Ask a Pilot anything....
Discussion
Testaburger said:
The mechanics of it look about right, but those numbers look off to me (although I've never flown a 380).
But, assuming a 300 seat 777-300ER;
Over a 12 hour long haul, it averages about 12.5kg per ground nautical mile. Call it 10.7kg/statute mile. That's 2.35 imperial gallons.
So, per head, 0.0079 gallons, per mile, per head.
On top of the 300 folks and their luggage (which in my experience tends to weigh in at around 25T), it would be able to carry somewhere in the region of 30 tonnes additional freight on a 12 hour flight.
For the A350, you can decrease the fuel burn by 25% or so.
I'm sure the A380's figures are approx at best (just the first hit when googling "A380 fuel consumption."), and they're probably US gallons too, which would make a difference. Real numbers like yours are much more useful.But, assuming a 300 seat 777-300ER;
Over a 12 hour long haul, it averages about 12.5kg per ground nautical mile. Call it 10.7kg/statute mile. That's 2.35 imperial gallons.
So, per head, 0.0079 gallons, per mile, per head.
On top of the 300 folks and their luggage (which in my experience tends to weigh in at around 25T), it would be able to carry somewhere in the region of 30 tonnes additional freight on a 12 hour flight.
For the A350, you can decrease the fuel burn by 25% or so.
uncinqsix said:
I'm sure the A380's figures are approx at best (just the first hit when googling "A380 fuel consumption."), and they're probably US gallons too, which would make a difference. Real numbers like yours are much more useful.
I suspect you're right. My mob don't have 380's so I can't check those. Happy to provide equivalent figures for 330/350/747. I’m currently sat at Heathrow and looking out at the 747’s parked at the B gates around the base of the rudder and over the tail they’re covered in an inordinate amount of grime. Is this just where the exhaust from the APU has covered them in greasy sooty muck or do pigeons have a thing for 747 tails?
Testaburger said:
uncinqsix said:
I'm sure the A380's figures are approx at best (just the first hit when googling "A380 fuel consumption."), and they're probably US gallons too, which would make a difference. Real numbers like yours are much more useful.
I suspect you're right. My mob don't have 380's so I can't check those. Happy to provide equivalent figures for 330/350/747. I do remember we were looking at some of the SA A380s going to a company to use them solely for ‘Mecca’ pilgrims from Indonesia / Malaysia !
How are you finding the A350? I am moving back to that programme next month and potential ‘new’ A380 plus ... which I am really looking forward too!
Testaburger said:
Absolute rubbish.
Most big airlines have a combination of owned and leased aircraft. Buying obviously procures some working capital for a fixed price, and leasing gives flexibility at a slight cost. Often aircraft will be leased to an airline, from a leasing company owned by the airline's parent company or similar. All part of the money merry-go-round.
Some airlines (Ryanair, for example) choose to own most of their fleet at one end of the spectrum; Virgin America historically has a high proportion of leased jets. Some airlines have a model of bulk-buying, then conducting a sale & lease back (indigo are well known for this). Allegiant have historically capitalised on buying lots of used jets at bargain basement prices. Every possible permutation is out there.
Also, frequently, aircraft may be owned, and their engines leased.
As for price - airlines don't tend to pay list price. They get bulk order discounts, discounts based on their relationship/brand loyalty to the manufacturer, etc.
Jets like the A380 and 747-8i can barely be given away, whereas the A350/787 with healthy order books will command stronger prices.
The price paid is always a closely guarded secret.
Most big airlines have a combination of owned and leased aircraft. Buying obviously procures some working capital for a fixed price, and leasing gives flexibility at a slight cost. Often aircraft will be leased to an airline, from a leasing company owned by the airline's parent company or similar. All part of the money merry-go-round.
Some airlines (Ryanair, for example) choose to own most of their fleet at one end of the spectrum; Virgin America historically has a high proportion of leased jets. Some airlines have a model of bulk-buying, then conducting a sale & lease back (indigo are well known for this). Allegiant have historically capitalised on buying lots of used jets at bargain basement prices. Every possible permutation is out there.
Also, frequently, aircraft may be owned, and their engines leased.
As for price - airlines don't tend to pay list price. They get bulk order discounts, discounts based on their relationship/brand loyalty to the manufacturer, etc.
Jets like the A380 and 747-8i can barely be given away, whereas the A350/787 with healthy order books will command stronger prices.
The price paid is always a closely guarded secret.
I sat between two chaps at one of the Autumn Internationals last year. One of them owned eight aircraft and leased them back to one (or more) of the major airline companies, the other lent him the money to buy them in the first place!
Definitely turned the wrong way out of the school gates, me.
Lord.Vader said:
How are you finding the A350? I am moving back to that programme next month and potential ‘new’ A380 plus ... which I am really looking forward too!
It really is phenomenal. To me, it seems like AB's epiphany moment - a fresh, clean new generation. Much like the 777 was in the 90's. The user interface is hugely impressive now - a point which I'd always credited Boeing as better (subjective, of course).
The flight deck itself is without doubt the most pleasant one in the industry. It's quiet, hugely spacious, ergonomic, comfortable, clear, no noticeable moving air etc.
Most importantly to me - rosters/lifestyle: the A350, being designed with the 12 hour sector length to slightly smaller markets; is made for my perfect roster construction! Infrequent destinations mean nice long layovers (very gentlemanly!) and secures me plenty of time off. In contrast to the 777 - or at least how we operated it; hugely long flights (13-16 hours) to mega-markets like NY, London, LA, etc. Which were served many times a day by us - so usually short layovers because there were scheduling options available to the grinches. Still, I got more days off.
Both were great - in contrast to, say, an A330, steadfast & competent workhorse she is; its designed literally to create s
t rosters! Those medium haul 8-9 hour hops in which it still excels, which are tiring enough, don't trigger decent layovers, nor do they trigger decent rest periods when you get home! My only (again, subjective) criticism of the 350, in which I can unequivocally state my preference to Boeing, is the control logic. Yes, it's very clever, and protective etc, but it doesn't feel like a large, high performance jet. I don't like that half back stick feels the same at 40,000 at M0.85 as at 150kts on approach.
All told though, I'm hugely impressed.
If you don't mind me asking - in what capacity are you involved with Airbus?
Testaburger said:
Lord.Vader said:
How are you finding the A350? I am moving back to that programme next month and potential ‘new’ A380 plus ... which I am really looking forward too!
It really is phenomenal. To me, it seems like AB's epiphany moment - a fresh, clean new generation. Much like the 777 was in the 90's. The user interface is hugely impressive now - a point which I'd always credited Boeing as better (subjective, of course).
The flight deck itself is without doubt the most pleasant one in the industry. It's quiet, hugely spacious, ergonomic, comfortable, clear, no noticeable moving air etc.
Most importantly to me - rosters/lifestyle: the A350, being designed with the 12 hour sector length to slightly smaller markets; is made for my perfect roster construction! Infrequent destinations mean nice long layovers (very gentlemanly!) and secures me plenty of time off. In contrast to the 777 - or at least how we operated it; hugely long flights (13-16 hours) to mega-markets like NY, London, LA, etc. Which were served many times a day by us - so usually short layovers because there were scheduling options available to the grinches. Still, I got more days off.
Both were great - in contrast to, say, an A330, steadfast & competent workhorse she is; its designed literally to create s
t rosters! Those medium haul 8-9 hour hops in which it still excels, which are tiring enough, don't trigger decent layovers, nor do they trigger decent rest periods when you get home! My only (again, subjective) criticism of the 350, in which I can unequivocally state my preference to Boeing, is the control logic. Yes, it's very clever, and protective etc, but it doesn't feel like a large, high performance jet. I don't like that half back stick feels the same at 40,000 at M0.85 as at 150kts on approach.
All told though, I'm hugely impressed.
If you don't mind me asking - in what capacity are you involved with Airbus?
It is nice to hear good feedback
I do really like the 350 and it seems to be a true "next-gen" platform!Nothing technical, really, mainly industrialisation / Procurement / supply chain development, so I spend a lot of time in the different suppliers early in the (external) manufacturing process then deal with the inevitable integration / assy issues (not me personally but the "organisation"). Currently doing this for Military and Space programmes and moving back to commercial, I have a real soft spot for the A380 having spent my apprenticeship in many a wing
It can be an interesting job; I always wanted to be a pilot though!
Do any pilots have any awareness or knowledge of something called "flight termination system"?
It was referred to in an aviation related documentary I listened to. It was said that upon activation the transponder became redundant as the FLS operated on the same frequency. Is it all bs or true?
Thank you
It was referred to in an aviation related documentary I listened to. It was said that upon activation the transponder became redundant as the FLS operated on the same frequency. Is it all bs or true?
Thank you
phil squares said:
Flight Termination System is a destruct system used on Missiles and drones. Controlled by the range safety officer. So, can't really get the piont of the transponder since there would be tons of other data.
Doesn't have anything to do with commercial aircraft.
Hmm interesting, it was stated that the system was offered to US commercial carriers with the purpose of giving the option to safely take control of a hijacked passenger airplane, remotely landing it. Doesn't have anything to do with commercial aircraft.
I ask as I'd never heard of it before. It was a retired flight attendant giving a talk regarding her theory about 9/11. It's the first time I've listened to one in a very long time. Cheers for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.
Suppose you found that hijackers were about to access the flight deck for a 9/11 scenario and you didn't have time to ditch at sea or land in a field before they got control.
Could you create a situation they couldn't reverse or would be unlikely to know how to deal with? EG Jettison all the fuel, switch all the engines off? Something that would prevent them reaching the target and leave a potentially survivable situation?
Could you create a situation they couldn't reverse or would be unlikely to know how to deal with? EG Jettison all the fuel, switch all the engines off? Something that would prevent them reaching the target and leave a potentially survivable situation?
Pacman1978 said:
phil squares said:
Flight Termination System is a destruct system used on Missiles and drones. Controlled by the range safety officer. So, can't really get the piont of the transponder since there would be tons of other data.
Doesn't have anything to do with commercial aircraft.
Hmm interesting, it was stated that the system was offered to US commercial carriers with the purpose of giving the option to safely take control of a hijacked passenger airplane, remotely landing it. Doesn't have anything to do with commercial aircraft.
I ask as I'd never heard of it before. It was a retired flight attendant giving a talk regarding her theory about 9/11. It's the first time I've listened to one in a very long time. Cheers for taking the time to reply, much appreciated.
Dr Jekyll said:
Suppose you found that hijackers were about to access the flight deck for a 9/11 scenario and you didn't have time to ditch at sea or land in a field before they got control.
Could you create a situation they couldn't reverse or would be unlikely to know how to deal with? EG Jettison all the fuel, switch all the engines off? Something that would prevent them reaching the target and leave a potentially survivable situation?
Unless someone is going to overpower them and prevent them from getting control of the flight deck, you will be at their mercy. Could you create a situation they couldn't reverse or would be unlikely to know how to deal with? EG Jettison all the fuel, switch all the engines off? Something that would prevent them reaching the target and leave a potentially survivable situation?
"Jettison all the fuel, switch all the engines off" will inevitably mean a smoking hole in the ground somewhere. Jettison the fuel isn't an option for many aircraft, and isn't instantaneous. And sure how would you know their intention was do something suicidal 9/11 style or crash the aircraft...maybe they just want the aircraft flown somewhere and make some political demands? You'd look like a right dick if you said sorry lads, no fuel left, so there'll be no parking up at Stanstead & waiting for the SAS for you...
At best you might be able to get into a dive once they were out of their seats, hopefully seriously injuriously to them, and get on the ground pronto.
Post 9/11 they are hopefully unlikely to get into the flight deck anyway.
Edited by JuniorD on Friday 13th April 10:32
TheRainMaker said:
Are any airlines actively looking at Pilotless aircraft?
I know the tech is nearly there but I just can’t see passengers would ever be that happy about it (including me).
Airlines aren’t looking at them as they don’t exist. Boeing have just made the B787 and airbus the A350 and the next generation won’t be pilotless either so it’s a long way away still. I know the tech is nearly there but I just can’t see passengers would ever be that happy about it (including me).
There are definate benefits in military aircraft with weight savings and aircraft design and avoiding pilots being killed or captured etc but in an airline there is just the cost of the pilots and possibly in the future increased safety if it turns out the automated aircraft ends up safer than the human piloted one.
El stovey said:
Airlines aren’t looking at them as they don’t exist. Boeing have just made the B787 and airbus the A350 and the next generation won’t be pilotless either so it’s a long way away still.
There are definate benefits in military aircraft with weight savings and aircraft design and avoiding pilots being killed or captured etc but in an airline there is just the cost of the pilots and possibly in the future increased safety if it turns out the automated aircraft ends up safer than the human piloted one.
I understood that airlines are reluctant to consider this because they believe (and damn right) that passengers want to see a human up front who wants to make it back alive as much as they do. There are definate benefits in military aircraft with weight savings and aircraft design and avoiding pilots being killed or captured etc but in an airline there is just the cost of the pilots and possibly in the future increased safety if it turns out the automated aircraft ends up safer than the human piloted one.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff