150k training you, why should we have to pay a living wage?") would also make them attractive, but the cost of setting up the programs may be a hard sell for shareholders and management who care about nothing longer term than "did we make a profit this quarter?".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:20
|
|