|
Murgos posted:Yeah, I get that it could change at any time, that's why there are still pilots. Many airports have different departure procedures for parallel runways. So if you had programmed and briefed the GOON FIVE departure off of 35R and then get reassigned to 34L you'll need to either update the GOON FIVE departure you have programmed in to use the 34L procedure (probably different altitude restrictions and a different heading turn to deconflict with departures off the parallel runway) or you'll need to use a completely different procedure like the STAIRS TWO and everything needs to be reentered. I'm sure our ATP & ATC friends would be happy to elaborate more if you're still curious.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Yeah, I get that it could change at any time, that's why there are still pilots. Yeah they have to plug in the new runway and run the numbers again. It often changes the departure instructions too (turns and climbs after takeoff). Edit: Dangit
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I was on a flight last week where we were delayed on the runway a bit as the captain came on and said that they had a runway change and so they were downloading a new profile (an American A321 ORD to BOS). Controllers can and do change stuff very frequently for a variety of reasons, be they traffic, weather, or congestion. Unless you're a controller or in the cockpit, you mostly won't realize what happened. How it works for IFR traffic (instrument flight rules, 100% of airlines fly IFR) is that when you're on the ground you file a specific route and then the controllers alter it (for traffic, weather, whatever) and read it back to you before you take off. It includes a destination airport but not a specific runway on that airport, which you'll get from Approach when you're a ways out from the field
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Yeah, I get that it could change at any time, that's why there are still pilots. The crew was doing 2 things. First, putting the new runway into the flight plan, which affects the first few waypoints in the departure procedure. This only takes a few keystrokes and a few seconds. The other part, which is what they had to wait for, was getting the performance info over ACARS, which is the datalink system for things like this. They input the fuel, cargo, and passenger load (these are already entered from before) and anti-ice and APU demands and the runway you want to use. This gets sent into a computer at dispatch, where it takes this info as well as the day's weather conditions, runway length, slope, obstacles, and a bunch of other possible non-obvious limiting factors, (like max landing weight at the destination plus fuel burn from the flight plan... or, making sure you can clear terrain at any point along the flight with an engine failure... etc.). It calculates all this and sends the crew back the max takeoff weight, V-speeds, trim, flap setting and bleed setting... where they note the weight to make sure they're gonna meet it, and enter everything else into the airplane controls. vessbot fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
It's like a beautiful choreographed dance. But with more yelling and cursing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:It's like a beautiful choreographed dance. But with more yelling and cursing. A LOT more cursing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Hey Ferret King, I'm assuming from your past posts that you work Dallas airspace. I'm headed back to DC this afternoon (and my job  ) and the ramp up to the VA gubernatorial election - feel free to steer my flight into approaching traffic. It's only a Virgin America A319, nothing too big. TIA 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Thanks guys! That was a lot of good information. I appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
vessbot posted:The other part, which is what they had to wait for, was getting the performance info over ACARS, which is the datalink system for things like this. They input the fuel, cargo, and passenger load (these are already entered from before) and anti-ice and APU demands and the runway you want to use. This gets sent into a computer at dispatch, where it takes this info as well as the day's weather conditions, runway length, slope, obstacles, and a bunch of other possible non-obvious limiting factors, (like max landing weight at the destination plus fuel burn from the flight plan... or, making sure you can clear terrain at any point along the flight with an engine failure... etc.). I was on a flight a while back that had to turn around en route due to a medical emergency. After they landed, took the person off, and taxied back out, they had about a 45 minute delay because the system (sounds like ACARS, but the pilots didn't specify when they were explaining it) was getting confused since the plane already took off from that airport on that route. And being late at night, I guess the ops center didn't have the full tech support staff to get it cleared out. It took long enough that the runway we were originally holding short at closed for scheduled maintenance, and we had to taxi around to a different runway. Which illustrates another reason why runway assignments can be changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
And then when they're all confused and pushing all the buttons doesn't help, they patch in MOC and we ask them if they've tried turning it off and back on again, and they say "yes" and we say "are you sure" and then there's several minutes of silence and the aircraft suddenly shows airborne.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Hey Ferret King, I'm assuming from your past posts that you work Dallas airspace. I'm headed back to DC this afternoon (and my job Wilco!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
I have a question: what is the industry opinion of Boom Aerospace? On the one hand, supersonic aircraft. On the other hand, the business model seems to be to
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Wilco! Consider the above post pre- and posthumous legal absolution from at least *my* death. The flight's leaving from Gate 13. At least it's not Halloween anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:I have a question: what is the industry opinion of Boom Aerospace? They have a plane for sale yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:They have a plane for sale yet? Actual product is boring. Concepts are exciting!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:I have a question: what is the industry opinion of Boom Aerospace? I'm not in the industry, but I will say I'll believe it when I see an actual plane in the air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Actual product is boring. Concepts are exciting! lol calm down Elon
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Consider the above post pre- and posthumous legal absolution from at least *my* death. See that chemical plant to the west of Love Field? I work there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:I have a question: what is the industry opinion of Boom Aerospace? Bringing back SSTs: cool and good Doing it while ignoring basic facts on how the industry works - good luck with that. That's going to go a hell of a lot worse then Telsa ignoring the basics of mass production that any of the established car manufacturers would have been happy to teach them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Right, during cert the RTO performance of the plane is tested at max weight and without thrust reversers, but that's intended to represent the "worst case" performance. I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to use thrust reversers during a RTO, since I would think that once you decided to abort you would be committed to stopping, and every bit helps. There's a NASA survey about the use of thrust reversers, and added safety margin during RTO was one of the reasons airlines liked to have them. (Interestingly, the overall conclusions of that survey were mixed. Airliners are designed to operate and minimums calculated without considering thrust reversers, so they're totally optional equipment. Airlines like them because using reverse thrust reduces the need to brake, with can increase brake lifespan. But the airframers know that the costs of buying and maintaining a reverse thrust system are actually the same or higher than the cost of extra brake wear from not having them. So, the mystery is, why do airlines keep ordering planes with reverse thrust?) Holdover times while brake systems cool off. Sooner the plane can get back in the air the sooner it can make money again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Frank Lee Blind
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Holdover times while brake systems cool off. Sooner the plane can get back in the air the sooner it can make money again. And this time can be quite long with big brakes. It’s much less of an issue nowadays with carbon brake packs, but I remember watching ground crews across the ramp using a huffer on DC-8 brakes, trying to get them cooled down for a quick turn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Once I'm able to parse them, I'll post more, but for now, two tidbits from the Braniff exhibit at the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas: There was an American-flown Concorde...sort of:  Whatever the gently caress *this* is:  Uh huh: 
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:I have a question: what is the industry opinion of Boom Aerospace? Boom is following an almost identical path (software guy develops airplane to "disrupt" the industry) that Eclipse followed, and Eclipse went bankrupt after discovering that airplanes are really expensive to actually certify, and have to work exactly as promised once delivered. Boom is also relying on an incredibly fickle market (high end travel), and is basing their sales assumptions on around 100 airplanes a year, which seems absurdly high considering that Gulfstream typically sells about 120 airplanes a year, at about 75% less per unit than the $200 million price Boom claims right now. Plus, Boom appears to be relying on engines that don't actually exist yet, and developing a new engine with a new airframe is just asking for massive delays, as Bombardier discovered with their C Series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
I'd heard about those Concordes that flew to DFW. Were they allowed to go supersonic over the USA? Because I thought that the booms were a major part of why the FAA never approved an American SST, but if it was stuck under Mach 1 for a big chunk of the flight it would waste a ton of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I'd heard about those Concordes that flew to DFW. Were they allowed to go supersonic over the USA? Because I thought that the booms were a major part of why the FAA never approved an American SST, but if it was stuck under Mach 1 for a big chunk of the flight it would waste a ton of fuel. 0.95M according to this page: http://www.braniffpages.com/concorde.html 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I'd heard about those Concordes that flew to DFW. Were they allowed to go supersonic over the USA? Because I thought that the booms were a major part of why the FAA never approved an American SST, but if it was stuck under Mach 1 for a big chunk of the flight it would waste a ton of fuel. Nope. The restriction on supersonic flight over the continental US was part of why US airlines never bought any Concordes, and Boom seems to be convinced they can magically get the FAA (and various NIMBY groups) to change that policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Pretty sure all those flights had BA safety pilots onboard too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
freelop posted:One of my favourite Sabaton songs is based on the Night Witches I've listened to that song many many times but never looked into what it was about. Thanks for that, brilliant! I really do appreciate Sabatons very niche market strategy of teaching military history through song. Some more of their aviation songs: "Firestorm" Strategic bombing on Antwerp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDyyFrCHu-o "Nuclear Attack" Well yeah, nuking Japan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVI9-WBnnN4 "Aces in Exile" The battle of Britain (featuring Polish, Czech and Canadian pilots) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QwkyKS3dng "Screaming Eagles" US 101st Airborne Division at Bastonge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33TeRVtJqhQ "No Bullets Fly" Franz Stigler meets Charles 'Charlie' Brown's B-17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x02g4-XT_VU
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Plus, Boom appears to be relying on engines that don't actually exist yet, and developing a new engine with a new airframe is just asking for massive delays, as Bombardier discovered with their C Series. Or Dassault with the Falcon 5X.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
So, this is a thing. There’s a whole bunch of different airframes. They’re also not cheap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:So, this is a thing. From the stories I've read in this thread, I would rely on that watch to tell the correct time maybe twice per day, regardless of how much it costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Does the dial spin too? Such a missed opportunity there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:So, this is a thing. So it's running on hardware redesigned in 1978 around hardware from the late 1950's; is massively larger than it should be, but only does calculations as fast as something 30 years older, smells funny because of that one time in 1992; some parts of it are remarkably hot while other parts chill you to the bone; and is 120db in some parts and only 100db in others. Oh and occasionally it farts fireballs out of one of it's ports. E: and it really doesn't like Branta Canadensis
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:So, this is a thing. They've gone around to a lot of squadrons offering them. They'll even do squadron/unit specific ones. They offer a huge discount if you get a few guys from your unit to buy them but they are still in the Rolex-realm of expensive. I'm a watch collector, and they're generally well received watches. Just too expensive. Not to mention they are pretty huge in physical size along with other watch nerd reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:So, this is a thing. "wait how many officers are on those planes?" - some marketing guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:So, this is a thing. Amateurs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Boo kadena, long live 962
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"wait how many officers are on those planes?" - some marketing guy Hahah This is why they don't target the Army, flying warrants don't make as much money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 05:49
|
|