OK, gracious Pilots, please shed some light on the no-electronics during taxi, take-off, and landing rule for passengers. I can understand the remote possibility of a gadget transmitting data messing with flight instruments, but c'mon, will the guy with the Ipod in 15E really be a threat??
Is this just more of a security and personal safety issue than anything (ie making sure people are attentive and capable of responding to FA instructions)?
And even funnier to me is that mobile phones--only mobile phones-- are allowed on the landing taxi in the US, but god forbid an Ipod is turned on at this time!
Programs: UA 1P (soon to be 1K) SPG Gold, Hertz 5*Gold
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshairborne
SNA has one of the shortest runways that we fly to. I've flown into and out of there in 757s, 737s and A-319s and A320s, as well as Cessna Citations, which are 10 passenger bizjets, and though short, the runway is quite long enough for all of them.
We have a lot of factors that determine runway length required; a few are aircraft weight, outside air temp, wind conditions, approach speed (which is determined by these factors), runway condition (dry, wet, standing water, frozen precipitation such as hail, snow, etc, but snow hasn't been a biggie lately) runway visibility, and level of autobrakes, or brake application level if autobrakes aren't used. There are more, but I'm on vacation
Like everything else in aviation, these things are all evaluated for as many conditions or combinations of conditions, and charts & graphs are available for us to use. We generally evaluate landing runway requirements whenever the runway is short, or if we have any question about it.
Believe it or not, the takeoff is more critical than the landing, not just there, but everywhere. Too bad people don't ever say "nice takeoff!"
Freshairborne
Thanks Freshairborne! Sounds like you've had quite a bit of experience flying in and out of SNA! I once piloted private aircraft out of SNA but always admired those landing commercial equipment alongside. Gotta love flying a C152 in Class C airspace!
I'll try to elaborate on the bidding process a little. Let me start with your second post.
The company creates a list of trip pairings, which generally are 1, 2, 3 or 4 days long. There are also 5 and 6 (and very rarely 7 and 8) day trips, but the majority are 1-4 days long. Each trip pairing starts and ends at the home domicile. Internationally, most of the pairings are simple round trips - my domicile has a 3 day SFO-LHR-SFO trip and a 4 day SFO-TPE-SFO trip for example. The TPE trip is a 4 day trip because the required layover in Taipei is longer due to the longer flight time. Domestically, the trips usually involve many more city pairs, but the number of days is about the same.
Each trip is worth a certain number of hours, generally the flight time for the trip. A 4 day SFO-TPE-SFO trip is worth about 24 hours, for example. Here's an actual example of a 4 day domestic trip for the Airbus out of SFO:
20B 64 SFO SNA 0645 0812
20B 450 SNA DEN 1032 1345
20B 85 DEN LAX 1541 1707 17.33
(17.5 hour layover at LAX with a hotel provided)
20B 856 LAX IAD 1040 1830
20Y 1517 IAD MCO 2020 2230 13.30
(13.5 hour layover in Orlando)
20Y 1495 MCO ORD 1200 1357
20B 929 ORD PDX 1515 1744 16.16
(16 hour layover in Portland)
20B 75 PDX SFO 1000 1146
That four day domestic trip is worth 22 hours. So a 777 pilot would be away for 4 days and get paid 24 hours, have much longer flight times and large time zone changes, but have 48 hours off in Taipei. An Airbus pilot would have shorter legs and fewer time zone changes, but get paid 22 hours for 4 days of work.
All of the flying for the domicile is contained in these trips. Each pilot then sets points for what is important to him or her, and the schedules are built in seniority order according to those points. Most people bid for the days they want off - either weekends in general, their kids birthday, whatever. You can also say that you don't like to depart the east coast before 8 a.m. local. Since I speak German and have friends in the FRA area, I preference that I want FRA layovers. Of course, since I'm way down at the bottom of the list, all these trips are gone by the time they get to me, so I don't get them, but it doesn't hurt to bid. There are literally hundreds of criteria that you can use to define your bid, according to what is important to you. If you're in the top few of a fleet and seat (I would be much higher on the list of Airbus copilots, much lower on the list of 737 captains), you basically get what you want. If you're at the bottom of the list, you get what's left over.
After the schedules have been assigned, you can trade trips, subject to some very strict rules based on how many pilots are available. There is always a list of the trips that currently have no pilots, and we have traditionally traded our trips with those. Whatever is left over is generally flown by reserve pilots, although there are a few other things as I described in one of my posts about the holiday meltdown. There is a new system coming out that allows us to trade pilot to pilot, but since I've never used it, I'll refrain from commenting. But trip trading is generally next to impossible, since we are so short staffed.
That's just a very basic overview, but since this is already incredibly long, I better start answering the questions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoingAway
Can you elaborate a bit more on the bidding, I've always wondered what a "trip" in the bidding process includes. Is it this group of flights that means an overnight here/there, a specific routing you want to pilot or just the parameters home on x date, overnight in y location, etc.
The trips are the full sequence, starting and ending at your domicile, whether they are 1, 2 or 8 day trips.
Quote:
Also when you are exchanging trips - if the above is a group of flights that comprise your in/out for the period, are you trading the entire thing or can if you end the schedule with ord-iad but want to stay in ORD, you can just trade out that last leg.
You have to trade the entire trip. There is no way to just trade a leg.
a. If a guy with a tiny bit more seniority than you wants, say, a specific Hawaii flight, does he automatically get it? Or can you somehow outbid him for that one if you are more willing to take one or more less-desirable flights to compensate? Do they ever "package" a good flight along with a bad one, or are they all individually bid?
Since we bid on trips, not individual flights, it's very possible to fly a nice flight in a bad trip. For example, our 3 day SFO-FRA-SFO trip was very senior. For one month, it became a 7 day SFO-FRA-ORD-FRA-SFO trip, since they didn't have enough ORD pilots. Because 7 days is a lot to spend away, that suddenly became a junior trip.
Certain Hawaii trips are senior, but a 3 day low time trip on the Christmas weekend probably went very junior.
Quote:
b. If you were to forget to bid your flights for one period, does someone call or email to remind you? If somehow you don't bid, do you automatically get whatever bottom-of-the-barrel itineraries are left, or do you have some sort of fallback or minimum acceptable flights? If the latter, does this vary by seniority?
No one calls (but we do this every month, and our schedules are important to us!). Bidding for my domicile for February opens on Tuesday, closes on the 14th, with awards generally on the 16th. But if we forget, we have what's called a standing bid, which contains our general preferences (i.e. we don't like 5 a.m. flights, but not that we want February 17th off).
Quote:
c. How similar is your bid system to that of AA, NW, WN, CO, etc. (if you know).
No idea.
Quote:
d. Is the bidding system publicly detailed anywhere?
Not that I know of.
Quote:
e. Once flights are bid, can senior guys somehow "bump" more junior guys? If so, under what conditions (family emergency, they change their mind, etc.)?
No.
Quote:
f. After flights are bid, can you swap with another pilot if you mutually decide to, or does that screw up a whole bunch of plans down the line?
Yes, subject to very strict limits.
Quote:
g. Suppose you know that a pilot just ahead of you in seniority wants a certain flight that you also want. Is there some way to secretly bribe him or negotiate and get him to alter his bidding, to your benefit?
Not really, it's too complicated for that. Most pilots don't care about the individual flight (my trips to FRA notwithstanding), it's all about the specific days off.
Quote:
h. Is the bidding secret? If you want to see what flights a specific pilot is taking, can you find out? Do they release a summary of "most (and least) bid-for flights"? If some route is considered really undesirable, does UA offer extra compensation if you'll take it?
Bidding is secret, but not because it needs to be hidden. It's just that everybody enters their preferences on their bid screens. The awards are all published, so you can see what everyone got. No extra compensation for less desirable trips.
Quote:
i. Is the procedure "bidding" as in an auction where there's back-and-forth until nobody is willing to go any higher, or like ebay where whoever's highest at a specific future time "wins," or is it all done at one instant, like matching for medical residents (basically a big linear algebra problem)?
There is a deadline. After the deadline, the solver goes in seniority order and builds the line most closely matching the pilot's preferences with the trips that are still available.
Quote:
k. Also somewhat curious about the bidding for new aircraft training mentioned above by one pilot, but I think I've asked enough
That's totally different, and I've answered enough! ;-)
It appeared to be a clear evening, possibly some wind though. Thanks for your thoughts, I've always wanted to know what happened that night- but didn't feel it was appropriate to ask the pilots once we landed. On that note, if it was indeed wake turbulence and a similar situation had occurred on your flight, would you have let the passengers know what had happened?
You can always ask the pilots what happened after you've landed. We once did a windshear escape maneuver on an approach into IAD on the 757, but the F/As later told us they knew it was going to get exciting when they and the first half of first class heard dual tone bell and the automated "windshear, windshear!" warning. I was amazed at how quickly that airplane could climb, and we certainly had a lot of comments and questions on landing.
Another time I was surprised at how few comments we had. We hit a very large bird in the left engine on a 757 about 30 seconds before landing at SFO. We obviously didn't have time to say anything to the passengers, but there was a good bit of aircraft vibration, and we shut the engine down immediately after exiting the runway. I looked at the engine later, and it was so badly damaged it required removal (blades bent back, etc.). Almost nobody said anything getting off the airplane...
Wait! Did you have a different FT name??? I can only think of one pilot I was with in SEA at the airport, good times, good times.
Yeah, I used to post under my real name, and long before that under my real name on rec.travel.air. But I eventually decided that anonymity was better and changed my FT name about 5 years ago (if anyone remembers the old one, I'd appreciate you keeping to yourself on this thread!).
Didn't I see you last at ops at ORD? And weren't you purser on the flight to SEA? Or am I really confused (wouldn't be the first time...)?
As others have stated, many thanks to all the pilots who are answering our questions!
I wanted to know how the pilots liked or disliked flying into and out of LHR? In my last flight there, we were 2 hours late leaving ORD (due to ATC) and then didn't have a gate when we landed in LHR, so we deplaned and then took a bus over to the terminal. For an international flight like ORD to LHR, what is the typcial layover? I assume you would fly out the next day?
Thanks again!
London is fine, although the terminal isn't very impressive and the hardstands can be a bit of a pain. The worst part is the hour ride to the hotel in traffic after a long flight. Our layover there is generally about 25 hours.
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumpfs
(re: wake turbulence)
Thanks for all of that info, gumpfs. Very informative. So basically, wake turbulence is much like any other "bump in the road" in that it forces the pilot to compensate and therefore increases the possibility of pilot error and/or aircraft malfunction (if the parts are susceptible), but in general, it's totally handleable... or at least, that's what I gathered from your response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumpfs
Maybe I'll stop by someday. I almost went to one in September at the invitation of a friend who reads FT as well, but I was just off an airplane from Paris and doubt I would have been good company.
If the "one in September" was the Mega-DO, it was 3 days long... you could have stopped by at any time. About 65 of us toured the SFO MOC, as well... a wonderful experience.
But, regardless, we'd love to have you... just keep an eye on CBuzz, and if I remember, I'll even PM you when I know of upcoming dates. (The next East Bay DO, with a focus on "exciting" [i.e. ethnic] cuisine that is both affordable and easily accessible [i.e. BART], will most likely be during the first weekend in February in the Rockridge area.)
This reminds me... "We're waiting for 'the numbers'"
I understand that this is related to a/c weight and various flight variables, but why can't they be calculated on-board with some kind of computer?
Unfortunately, I can probably answer all our your load planning questions, since I worked on the system we are currently using and even got a WHQ badge for my efforts (not something that's really seen as a positive by other pilots!).
Load planning used to be done by each individual station, but unfortunately, there were many different ways to do it, and a lot of errors. Ultimately, the company elected to centralize everything in Chicago in order to standardize the process and improve consistency.
The system optimizes the loading for each individual flight, and tells the ramp where to load bags and cargo. It also manages revenue on weight limited flights and ensures all limits are complied with. After loading is complete (and after pushback), customer service finalizes the passenger load, and ramp finalizes the cargo loading (each make computer inputs which tell Unimatic how many passengers, bags, and cargo have been loaded). The system then automatically sends the final weight information to the cockpit.
There are people working at the load planning desks in Chicago (CLP), but they are generally there to resolve problems and make phone calls when either ramp or CS is encountering problems. If everything functions correctly, they don't make a single keystroke - all information is entered at the station and automatically transferred to the cockpit.
In general, most of the delays are a result of the station not properly entering data or entering it in a timely manner. As such, having the computer on the airplane instead of Chicago wouldn't make any difference. We'd still be waiting for ramp to tell us how many bags were loaded.
We'd still be waiting for ramp to tell us how many bags were loaded.
Ok, I get it now. I thought the landing gear measured the weight of the plane and the numbers were calculated based on those numbers, but I see it is more complicated then that.
So basically, wake turbulence is much like any other "bump in the road" in that it forces the pilot to compensate and therefore increases the possibility of pilot error and/or aircraft malfunction (if the parts are susceptible), but in general, it's totally handleable... or at least, that's what I gathered from your response.
I fly light GA a/c. Most turbulence you know is coming either from light chop leading up to heavier bumps or from PIREP's (PIlot REPorts, ride reports) from a/c in front of you, low to the ground with big thermals or strong wind blowing over mountains. Normal turbulance is just like you know it....bumps up and down, sometimes horizontal. Clear Air Turbulence can't be predicted at all but that's another story. If you are very close to the larger a/c in front of you, Wake turbulence can definitely happen. The heavy metal drivers described normal procedures to avoid it in earlier posts. Usually required spacing and small maneuvers makes it easily avoidable. Under some atmospheric conditions, the wake hangs around longer in an unpredictable (or unanticipated) manner. When it just hits, it has the potential to slam you REALLY hard and unpredictably.
Real story I heard about 18 months ago (can't remember who the pilot was nor the type of A/C). A 747 takes off out of SFO on Runway 28 L/R. It is slow with high power. This config generates the heaviest wake. A light GA A/C is flying over the 101 freeway fat dumb and happy. Instantly the guy is nearly inverted at 1500 or 2000 feet over the heavily populated area of South San Fran. Fortunately the pilot recovered albeit with the need to buy new underwear and new appreciation for wake turbulence.
Last summer I was on a flight outbound from DEN listening on Ch9. We made our way to first in line for takeoff when ATC started talking about microbursting and wind shear. Our pilot was asked if she wanted clearance to take off (I presume) and she responded, "No thank you." We waited about 15 minutes and heard some other interesting-sounding reports from other pilots that I imagine were landing.
Finally we got another notice from ATC and another request to determine if we were ready. Our pilot said, "yes," this time.
We hurtled down the runway like normal, but I was perhaps sensitized because of the ATC chatter, so I felt like the plane was experiencing side-to-side buffeting that was more than normal. That may have just been me. In any event, we ended up with a "max velocity RTO" or some such, and a fire engine or two to come out and put out our brakes, and then a fun bus ride back to the terminal.
My questions are...
1. How common is this scenario? I've flown roughly 150 takeoffs a year for the past few, so I'm in the ballpark of 1-for-300.
2. The pilot said, in a very shaky voice afterwards to ATC, that the shear detection system had "gone off." Does the mechanism just use forward-looking radar? Was it possible that everything I felt was "normal" but the air just ahead of us was iffy?
3. How much extra, fun paperwork does a UA pilot have to do after something like this?
here is a route-specific question that I've always been curious about --
An LAX-SYD flight is a big moneymaker because fares are high, and it carries a lot of valuable cargo. However, the fuel loads are huge, and the aircraft sit on the ground in SYD for probably 8 hours.
Would it be possible for such flights to take a stop in HNL, so that the fuel load/burn could be reduced by more than say, 1/3 on each leg, as well as cargo load increased / money saved? I have asked various experts about the extra time taken to make a landing/takeoff in HNL, and it seems to be kind of complicated, needing to factor in ascent/descent times, ATC routing, etc. But given the leeway in the schedule, if the savings in fuel could translate into savings in fare, maybe this would be attractive? Of course, everyone wants non-stop routings, but just out of curiosity.
Perhaps there are crew time limits that come into play also, but do you have any thoughts on this?
Programs: AS MVP (withering away due to insane fares), UA, AA, AGR, NPS passport, Costco Exec
Posts: 5,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
4) HUGE deal all the technical advances. United has been at the forefront in safety technology, from weather radar to windshear detection devices. Planes used to crash quite often due to mechanical and weather problems. Now, we have a lot of computers that help alleviate a lot of the risks. Weather radar and windshear avoidance computers help bad microbursts. GPS and RNAV equipment let us go direct point to point over thousands of miles versus flying inefficient routes VOR to VOR on the ground. Enhanced Ground Proximity computers keep us from hitting the side of a mountain or landing gear up. Traffic Collision (TCAS) systems allow us to see all the other aircraft in the area squawking a code and avoid them if a collision is about to happen. Altitude warning systems if you drift off altitude, cargo fire fighting equipment now to put out cargo fires. You get the drift, it is all good.
Wow! If I thought the Channel 9 thread was active...
I worked on my private at the University of Alaska Anchorage, which was one of the institutions (together with UPS, Alaska Airlines, the State of Alaska, and a few other parties) that was working on the Capstone program.
I never really talked with any of the Capstone researchers, but from what I gathered and from reading online, this is what I understand:
Capstone Phase I premiered in Bethel, Alaska, and packaged technologies like GPS, ADS-B (transmitting aircraft position via UAT), FIS with real-time weather, and a high-resolution MFS that displayed other aircrafts' positions, weather, and terrain (helping to prevent CFIT, or cumulogranite clouds, as my ground school instructor called them).
UPS also implemented aspects of Capstone Phase I in order to allow, I guess, for reduced minimum separations for aircraft in their hub terminal areas.
Capstone Phase II premiered in Southeast Alaska (Juneau, etc.) and added GPS with WAAS, which allows aircraft to rely solely on GPS for enroute navigation (and possibly, if I understand correctly, precision approaches--but I don't have an IFR and that all remains a mystery to me), and a new avionics package including things like an Altitude Heading Reference System and a forward-looking 3D image--basically a screen that looks like you're flying a flight simulator in clear weather, regardless of the real conditions.
There was also something about RNP (Required Navigation Performance) in there somewhere, and when I asked a friend of a friend who is an AS pilot about Capstone in Southeast Alaska, he responded that yes, AS had implemented RNP down there, and it helped tremendously. (I'm not sure how AS and their RNP ties in with Capstone, but Southeast Alaska is one of their core markets.)
So, my question to UA pilots is, especially if UA is, as aluminumdriver said, at the forefront of aviation technology (except that another pilot said that the 737 fleet is just now being renovated with GPSes!), have any of these technologies been implemented in the UA fleet? Now, Capstone was designed to work with the challenges faced in Alaskan aviation (limited radar coverage, special weather conditions, an abundance of VFR flights ending up in bad weather and with extremely long distances between usable airstrips, etc.), but I understand that some of the technologies--ADS-B, FIS, etc.--are also part of the next generation of ATC technologies that can help reduce minimum separation requirements, etc. (Lots of etc's here--mostly because I have no idea what I'm talking about!) Are these things that are being implemented in air carrier aircraft? Are they things that would be useful? (You don't hear of too many UA planes crashing into the Rockies after taking off from Denver, so I doubt that's too much of a problem--I assume you have other things to help with that, in addition to minimum altitude requirements on the charts and ATC's guidance.)
In short, I don't know much about Capstone, but I remember hearing that it was revolutionary and cutting edge, and I've always wondered if we up here were way ahead of the times or were just pursuing our own thing that didn't really matter to the rest of the world...do you know anything about it and how it is being used out there in the real world?
