|
bunnyofdoom posted:Since I'm only a month into my training and all that, and ahve only done sim time, please be nice to this stupid question. How do I calculate how much time it will take me to fly a certain distance, and if I'd need to land to refuel along the way? Skip ahead in your textbooks to the chapter about planning a cross-country flight. Break out your flight computer! The Whiz Wheel makes these calculations a breeze! And you thought learning to use a slide rule was for dummies! Basically, look in your POH for the performance charts. Find your climb-to-altitude fuel-burn table, then your cruise fuel burn table. Go with something pessimistic; it's good for planning to think you don't have as much gas as you do. Like, if your chart says "100% power 11.5gal/hr" and "80% power 5.5gal/hr" then estimate that you'll cruise somewhere on the high side of that. Call it 10gal/hr to make the math easy! Figure out how long you can be in the air. If your (climb fuel [climb distance]) + ((cruise fuel + 30 more minutes of cruise fuel) * cruise speed) < distance you need to fly, then you make it in one hop! Good job. If not, you get to figure out where you can land to get gas. Ugh. It sounds so difficult and complicated when you break it down into small steps like this, but it's really not. Cross-country planning is very simple. For a simple flight example, assume you burn 4 gallons of gas to get off the runway, and 8 more gallons to get up to altitude. So now you're down 12gal. If you've got 40 gal of usable fuel, and burn 8gal/hr, 40-12=38. 38/8=3.5hrs. Your cruise is (say) 120kt, and you need .5hr reserve fuel, so you have 360nmi of flight per leg. Run your winds to modify your 360nmi to traversed distance over ground (tailwinds add distance, headwinds decrease). If you plug the numbers from your POH in, you very quickly get an idea of how far (long) you can fly. Try to game the charts. Sometimes 80% power is way more fuel efficient (in miles/gallon) than 100% or 60%. You can also find a favorable wind layer at some other altitude to stretch your legs somewhat, but you have to take into account the extra gas getting up to that altitude (if significant).
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
fknlo posted:So had my first loss of separation today, but as far as my trainer and I can tell, it was 100% legal. I had an Acey CRJ2 ASQ vs SWA. Yeah, no. That is never ever ever a game you play. That is about the most opposite you can get in terms of climb rates when it comes to airliners these days. SWA flies those 737s like freaking rocket ships. Six hundred foot hits? No problem! ASQs reliably have to be regularly pointed out to the other low sectors on their climbs across 250 miles worth of airspace. That is the inability to climb to FL 240 in two hundred and fifty miles before I have to point them out to the next sector. Not to mention that due to their atrocious climb rate they get stuck down low since they just keep getting in the way of everything else. No, I'm not saying ASQ has bad pilots, in fact they seem to be some of the more reliable ones I have dealt with in terms of applying and reading back instructions. I pick on them because they fly the RJ2 more than any other airliner I know. The 65 says you are legal though. Staying safe and legal is what matters. fknlo posted:The Southwest never leveled before FL270. He had been climbing like Southwests tend to do though. ROKKIT SHIPPU Tommy 2.0 fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 04:34
|
|
climbing out to the south. I also had a Southwest departing KSTL to the southeast. I was stepping the Southwest up under the Acey as it plodded its way to FL300. The Acey was out of FL274 and the Southwest was out of FL255 and I climbed the Southwest to FL270. That god drat Southwest leveled off at FL270 while the Acey was at FL278. They had about 3 miles, diverging and I climbed the Southwest to altitude about 30 seconds later.
|
Captain Apollo posted:Also- why are you so mad about this or did it just get brought up in the news? It was in USA Today on, I think, Friday. I guess I'm not as mad about using the devices as I am the government's simultaneous passiveness ("Pfft, screw those pilots who reported issues, they're just making it up") and overaggressiveness ("YOU ALLOW PEDs RIGHT NOW OR I'LL CREATE A LAW!") toward the issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:I figured but I wasn't 100% sure. That's fair, I guess I don't really know your full situation. From what I've noticed so far, in my month and a half of flight instructing is that looking outside the airplane helps a lot. Starting with sims might make the person focus more on the instruments which I've noticed really hurts newer pilots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:ASQ vs SWA. Yeah, no. That is never ever ever a game you play. quote:
Abridged version. So he's legal. What's the problem? Why should he not play this legal "game?" For you spam can fliers. A CRJ200s "slowest practical speed" on 6NM final is 220kts? Teach me something please. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:I figured but I wasn't 100% sure. My first flight lesson went like this: show up at the airport at the scheduled time, shadow my CFI as he pre-flights the airplane, get into the airplane, take off, watch basic flight demos and repeat them while flying around the area, head back to the airport and set up the approach, CFI performs actual landing. Seems to me that putting people into a month of video game sessions instead of actually flying an aircraft is a great way to turn them off to the whole idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Abridged version. So he's legal. What's the problem? Why should he not play this legal "game?" In this case, slowest practical airspeed is modified for the time remaining before football comes on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:ASQs reliably have to be regularly pointed out to the other low sectors on their climbs across 250 miles worth of airspace. That is the inability to climb to FL 240 in two hundred and fifty miles before I have to point them out to the next sector. Not to mention that due to their atrocious climb rate they get stuck down low since they just keep getting in the way of everything else. The Ferret King posted:For you spam can fliers. A CRJ200s "slowest practical speed" on 6NM final is 220kts? Teach me something please. Vfo - Flaps 8/20 - 200 Flaps 30 - 185 Flaps 45 - 170 Vref (approach speed) is usually 142 - 128 knots. That wasn't "slowest practical" unless they had a Flaps fail. AWSEFT fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:No, I'm not saying ASQ has bad pilots, in fact they seem to be some of the more reliable ones I have dealt with in terms of applying and reading back instructions. I pick on them because they fly the RJ2 more than any other airliner I know. If its any consolation, we are slowly beginning to phase out our CR2's. And yes I am very glad I don't fly that, on the CR7 its a very amorous relationship between us and ATC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Abridged version. So he's legal. What's the problem? Why should he not play this legal "game?" Thing called duty priority. The 65 is pretty black and white in the radar portion of its rules, but something like this could potentially be pretty bad if you ask me, legal or not. You get some bad altimeters and a wee bit of turbulence and a thing like fknlo's situation could possibly go from "legal but eyebrow raising" to "more than just an ATSAP". I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I've seen people play the "legal game" enough to know when it's OK to play it and when it's not. I play it myself with some things when I feel absolutely certain it's OK. Some things just seem like a law of percentages waiting to happen though. Tommy 2.0 fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
quote:2−1−2. DUTY PRIORITY quote:6−6−1. APPLICATION quote:5−5−5. VERTICAL APPLICATION Since the first duty priority of an air traffic controller is to separate aircraft and issue safety alerts, and since the aircraft were legally separated in accordance with up to 2 different chapters of our manual, please again explain to me why someone wouldn't want to "play this game." And if you don't have a good answer this time, defer to someone who does. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Since the first duty priority of an air traffic controller is to separate aircraft and issue safety alerts, and since the aircraft were legally separated in accordance with up to 2 different chapters of our manual, please again explain to me why someone wouldn't want to "play this game." And if you don't have a good answer this time, differ to someone who does. I revisited my post to sound less like a dick. I point out that legal separation or not, things can go wrong. When you have two aircraft that have drastically different climb rates like his situation above, it may be legal, but it is safer to wait IN MY OPINION. With the RJ2/737's climb rate it seems perfectly feasible for them to only be within a few hundred feet with application of that rule depending on where the 737's altitude difference was. That RJ2 takes an unexpected drop in altitude for unforeseen reasons then well, you have a bad situation. So yeah, first duty priority is to separate planes. I suppose it is up to each controller's discretion if they would rather be legal, or legal and moral. Paint on paint separation is bad. Legal or not. You and I both know the .65 is written in blood. You ask me, that is one rule to eventually change. Tommy 2.0 fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Animal posted:If its any consolation, we are slowly beginning to phase out our CR2's. And yes I am very glad I don't fly that, on the CR7 its a very amorous relationship between us and ATC. I know delta connection is axing the RJ2s but is american eagle and whoever else you operate for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:
I disagree completely. If an aircraft has left an altitude, and another aircraft has been assigned that altitude that has been vacated, then the two will not occupy the same parcel of air at the same time and the operation is safe. An event (like an unexpected descent of a climbing aircraft for....reasons?) that would cause a dangerous situation while applying this rule would also cause a dangerous situation when applying 500ft/1000ft vertical separation, or 3nm/5nm lateral separation. Yes, unexpected things can make previously legal operations more dangerous, so I expect controllers and pilots should be ready to react to those anomalies to keep everything safe. Your fire-and-brimstone language is a bit crazy. Written in blood, paint on paint, "moral" obligation. There were 800 vertical ft between the aircraft in the scenario mentioned earlier. Just stick to the facts. I completely resent your implication (intended or accidental) that your way is moral.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I disagree completely. If an aircraft has left an altitude, and another aircraft has been assigned that altitude that has been vacated, then the two will not occupy the same parcel of air at the same time and the operation is safe. An event (like an unexpected descent of a climbing aircraft for....reasons?) that would cause a dangerous situation while applying this rule would also cause a dangerous situation when applying 500ft/1000ft vertical separation, or 3nm/5nm lateral separation. Yes, unexpected things can make previously legal operations more dangerous, so I expect controllers and pilots should be ready to react to those anomalies to keep everything safe. I'm not just referring to fknlo's situation and his situation alone. I've been doing ATC for a long time, worked literally every type of plane and performance type, and I have seen text book application of the .65 almost kill people numerous times. Then the person who applied it go "well the .65 says I can do it!". Just because you haven't seen something similar doesn't mean it can't/doesn't happen. If you never encounter a situation like that in your career consider yourself blessed (and an anomaly). Yes, there are rules that are completely absurd and over separate upon over separate. Then there are rules that make you go "wait, we can do that? Why?". Basically what I am asking, or hoping you ask yourself at times, is "just because I can, should I?". Tommy 2.0 fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Just got news that a former co-worker crashed this morning in the Caribbean. They found the body outside the plane, so he probably managed to get out but drowned. He was doing flight following but ATC called the company and Coast Guard THREE HOURS after they lost radar contact. Its a tragedy, he was a nice guy and had an interview with a regional this month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
I thought there was something in the .65 about only using out of go to if the aircraft were of similar types
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Wake turbulence still applies where necessary, otherwise no. You don't combine that rule with cruise clearances or pilot`s discretion though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Sinbad's Sex Tape posted:I thought there was something in the .65 about only using out of go to if the aircraft were of similar types Realistically this means jet vs. jet, turboprop vs. turboprop, etc... I can assure you that most controllers are completely dumb when it comes to anything outside of those lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Animal posted:Just got news that a former co-worker crashed this morning in the Caribbean. They found the body outside the plane, so he probably managed to get out but drowned. He was doing flight following but ATC called the company and Coast Guard THREE HOURS after they lost radar contact. That BLOWS. Having done that kind of thing myself it is scary to think that I could have been me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
I still consider it a bad habit and try never to do it again. Those CRJ2s especially love getting about 90% to altitude and then letting you know they'll be doing <500ft a minute until they reach altitude. But you're technically correct and now that the snitch is gone it's not costing anybody any extra paper work. Part of the whole training process is learning when to run them tight and when to give yourself some extra space. Basically if you don't need it why give yourself the extra hassle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Who got rid of the snitch? We still have it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Who got rid of the snitch? We still have it. Gone at ZMA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I know delta connection is axing the RJ2s but is american eagle and whoever else you operate for? Generally speaking the 50 seaters are being retired everywhere. Some airlines are doing it more aggressively than others. I don't know about united though, there are a ridiculous number of 50 seat EMBs flying for them at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Wake turbulence still applies where necessary, otherwise no. You don't combine that rule with cruise clearances or pilot`s discretion though. Wake turbulence? WHY THAT'S CRAZY TALK. Seriously though, seeing guys that are en route their entire career and say they are being "nice" by giving CWT to a 737 flying OVER a H/C5 is absolutely endearing. Princess Bride quotes pop in my head every time I see it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
I assume it's just something they're saying automatically without thinking about it. I do that all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If microwave, especially the 2.4 GHz ISM band effected VHF radio VORTACs wouldn't work at all. (also, the FM tuner on your car) http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf has some interesting ASRS reports where passenger electronics have apparently causes issues. It's not so much that they can cause interference to radios; radios are designed to block out frequencies other than what they listen to. It's more that the RF energy can induce small electrical currents in nearby wires. If your passenger seat happens to be near the wires leading from some aircraft sensor to the cockpit, it could subtly change the reading of that sensor. I get that phones are the biggest risk and they're not on the table; it's actually a FCC rule not FAA that disallows the use of them while airborne anyways. Just not convinced any intentionally radiating device being used in critical phases of flight is a great idea. I'm fairly ok with electronics that don't use radios; the oscillators that could act as unintentional RF radiators are a lot less likely to be strong enough to cause an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
fordan posted:http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf has some interesting ASRS reports where passenger electronics have apparently causes issues. Those are summaries of course, but uh, most of those are "something strange happened, must have been PEDs!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Those are summaries of course, but uh, most of those are "something strange happened, must have been PEDs!" And a several of them are "And the passenger turned off the device and the problem went away." These are anecdotal reports voluntarily submitted to the ASRS system. And I realize the plural of anecdote isn't data. But changing policy away from what it is today to a less conservative safety policy should be done with data, not a panel meeting and going, "People want it, sure, why not?" If they used real data, I haven't seen any reporting on it and I haven't found the actual report. Don't get me wrong, I love my Kindle & iPad and would love to not have to stop using them for takeoff and landing when a passenger. I just want to the decision to change to not impact safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
fordan posted:And a several of them are "And the passenger turned off the device and the problem went away." Or "the airplane traveled 50miles and the problem went away". That seems far more likely for radionavigation related ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:I assume it's just something they're saying automatically without thinking about it. I do that all the time. While training, I had numerous people try to explain wake turbulence to me like I never worked in a tower before or something. They seriously thought they knew what they were doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Coming soon to every young awestruck flight instructor's wrist, the Garmin D2: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/prod148289.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
atehist posted:Coming soon to every young awestruck flight instructor's wrist, the Garmin D2: But does it need to be powered off during takeoff, that's what the thread really wants to know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
atehist posted:Coming soon to every young awestruck flight instructor's wrist, the Garmin D2: I've already got mine on order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:I've already got mine on order. I ordered the IFR version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Redbird-To-End-1-Avgas-Two-Weeks-Early220707-1.html Who didn't see this coming? loving idiots, hahahaha. It only took a week for them to freak out and go oh jesus what did we do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Wow. What a lovely first flight today. After filling out the weight and balance we realized we were overweight. So we cut fuel to half tank and recomputed. Then the previous guy with the plane comes in and tell us we need to switch planes because the siphon tip has fallen into the tank. So now here I am waiting for another plane looking to fill out my third weight and balance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:I've already got mine on order. Sweet, let us know how it is? It looks a little bulky for my starving CFI arms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
Not sure whether I think it's cool or tacky. How many GPSs can one possibly need in the cockpit? OP change please  Thailand/Australia - ASEL/AMEL Commercial IR NVFR CFI SF34 - Airlines
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
Not all airplanes have GPS in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 15:05
|
|