Jump to content

Hwansey

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hwansey

  1. I have the privilege of many thousands of hours on the 767 as both FO and CPT. One of its unique features was that some of the variants I flew were altitude limited as opposed to thrust limited. That is, under some conditions, the engines would push the airframe past the altitude at which it could fly. I am pretty sure it is the only airliner to have had this level of performance. in the simulator it was possible to perform a v1 cut and then out climb the hill at Kai Tak (the old Hong Kong airport RWY 31) at 160 tons. MTOW was 172 360kg, but with the stroke of a pen this was changed to 185 150 kg for certain sectors. The Rolls Royce variants were horrible in comparison to both the GE and Pratts. They also suffered from oil vapours leaking into tjhe cabin. (Pressurisation was bleed air). Although slower than the jumbo, the 767 got to altitude much earlier. Derate was not used where wind shear was reported and at domestic sector weights the VSI would be jammed at the 6000’ per minute stop until well after passing 10000’. The aeroplane came from an era when the American manufacturers assumed a level of competence for aircrew candidates that was not always available.
  2. To all the long faces at Bankstown, get thee to Bathurst, join the aero club, and enjoy a very nice 172 for $280.00 per hour!
  3. I once had the privilege of operating large RPT aircraft. Sometimes into airports that were OCTA. B747, B767, and B737. Big aircraft fly 3 degree approach paths. Ie 300’ / nm. They also need track miles to slow down. B767 was roughly 1nm level flight, idle thrust to lose 10 knots. From 250 knots, a B767 would require around 15 track miles from 3000’ HAT. B737 would require around 13. Standard procedures, no speedbrake and flap/gear extensions at configuration speeds. B767 circuit. Downwind Flap 5 (around 170 knots), passing abeam the threshold, start the clock, turning base after 20 seconds, select gear down Flaps 20, at Gear down select landing flap, complete the landing checklist, turning final at around 800’ HAT, Vref30+5 (around 130 knots). Flying a visual circuit in a large Boeing is actually quite difficult because it was not practiced and the energy and inertia must be carefully managed. In my time on the B737, we would fly a GNS approach ideally, but at the end of the day we were required to operate by the rules. If there were aircraft in the circuit, we flew a circuit. We were required to assume that other aircraft had no awareness of the requirements or tracking for an instrument approach if the conditions at the field were such that aircraft were operating VFR in the vicinity. I respectfully submit that The propensity of RPT operators to waive standard circuit procedures loads those operators with the onus - not those aircraft that are operating within the rules that are applicable to them.
  4. The MEL (Minimum Equipment List) does allow for despatch with a wheel brake locked out. (I only have direct experience with Boeing, but assume similar dispatch is available on Airbus too). If my memory serves me correctly it was 5 mins with gear down on B767. In Qantas it was an MEL rarely used however because it invoked a second segment limitation that seriously impacted on the MTOW for despatch because the second segment had to shown to be flown with the gear down. I think it also may have been a category B MEL which meant it could be used for one flight day only.
  5. No. I am sorry but that is incorrect. The actual checklist is titled, “Engine Fire, Severe Damage, or Separation Non Normal Checklist”. The checklist has a number of recall items at the beginning and a number of reference items later in the list. There are no allowances for different configurations of damage for performance. There are some Non Normal Checklists that do impose some performance consideration (eg, some Hydraulic failure configurations). It makes little or no difference on a high bypass fan engine whether the fan is turning or not to the performance capability of a Boeing twin on single engine operation. The public can be rest assured that modern Boeing twin engined aircraft are not wanting for performance on one engine. For any who might be interested, CAO 20.7.1b gives all the regulatory performance requirements for Twin Engined Aircraft with a MTOW in excess of 5700kg.
  6. All modern twin engined Boeing jets have the capability of a single engine go around from at least a CATII minima (100’). I am not sure about early series B737. The B767 ( of which I was very familiar), could execute a single engine go around off a CATIIIA minima, 20’, where the aeroplane actually touches down and then takes off again. The B777 and B787 would not have quite the single engine performance of a B767, but they would have more advanced capability in terms of what they are actually certified for. I don’t actually know, but probably CATIIIC. There is no commit point for any of the 2 engined Boeings as they are all easily capable of single engined go arounds at their respective MTOWs let alone their respective MLWs. The definition of the performance capabilities required are stated in the relevant CAO. In the case of the GE powered B767, the aircraft was not thrust limited, but altitude limited. In other words, it had so much thrust, the engines could take to an altitude where the airframe would no longer fly. The commit point for a 2 engined landing on any of the B747 types operated by Qantas was at “gear down”. Procedurally on a 2 engined approach this was at 800’. The B747-400 could go around on 2 engines at MLW (287tons). There was no commit point for a 3 engine landing on any of the B747s. The issue now for the B777 is the apparent failure of the fire suppression system.
  7. >16,500 hrs B747-400, B747-200,300,SP. B767, B737, CMD INST, Aerobatics, TW, CS, Retractable, Ag Rating, Hull 140k. 5 mill liability No claims, no accidents, no incidents
  8. I was presented with an email this afternoon advising me that my aircraft hull and public liability insurance policy was due and that the new premium was a 24% increase over last years for exactly the same coverage and excess. Given the lockdowns and restrictions have affected my use, I have paid out $168/flying hour. The same usage over the next 12 months would equate to an hourly rate of $210 for insurance. Time for a rethink methinks.
  9. For home builders welding 1/8” or less, you can be confident in air cooling for 4130. https://www.millerwelds.com/resources/article-library/best-practices-for-tig-welding-of-4130-chrome-moly-tubing-in-general-motorsports-and-aerospace-applications
  10. The real question is whether or not compliance with a CASA issued safety notice is obligatory or simply recommended. The document provides ample amounts of ambiguity. Either way a disaster for owners and the importer. Who in their right mind would buy one with this blot on the copybook?
  11. I believe it was the Nat’s own John Anderson who ceded all responsibility from the Feds to the local councils for nearly all Australian regional and rural airports in order to save the Feds from the running costs.
  12. In answer to my own question - 12 working days.
  13. Lodged all paperwork by email as instructed by helpful lady at Ra Aus 28/9/2018. Confirmed by phone on the 5/10 that paperwork was indeed lodged on 28/9. Still no permit. How long does this usually take?
  14. Perhaps this might explain some of the mystery of weather delays for Sydney when the wind is blowing from the West and the sky is clear: The use of Runway 25 significantly reduces Sydney airport capacity. The airport, in this configuration, has only one runway operational - not the usual parallel runway ops on 16LR and 34LR. Because of the layout of the airport, processing RWY 25 ops are further hampered by the fact that the terminals are to the North of the runway and traffic vacating to the left must now cross the active runway to access them. Traffic vacating 25 to the right have a parallel taxiway system, but the taxiway area serves the international Southern and, sometimes, Eastern aprons. Any stuff up or delay in taxi by an outbound will further hamper taxiway flows. Melbourne has an entirely different system. Both runways are often used at once. Generally 27 for departures and 16 for arrivals given Melbourne prevailing wind flows. The outlay of the airport taxiway and terminal systems make this system work well. Melbourne delays occur when the sun is shining and the wind is howling from the North. One runway again (34), but the access to the terminals is better than Sydney hence the lesser impact on traffic flows. Hope this helps.
  15. Hello frustrated Jetstar passengers, try this: Rich Wisken Writes: Dear Jetstar... It will help pass the time while you wait!
  16. Hello Joerow. I recently retired from an airline career due medical. Went through same musings as yours. RA certificate fine by me. Started aerial mustering in 1981, bush flying till 1987. Joined QF 1988. Spent rest of aviation lifetime in CTA, cloud and back of clock flying. Very grateful to be able to return to beginnings. Re your aircraft musings, mine were similar and I decided on the Hornet.
  17. The aircraft is a Jetstar A320. Check the letterhead at around 1.48 - 1.50. Having said that, the baggage staff may well have been legitimately searching for something and do appear to be referring to letterheaded paperwork. Such things could be medication or travel documents that were inadvertently packed by the passenger and not kept out for transit. Medications are often packed and not deemed necessary by pax until the aircraft becomes delayed. I find it hard to believe that petty pilfering would have been filmed. Thieves tend be smarter than the average bear in my experience.
  18. So does all that mean that retract, >120mph, factory build is 24? ie Alpi, Bristell RG etc.
×
×
  • Create New...