blue streak 1 Backshop Here's a little tidbit. Goarounds are a little easier in a prop job than a turbofan. In a prop, as soon as you shove the throttles home, the blades start biting the air. A jet at idle has to "spool up". It may only take a second or two, but at that level with a sinkrate, it's "fun". That's why they pull up the landing gear immediately. Less drag. Not necessarily so. On a an approach to airport with all flaps and gear out engines are already spooled up some. Just depends on the model of engine. JT*s yes spool yp may take 8 - 10 seconds. Some of the high bypass engines almost 1 - 3 seconds.
Backshop Here's a little tidbit. Goarounds are a little easier in a prop job than a turbofan. In a prop, as soon as you shove the throttles home, the blades start biting the air. A jet at idle has to "spool up". It may only take a second or two, but at that level with a sinkrate, it's "fun". That's why they pull up the landing gear immediately. Less drag.
Here's a little tidbit. Goarounds are a little easier in a prop job than a turbofan. In a prop, as soon as you shove the throttles home, the blades start biting the air. A jet at idle has to "spool up". It may only take a second or two, but at that level with a sinkrate, it's "fun". That's why they pull up the landing gear immediately. Less drag.
Not necessarily so. On a an approach to airport with all flaps and gear out engines are already spooled up some. Just depends on the model of engine. JT*s yes spool yp may take 8 - 10 seconds. Some of the high bypass engines almost 1 - 3 seconds.
JPS1I read in one of the Airbus manuals that the engines spool up automatically when the flaps are set at 20 degrees. I cannot remember which model(s). This fits with my understanding of how much computers have taken over some of the cockpit workload.
How does this differ from 'approach idle' pursuant to the 8-second cert requirement of 14CFR25.119? And its implementation in FADEC applies to other manufacturers and engines, not just Airbus.
I'd expect a commanded increase in engine power when the flaps are extended, to preserve 'commanded' thrust with the resulting increase in drag, but that's just like anticipated response in a PID controller. (Personally I'd disagree with that as an 'automatic' response without warning ... but I am no more a heavy multiengine pilot than I am an engineer)
I read in one of the Airbus manuals that the engines spool up automatically when the flaps are set at 20 degrees. I cannot remember which model(s). This fits with my understanding of how much computers have taken over some of the cockpit workload.
In another post you mentioned that United was landing at Atlanta without using the brakes. I understand approximately 80 percent of the stopping ability of a large airplane comes from the brakes, with the remaining 20 percent attributable to redirected thrust. If this is true, they must have chewed up a lot of runway before being able to turnoff.
blue streak 1 There were a spike of go arounds at ATL airport in the late 1970s It was due to United airlines not using any brakes thereby staying on the runway longer. Unconfirmed reports that UAL had a temporary shortage of brakes. We soon gave UAL planes a little more separation when following them to ATL airport.
There were a spike of go arounds at ATL airport in the late 1970s It was due to United airlines not using any brakes thereby staying on the runway longer. Unconfirmed reports that UAL had a temporary shortage of brakes. We soon gave UAL planes a little more separation when following them to ATL airport.
Sounds like something Frank Borman would have done as SOP.
blue streak 1There were a spike of go arounds at ATL airport in the late 1970s It was due to United airlines not using any brakes thereby staying on the runway longer. Unconfirmed reports that UAL had a temporary shortage of brakes. We soon gave UAL planes a little more separation when following them to ATL airport.
Remember flying into Atlanta on a flight from Daytona Beach in the late 1970's. Low cloud ceiling in the Atlanta area. My flight broke out of the clouds and a couple of hundred yards to my right is another plane. We fly along parallel to each other for a period of time - I am expecting one or the other of us to turn and then the other will follow - NOPE!. Next thing you know we both are touching down on the parallel runways.
Another time in the middle 80's was flying Eastern from Baltimore to Jacksonville. On Time into Atlanta. Board the connecting flight for a On Time departure - then we are instructed to return to the airport waiting area. The ATC system crashed and lost every planes flight plans out of Atlanta. Six hours later we were reboarded and took our place in the 'conga line' from the terminal to the end of the runway for take off. On 'our' runway I counted 51 planes from our departure terminal to the end of the runway as we took out takeoff roll. One could see over to the other runway and they had a similar back up.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BackshopIt's amazing how the national news media covers up all those midair collisions.
Some are on you tube.....lol
Also I know because Verizon used to be in the Braniff HQ at DFW, they have a place at DFW called "Founders Square". It is for airport fans. You can park your car on the airfield and watch the planes taxi and takeoff and they have an audio system where you can listen in to the ATC as well as the ground traffic control. It is pretty nice they have a shelter and picnic tables and it was pretty well kept up.........last time I stopped there. It was right next to work. Otherwise I would not have went there. The former Braniff HQ was really nice, Hotel, Pool and Conference Center, very nice office for Verizon. Employees could use the Pool and the Gym they had there. They spun off that portion of Verizon to Dex Media and I think it is called Dex One now or something stupid.....they went bankrupt like 2-3 times in a row to discharge over $10 Billion in debt. Just went up in smoke....bondholders were left with worthless paper.
So at Newark I remember one vividly. Chirped the tires on the runway once then it was full throttle rocket ship up towards the moon. Someone taxied out in front of our landing plane. Second incident was less dramatic we were on approach and he gunned the engines for fast altitude climb and fly around. Third incident I only vaguely remember but it was the circle the airport repeatedly via repeated excuses over the intercom, threatened diversion to another airport..........then finally land type deal.
rdamon It would be interesting to see the go around stats for collision avoidance vs. weather. SAN gets on the list when the fog rolls in.
Most of my go arounds were because of collision avoidance, i.e. the guy ahead of me did not clear the runway quick enough or another pilot was cleared onto the runway by ATC, but did not hussle as quickly as ATC had asked for.
It was rare to have a forced go around because of weather even when I was flying; it is rarer today.
The instrument approach at Brainard Field in Hartford was a VOR/NDB approach. If I did not see the field as I went past the NDB at 660 feet, I knew that I had missed the approach and had to follow the published procedure to go around for another try. The Instrument Approach Chart contained the missed approach procedure.
JPS1 As per "go arounds", here is the first paragraph from my posting on the subject. "According to FAA’s Air Traffic Control by the Numbers 2019, the average number of go arounds at Newark International from 2014 through 2018 was 2/10s of 1 percent, which was the same as 13 of the 30 core (largest by operations) airports in the U.S., e.g. DFW, IAH, LAS, LAX, etc. San Diego had the highest percentage of go arounds at .6 percent, followed by LGA and DCA at .5 percent. JFK was .4 percent."
As per "go arounds", here is the first paragraph from my posting on the subject.
"According to FAA’s Air Traffic Control by the Numbers 2019, the average number of go arounds at Newark International from 2014 through 2018 was 2/10s of 1 percent, which was the same as 13 of the 30 core (largest by operations) airports in the U.S., e.g. DFW, IAH, LAS, LAX, etc. San Diego had the highest percentage of go arounds at .6 percent, followed by LGA and DCA at .5 percent. JFK was .4 percent."
This is the reason for my SAN comment.
rdamon I'm sure you have some interesting stories. It would be interesting to see the go around stats for collision avoidance vs. weather. SAN gets on the list when the fog rolls in.
I'm sure you have some interesting stories.
It would be interesting to see the go around stats for collision avoidance vs. weather. SAN gets on the list when the fog rolls in.
rdamon Of course you are not much safer when you get offf the ground at EWR with all the NYC traffic. I am not a frequent EWR visitor, but as a percentage of times visited vs. go arounds I would have to put SFO on top with MSP 2nd. Had two wave offs on a ATL-MSP flight due to incursions.
I am not a frequent EWR visitor, but as a percentage of times visited vs. go arounds I would have to put SFO on top with MSP 2nd. Had two wave offs on a ATL-MSP flight due to incursions.
Go arounds at SFO were .4 percent between 2014 and 2018. They were .2 percent at ATL as well as Newark and 12 other airports in the top 30 airports where the FAA records them.
I worked as a commercial pilot for three years in the middle 70s. I regularly few in and out of Teterboro, which is just north of Newark. I felt safe operating at Teterboro, which was in the New York TCA at that time. I believe it still is. Every aircraft in the TCA was under positive control. At Brainard Field in Hartford, where I was based, I had to mix it up with controlled and uncontrolled flights operated by the very experienced to the very inexperienced pilots.
rdamon Of course you are not much safer when you get offf the ground at EWR with all the NYC traffic.
Of course you are not much safer when you get offf the ground at EWR with all the NYC traffic.
The FAA has been working with the problem children, closing taxiways and identifying hazard points much better.
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14895&omniRss=fact_sheetsAoc&cid=103_F_S
Overmod n012944 It sounds like Southwest is using the MAX issues as a scapegoat for poor performance of the Newark station. Considering the actual problems the MAX had, and the relative ease with which solutions were found, I think this is ringingly correct. On the other hand, it may be that routine operations in and out of EWR will need to be conducted in parts of the flight envelope where the unique compromises in the MAX design become more than usually hazardous, even with the software changes. So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis.
n012944 It sounds like Southwest is using the MAX issues as a scapegoat for poor performance of the Newark station.
Considering the actual problems the MAX had, and the relative ease with which solutions were found, I think this is ringingly correct.
On the other hand, it may be that routine operations in and out of EWR will need to be conducted in parts of the flight envelope where the unique compromises in the MAX design become more than usually hazardous, even with the software changes. So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis.
Airframes have a certain percentage of "full power" takeoffs that they have to make. The ACARS tells them when to do them. It has nothing to do with which airport it is. You'd be surprised at how little deviation pilots can make from SOP.
Once the software is fully certified, the MAX will not fly any differently from any other 737. There are some airports, due to short runways or terrain features, that require "special handling", but EWR isn't one of them. SAN and SNA are.
If you want to hear some amusing ATC conversations, Google "Kennedy Steve" on youtube. There's someone who enjoys his (very high pressure) job.
JPS1You remember Newark International operational data from 1997 to 2001? You must have a good memory.
Nooo, I remember the aborted landings and takeoffs and what I rated the airport. I don't carry around FAA statisical manuals with me when I fly. I prefer a lighter suitcase when I travel.
charlie hebdoSorry, it was a pretty obscure reference to a music duo named "Patience and Prudence" from long ago.
Thanks! (They actually weren't that bad!)
Figured it wouldn't be a play on Marlon Percy!
Sorry, it was a pretty obscure reference to a music duo named, "Patience and Prudence" from long ago. I think they were a one hit wonder.
https://images.app.goo.gl/Sbfo1jBJpErvH5YP6
charlie hebdo Overmod So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis. Or did you mean Patience?
Overmod So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis.
So there might be some 'operational prudence' (sorry, Percy!) involved in the analysis.
Or did you mean Patience?
I don't get it. Please de-whooooooosh me.
"Operational" is in the Bridgman sense: a decision taken strictly for technical reasons, probably in a restricted context. "Prudence" wasn't a name from a Beatles song, it was meant as 'avoiding what may be a nonexistent technical risk just to be sure it wasn't nonexistent in some situations after all'.
n012944It sounds like Southwest is using the MAX issues as a scapegoat for poor performance of the Newark station.
Warren J I believe that the problems with the Boeing 737MAX forced Southwest to drop Newark; Southwest already flies from LaGuardia and Islip and Newark was not a hub for the airline as BWI is. With a shortage of aircraft due to grounding of the 737MAX, Southwest felt it was necessary to realign its older aircraft where they would be most effective.
I believe that the problems with the Boeing 737MAX forced Southwest to drop Newark; Southwest already flies from LaGuardia and Islip and Newark was not a hub for the airline as BWI is. With a shortage of aircraft due to grounding of the 737MAX, Southwest felt it was necessary to realign its older aircraft where they would be most effective.
It sounds like Southwest is using the MAX issues as a scapegoat for poor performance of the Newark station. Southwest is adding flights to Hawaii, so they are still expanding even with the groundings. If the MAX was the key to making Newark work, the station was barley hanging on to begin with.
An "expensive model collector"
CMStPnP JPS1 2014 through 2018 If your responding to me, wrong date range. It would be closer to 1997 to 2001.
If your responding to me, wrong date range. It would be closer to 1997 to 2001.
You remember Newark International operational data from 1997 to 2001? You must have a good memory.
Your comment, "Newark rated....." suggests now or recent past.
CMStPnPIn my 700,000 FF air miles, Newark rated #1 for full throttle take off or aborted landings to avoid traffic that was in the way.
You're assuming it was avoiding traffic. Probably something quite different.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/nyregion/trying-to-quiet-the-noise-that-comes-with-newark-airport.html
JPS12014 through 2018
blue streak 1It is not that simple !
It is that simple when your on the plane aborting.
In the destant past, USAir had an interline agreemente with Amtrak for BWA Airport. I don't know how long it lasted.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.