Ask a Pilot anything....
Discussion
VansDriver said:
Its fairly easy to switch sides although most people (including me) tend to prefer to fly with their right hand. On my Airbus fleet the Captain and Copilot can fly in either seat so we get practice flying with both hands, however, its not a difficult aircraft to fly manually. When flying in "normal law", its flying, but not as we know it Jim- the aircraft holds bank and auto trims in pitch so when flying manually it only really feels like you are gently "nudging" it around the sky rather than actively flying it as with a more traditional aircraft. Strong crosswind landings can be tricky to do well though. (Its brilliant by the way- a great system).
That looks like an A330 cockpit which I don't fly, so I'm only guessing but I think the wheels are the pitch trim.
Hmmm me thinks you ain't a real pilot but work in the tie rack at Manchester airport...That looks like an A330 cockpit which I don't fly, so I'm only guessing but I think the wheels are the pitch trim.
Chuck328 said:
VansDriver said:
Its fairly easy to switch sides although most people (including me) tend to prefer to fly with their right hand. On my Airbus fleet the Captain and Copilot can fly in either seat so we get practice flying with both hands, however, its not a difficult aircraft to fly manually. When flying in "normal law", its flying, but not as we know it Jim- the aircraft holds bank and auto trims in pitch so when flying manually it only really feels like you are gently "nudging" it around the sky rather than actively flying it as with a more traditional aircraft. Strong crosswind landings can be tricky to do well though. (Its brilliant by the way- a great system).
That looks like an A330 cockpit which I don't fly, so I'm only guessing but I think the wheels are the pitch trim.
You routinely fly in either seat? As in long haul cruise pilot style? That looks like an A330 cockpit which I don't fly, so I'm only guessing but I think the wheels are the pitch trim.
That pic is an A320. If you fly those you will know exactly what that wheel is.
( It is the pitch trim)
Chuck328 said:
Ah ok that makes sense,
Interesting. What's that like to fly? Am i right in believing you have a much more generous flight protection envelope that us civvies?
Well I’ve never flown any other type of Airbus but in my opinion, its brilliant (when it works, but thats getting better steadily). Fast for a turboprop, very manoeuvrable, really good autopilot and the amount of SA the cockpit gives you is mind boggling. The ECAM system is great too. I haven't taken any brown envolopes from Airbus honest.. I just like it :-)Interesting. What's that like to fly? Am i right in believing you have a much more generous flight protection envelope that us civvies?
In terms of the protections I don’t really know how they compare but for a start we can pitch to +/- 60 degrees and roll to 120 degrees in normal law?
The big wheels in the centre of the that pic that of the a320 are the pitch trim wheels. You only normally use them to set the pitch trim for take off which is calculated from a mass&balance program for every take off. In a normal line flight when airborne you don't usually touch them unless your having a really bad day and are landing in a degraded flight law (direct law). This would only result from multiple failures.
Yes you can plan for things not just before you set off before flight but also in flight. For example if you get told of a pax who is feeling very I'll then maybe best to get diversion weather's see what's closest, look at the approaches etc. This means when you might get a call from the cabin saying they need to divert you are all ready to go and have already discussed your options. Saying that some events you can't always plan for i.e pax gets up to go to loo on final approach meaning you need to go around then on your next approach weather unexpectedly drops to low vis and wind goes right onto crosswind limit for autoland (as happen to me once).
On the 2000hr debate. Ask Mr O Leary about working hours. In his book the briefing time/turnaround time doesn't count as work!!
Yes you can plan for things not just before you set off before flight but also in flight. For example if you get told of a pax who is feeling very I'll then maybe best to get diversion weather's see what's closest, look at the approaches etc. This means when you might get a call from the cabin saying they need to divert you are all ready to go and have already discussed your options. Saying that some events you can't always plan for i.e pax gets up to go to loo on final approach meaning you need to go around then on your next approach weather unexpectedly drops to low vis and wind goes right onto crosswind limit for autoland (as happen to me once).
On the 2000hr debate. Ask Mr O Leary about working hours. In his book the briefing time/turnaround time doesn't count as work!!
Chris Type R said:
IforB said:
As for calling them pax, that’s standard shorthand for anyone in the airline industry. Not just pilots.
I've heard the term 'souls' used as well by a commercial pilot.Are pilots typically employed on a PAYE basis ? I've heard of pilots working for a low cost airline working through tax-efficient wrappers / using non-dom status etc - but not sure how true this assertion was.
The long termers use their own vehicles, so UK Ltd's or off shores are all the rage. The newer engagements are forced via Umbrellas run out of Dublin.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Normally I don't respond to Trolls because I CBA with their stupidity, but you rather take the biscuit old chap. Aparently, you are somewhat hard of thinking.
Secondly, where did I ever state I never made it past 2000+ hrs? I can only assume that:
a. You can't read.
b. English is not your first language.
c. You lack any comprehension skills.
Explain to me then how you understand that I have a mere 2000 hrs
If you had bothered to read my post you would have understood that I wrote:
"As a 2000+ hr Multi-Engine QFI / IRE we will have to agree to disagree then."
You will note that I said "As a 2000+ hr Multi-Engine QFI / IRE". I did not write: As a 2000+ pilot." Nor did I write: "As a Multi-Engine QFI / IRE with2000+ hrs,"
What I wrote indicates I have 2000+ hrs as a QFI / IRE over and above my other Service Flying. Ie 2000+ hrs actually instructing Student Pilots.
hole like you on my a/c. In fact, I'd throw you off.
Now, the last time I looked multi-engined a/c in the RAF didn't carry weapons (save for the Nimrod) so why would they have QWIs? Oh, and BTW, the Nimrod force didn't have QWI's neither.
I'm rapidly of the opinion that you are a feckin' eejit.
GG15, as a long time viewer your post made me want to get involved so here is post 1. TVR1 said:
You see GG15, some but not all understand what you are talking about.
Apparently not you it seems.TVR1 said:
Your problem as always been jumping in and dismissing everyone else for their opinions.
Please explain where I did that. If I recall I stated "we will have to agree to disagree then. Sorry..."TVR1 said:
Yes, perhaps you were/are a good Flying instructor and instrument instructor. Good luck.
Quite frankly I don't need your validation of my skillset TYVM. There's no 'good luck' about it, I hold a CFS (Central Flying School) A2 Category. I'm sure you can google that wee lad. Failing that, I am sure Mr Madness60 will be pleased to explain it to you.TVR1 said:
BUT. You're attitude stinks. I'm not surprised you didn't make it past 2000+hours. As that's a pretty poor number of hours to have in your career, as you say it, on PH.
Firstly you might want to go and look in the mirror wee lad. When you are done doing that, try opening the Oxford English Dictionary and read the definition of 'Hypocrite'. Secondly, where did I ever state I never made it past 2000+ hrs? I can only assume that:
a. You can't read.
b. English is not your first language.
c. You lack any comprehension skills.
Explain to me then how you understand that I have a mere 2000 hrs
If you had bothered to read my post you would have understood that I wrote:
"As a 2000+ hr Multi-Engine QFI / IRE we will have to agree to disagree then."
You will note that I said "As a 2000+ hr Multi-Engine QFI / IRE". I did not write: As a 2000+ pilot." Nor did I write: "As a Multi-Engine QFI / IRE with2000+ hrs,"
What I wrote indicates I have 2000+ hrs as a QFI / IRE over and above my other Service Flying. Ie 2000+ hrs actually instructing Student Pilots.
TVR1 said:
I wouldn't want to be flying with you.
That's fine, I wouldn't want an ahole like you on my a/c. In fact, I'd throw you off.TVR1 said:
Didn't make QWI/Aircraft then? As usually, that's what should follow...
WTF is that supposed to mean? You will note from my post that I said: "As a 2000+ hr Multi-Engine QFI / IRE "Now, the last time I looked multi-engined a/c in the RAF didn't carry weapons (save for the Nimrod) so why would they have QWIs? Oh, and BTW, the Nimrod force didn't have QWI's neither.
TVR1 said:
447 however, was a tradgedy.
Indeed it was, and one that could have been avoided had the crew had some basic handling techniques.TVR1 said:
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you're a BENGO Mitty.
Did you just call me a 'Baby Engineering Officer'? I'm rapidly of the opinion that you are a feckin' eejit.
Willy Nilly said:
I can't believe that 2,000 hours is considered particularly experienced in anything much.
Which shows you know Jack about military flying.TVR1 said:
Agreed.
Won't be seeing GG on this thread again, I'm sure.
How wrong can you be? That said, given your previous drivel thats not really surprising is it wee lad?Won't be seeing GG on this thread again, I'm sure.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Tuesday 2nd January 07:17
I feel you are portraying the incorrect attitude of a military avaiator. I understand that not everyone knows what and how we do it but that doesn’t mean we have to scream at them.
To balance the argument abit, instead of sitting on your high horse, why not give everyone the full story.
As a Multi Engine Pilot you obviously didn’t shine during flying training, average at very best. Otherwise you would have been Rotary or Fast Jet.
Whilst you shun people for saying QWI, the multi stream have there own Tactics Instructor course (QMETI, I believe.) this would run parallel to the QWI course and finish with a combined exercise with the QWIs. So for guys out there, the multi engine fleet do have a QWI equivalent if they make it.
That’s my 2p worth.
Trump card 2800+ hours fast jet/A2 QFI/ IRE/QWI
Happy to take spears....
Godsavethequeen said:
I feel you are portraying the incorrect attitude of a military avaiator. I understand that not everyone knows what and how we do it but that doesn’t mean we have to scream at them.
I'm not screaming at anyone, I was refuting a personal attack made upon me by TVR1.Godsavethequeen said:
To balance the argument abit, instead of sitting on your high horse, why not give everyone the full story.
As a Multi Engine Pilot you obviously didn’t shine during flying training, average at very best. Otherwise you would have been Rotary or Fast Jet.
When I went through the system we weren't allowed the Fast Jet option. For a number of reasons (none of them pertinent here) I didn't want rotary. As a Multi Engine Pilot you obviously didn’t shine during flying training, average at very best. Otherwise you would have been Rotary or Fast Jet.
Godsavethequeen said:
Whilst you shun people for saying QWI, the multi stream have there own Tactics Instructor course (QMETI, I believe.) this would run parallel to the QWI course and finish with a combined exercise with the QWIs. So for guys out there, the multi engine fleet do have a QWI equivalent if they make it.
I'm not shunning QWIs or even people who reference them. TVR1 tried to use the fact that I am not a QWI as some sort of comment upon my ability. In my day QWIs did not exist in the ME world and QMETI (or whatever it may be called) had not been invented.Godsavethequeen said:
GG15, as a long time viewer your post made me want to get involved so here is post 1.
I feel you are portraying the incorrect attitude of a military avaiator. I understand that not everyone knows what and how we do it but that doesn’t mean we have to scream at them.
To balance the argument abit, instead of sitting on your high horse, why not give everyone the full story.
As a Multi Engine Pilot you obviously didn’t shine during flying training, average at very best. Otherwise you would have been Rotary or Fast Jet.
Whilst you shun people for saying QWI, the multi stream have there own Tactics Instructor course (QMETI, I believe.) this would run parallel to the QWI course and finish with a combined exercise with the QWIs. So for guys out there, the multi engine fleet do have a QWI equivalent if they make it.
That’s my 2p worth.
Trump card 2800+ hours fast jet/A2 QFI/ IRE/QWI
Happy to take spears....
You can't possibly think that was a constructive post?I feel you are portraying the incorrect attitude of a military avaiator. I understand that not everyone knows what and how we do it but that doesn’t mean we have to scream at them.
To balance the argument abit, instead of sitting on your high horse, why not give everyone the full story.
As a Multi Engine Pilot you obviously didn’t shine during flying training, average at very best. Otherwise you would have been Rotary or Fast Jet.
Whilst you shun people for saying QWI, the multi stream have there own Tactics Instructor course (QMETI, I believe.) this would run parallel to the QWI course and finish with a combined exercise with the QWIs. So for guys out there, the multi engine fleet do have a QWI equivalent if they make it.
That’s my 2p worth.
Trump card 2800+ hours fast jet/A2 QFI/ IRE/QWI
Happy to take spears....
Willy Nilly said:
IforB said:
How on earth can doing that many hours be remotely safe? In any airline with a proper FRMS (Fatigue Risk Management System) ((All of them)) then you never be allowed anywhere near that sort of silly hours and be allowed to operate.
It just isn’t safe to be operating any kind of machinery for that amount of time in such a short period.
Compare to others in my industry I don't do many hours. How does 118 hours in a week grab you? That's what a combine driver did last harvest according to his boss on line. It just isn’t safe to be operating any kind of machinery for that amount of time in such a short period.
I still can't see how 2000 hours doing anything, be it flying or what ever can be considered particularly experienced and 2-300 hours a year is next to bugger all.
I will also be blunt and say that if you or one of your colleagues had an accident and someone was hurt, with that sort of hours in a week done, then the HSE would nail your knackers to the wall. It doesn't matter what the industry or the task. Doing that is simply daft and contrary to any sensible safe practice of work.
Willy Nilly said:
Compare to others in my industry I don't do many hours. How does 118 hours in a week grab you? That's what a combine driver did last harvest according to his boss on line.
I still can't see how 2000 hours doing anything, be it flying or what ever can be considered particularly experienced and 2-300 hours a year is next to bugger all.
It would be, for many things, if you think about it.I still can't see how 2000 hours doing anything, be it flying or what ever can be considered particularly experienced and 2-300 hours a year is next to bugger all.
I do a bit of rock climbing. Say I went 3 times a week for 10 years; I might have done it for between 1000 and 1500 hours, of which a third of that might be me actually climbing, the rest would be belaying, preparing etc. I'd be considered pretty experienced by then. Plenty enough to be a commercial instructor. If one had 2000 hours actually climbing, you'd be in the top few percent in terms of experience.
Another thing I do, more related to the thread, though very much at the bottom of the pile, is fly paragliders. I managed just over 50 hours this year which is considered decent for someone with a full time job. Over 250 in a year is considered a lot. Top class, full-time international competitors will make several hundred in a year.
There are many other examples such as boxing. How much time is actually spent in the ring vs general fitness / speed / strength / form training ? Not much.
CrutyRammers said:
Godsavethequeen said:
GG15, as a long time viewer your post made me want to get involved so here is post 1.
I feel you are portraying the incorrect attitude of a military avaiator. I understand that not everyone knows what and how we do it but that doesn’t mean we have to scream at them.
To balance the argument abit, instead of sitting on your high horse, why not give everyone the full story.
As a Multi Engine Pilot you obviously didn’t shine during flying training, average at very best. Otherwise you would have been Rotary or Fast Jet.
Whilst you shun people for saying QWI, the multi stream have there own Tactics Instructor course (QMETI, I believe.) this would run parallel to the QWI course and finish with a combined exercise with the QWIs. So for guys out there, the multi engine fleet do have a QWI equivalent if they make it.
That’s my 2p worth.
Trump card 2800+ hours fast jet/A2 QFI/ IRE/QWI
Happy to take spears....
You can't possibly think that was a constructive post?I feel you are portraying the incorrect attitude of a military avaiator. I understand that not everyone knows what and how we do it but that doesn’t mean we have to scream at them.
To balance the argument abit, instead of sitting on your high horse, why not give everyone the full story.
As a Multi Engine Pilot you obviously didn’t shine during flying training, average at very best. Otherwise you would have been Rotary or Fast Jet.
Whilst you shun people for saying QWI, the multi stream have there own Tactics Instructor course (QMETI, I believe.) this would run parallel to the QWI course and finish with a combined exercise with the QWIs. So for guys out there, the multi engine fleet do have a QWI equivalent if they make it.
That’s my 2p worth.
Trump card 2800+ hours fast jet/A2 QFI/ IRE/QWI
Happy to take spears....
But I do wish she'd lay off the italics.
Ayahuasca said:
I enjoy GG's posts; her knowledge, italics, acronyms, references to wee laddies etc, all add character to PH. And to be fair her put-downs are usually aimed at well deserving targets.
+1Also, I'd guess that the whole military flying edifice was fairly anti the lumpy jumper brigade during her time (and probably still is, I guess) so makes her achievements as a female more impressive and her sharp elbows more understandable.
Ayahuasca said:
I enjoy GG's posts; her knowledge, italics, acronyms, references to wee laddies etc, all add character to PH. And to be fair her put-downs are usually aimed at well deserving targets.
Ditto. I sometimes wonder if she and Pumaracing (as was) from the engine forum are related. Both exude knowledge and are very helpful if approached in the right way, but with an entertainingly "spiky" manner if not. Either way, they are amongst the more valued posters IMO.Maybe pilots used to be engine builders in a past life? Or vice-versa.
Its sort of been covered but I'm going to ask it a different way.
When I had a lot more free time (University Cough Cough) I played MS Flight Sim quite a lot. My dad had a PPL and always encouraged me to fly realistically so I answered radio calls, followed tower instructions and used the virtual dash to set autopilot, start engines correctly, monitor fuel balance and all the rest of it. I also landed and flew using just the instruments etc. I also have a few hrs instruction in gliders and exactly 1hr in small aircraft.
In the unlikely (hopefully) event both pilots were incapacitated on a flight, should I volunteer to attempt to land the aircraft (in the event of no more experienced people being on board.) I recon I would have half a fighting chance with help from the ground to land it given that I know the principles of flying etc.
When I had a lot more free time (University Cough Cough) I played MS Flight Sim quite a lot. My dad had a PPL and always encouraged me to fly realistically so I answered radio calls, followed tower instructions and used the virtual dash to set autopilot, start engines correctly, monitor fuel balance and all the rest of it. I also landed and flew using just the instruments etc. I also have a few hrs instruction in gliders and exactly 1hr in small aircraft.
In the unlikely (hopefully) event both pilots were incapacitated on a flight, should I volunteer to attempt to land the aircraft (in the event of no more experienced people being on board.) I recon I would have half a fighting chance with help from the ground to land it given that I know the principles of flying etc.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff