I tried one of these questions before and I think it got lost.
How quiet is the cockpit compared to the cabin?
How dark is the cockpit during nighttime flights?
Depends on the plane really. The 737 was pretty loud, but the Airbus is quieter, but still louder than a 777. I don't really notice a whole lot of difference between the cabin and cockpit noise, except for those seated near the engines. Then the cockpit is definitely quieter.
Not really sure how to answer how dark the cockpit is. It's dark at night, other than the instrument lights that are on. When we are at cruise most pilots probably turn on the cockpit overhead lights to help us stay more awake, but if we are looking for traffic or flying around weather and want to keep a lookout for storms, we'll dim down the lights. We also have the lights dimmed down during takeoffs and landings to help cut down some of the reflective glare on the windscreens. But, essentially, if it's dark outside, then the cockpit is dark.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
I tried one of these questions before and I think it got lost.
How quiet is the cockpit compared to the cabin?
How dark is the cockpit during nighttime flights?
Mudba,
The noise level in the cockpit really depends on the airplane type. The noise level can be a result of internal airflow or outside wind noise. Most newer airplanes it's the interior conditioned air that you hear. My experience is the 727, A320, 777, 767, and 757.
The 727 was WAY LOUD! In fact, some guys even wore ear plugs. It was a challenge to hear the cockpit speakers most of the time. It was really bad when flying fast -- you could hear the air beating on the cockpit :-).
The A320 is very quiet. The AC is low and even and you can't go fast enough to make a lot of noise :-). You can hear the engine whine very distinctly at high power settings. If you're a ch9 type, you can always tell the airbus pilots on the radio checking in with departure after takeoff!
The 777 was great. Very quiet, even at high speed.
The 767 is a very quiet cockpit as well. The biggest pain in the butt is the standby altimeter vibrator. Most of them are obnoxious.... A constant high frequency clicking that'll drive you crazy.
The 757 is very loud. The biggest problem is the air from the 'upgraded' recirculation fans. Sometimes we can't even hear each other! We write that up as a safety of flight issue, so I haven't seen as many really loud fans lately. The standby altimeter is an issue in this plane as well. In general, it's the loudest cockpit in the fleet that I've flown (excluding the 737).
In general, the ambient noise is the cockpit is louder than the cabin on all planes. Some, like the 777, not by much though.
Cockpit Darkness.
That depends too. We can adjust the lighting to suit our preferences. Most like it very dark when traffic is an issue. Just like your car, when you turn the lights up you can't see outside very well. Sometimes we'll turn the overhead dome lights on if we're eating or looking for something. It's very bright then. Mostly we use directional/adjustable spotlights for our own needs (aimed at approach charts, etc...). We also have a lot of control over the intensity of various lights (Flt Mgmt Comp, Instruments, Indiv panels, etc...). These lights are on different electric circuits for redundancy in the event of partial electrical failures, so it's not all designed for our convenience .
You're obviously a UAX pilot. Are you a UAL FF? If not a UA employee and not a UA FF, why are you a regular on this forum?
I'm neither.
I'm on here because I enjoy it, I learn about what concerns my passengers, and because I feel there needs to be some balance.
AD does a great job, but some on here can't help but make tenuous statements and generalizations about pilots simply because they fly smaller airplanes, they work for a regional, and thus aren't as "professional" or are all inexperienced. At best, it's stretching the truth and at it's worst its fear mongering.
Let's face it, regional airlines don't have the best reputation right now and rightly so. However, much of that blame has to do with regional airline management running at the cheapest possible level and major airline management that insist on getting the cheapest possible feed at pretty much any cost.
As much as you wouldn't stand idly by while the Denver Continental pilots get maligned, I'm just not going to stand by and allow pilots to get dragged through the mud simply because of who is on their paycheck.
Of course there are some huge differences between regional airlines and major airlines and I will happily point them out. For example, pilots at majors tend to be more experienced because they have been at it for much longer. But I bristle at the argument that professionalism, experience, and safety is only found in the major airline domain.
Checko
__________________
Please note: Opinions expressed here are my own and not that of my employer or any other organization. Thank You!
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by axl
You're obviously a UAX pilot. Are you a UAL FF? If not a UA employee and not a UA FF, why are you a regular on this forum?
There is no UX forum; this is the correct place for a UX employee or FF to be, since UX is a sub-brand of UA. And hey, LarryJ is a pilot for some other airline entirely (neither UA nor UX), but he's still welcome. It's always good to have multiple perspectives...
Location: Nearly equidistant from EWR and PHL. Stranger in a strange land - a Devils fan in Phlyers country.
Programs: PWP Chief of Les Clefs d':rolleyes:, Sarcasm Diamond, Stupidity Hater Titanium, CO Silver
Posts: 14,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepheid
It's always good to have multiple perspectives...
There's even the occasional non-commercial pilot that chimes in. There are a few UA FF's that I know of who are private pilots. Is it sexier to hear stories from the Boeing and Airbus front office? For the most part probably yes, but many facets of aviation have been represented here.
__________________
The UDU is an African drum originated by the Igbo people of Nigeria. An EUA is an upgrade.|My FM|Our FM
Let's face it, regional airlines don't have the best reputation right now and rightly so. However, much of that blame has to do with regional airline management running at the cheapest possible level and major airline management that insist on getting the cheapest possible feed at pretty much any cost.
Totally agree with you on that. Definitely the engine behind the whole downward cycle.
AD
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Different Flights/Same Aircraft Type/Different Cruising Speeds
On a recent flight from BOS to SFO, I heard an interesting issue arise regarding cruising speeds as I listened to channel 9. I was on UA 181 (a 757)and about an hour into the flight, UA 15 (also a 757) from JFK to SFO came on our frequency. UA 15 was a little behind us but was obviously cruising at a faster speed at the same altitude and catching up to us. The controller asked each aircraft its mach speed - UA 181 was .78 and UA 15 was .81. The controller asked each aircraft to fly at .79.
The pilot of UA 15 agreed but then asked for a different altitude in order to resume his previous speed and pass us. That was done and since we were both flying nearly the exact same route the rest of the way to SFO, we heard UA 15 get ahead of us and eventually land about 15 minutes before we did.
It seemed curious to me that two different flights both using the same equipment - 757 - for the same airline on the same route would cruise at different speeds. At first I thought that perhaps UA 15 was late and was trying to make up some time, but UA 15 was actually scheduled to arrive after UA 181. I would have thought that company policy regarding such issues as fuel consumption would have dictated the same speed for both aircraft.
About the only thing I could think of was that the passenger load on UA15 was less, since UA 181 was full and since the 757s on the JFK SFO route are configured differently, with F, C, and E+ and therefore carry fewer passengers, even with a full load. If UA 15 was lighter than UA 181, that may have dictated a faster cruising speed.
I'm wondering if anyone with more technical insight than I have would have some insight on this.
On a recent flight from BOS to SFO, I heard an interesting issue arise regarding cruising speeds as I listened to channel 9. I was on UA 181 (a 757)and about an hour into the flight, UA 15 (also a 757) from JFK to SFO came on our frequency. UA 15 was a little behind us but was obviously cruising at a faster speed at the same altitude and catching up to us. The controller asked each aircraft its mach speed - UA 181 was .78 and UA 15 was .81. The controller asked each aircraft to fly at .79.
The pilot of UA 15 agreed but then asked for a different altitude in order to resume his previous speed and pass us. That was done and since we were both flying nearly the exact same route the rest of the way to SFO, we heard UA 15 get ahead of us and eventually land about 15 minutes before we did.
It seemed curious to me that two different flights both using the same equipment - 757 - for the same airline on the same route would cruise at different speeds. At first I thought that perhaps UA 15 was late and was trying to make up some time, but UA 15 was actually scheduled to arrive after UA 181. I would have thought that company policy regarding such issues as fuel consumption would have dictated the same speed for both aircraft.
About the only thing I could think of was that the passenger load on UA15 was less, since UA 181 was full and since the 757s on the JFK SFO route are configured differently, with F, C, and E+ and therefore carry fewer passengers, even with a full load. If UA 15 was lighter than UA 181, that may have dictated a faster cruising speed.
I'm wondering if anyone with more technical insight than I have would have some insight on this.
There are several possibilities.
One is that the aircraft were flying the same Cost Index (CI -- an assumed ratio of time to fuel costs used by the FMC to control the aircraft speed), but at different weights (as you said) -- although for many common ranges of CI and weight, the speed actually decreases as weight decreases, the opposite of what you said.
One is that they were flying a different Cost Index because either their fuel costs were different (remember they had different departure airports) or their time costs were different (even though you found that meeting published schedule couldn't cause the discrepancy, there could be different time-based costs related to where the individual airframes/engines are in their maintenance cycles, where the crews are in their duty cycles, etc.). In fact, I'd guess that the PS flights have a different base cost of time just because they're a different configuration (or because the passengers are considered higher value).
One is that the slower aircraft was limited by a MEL or CDL item, although if he was willing to speed up to .79, that seems unlikely.
One is that UA aren't even flying CI at all, the crews or dispatchers are just picking a Mach number they want to fly out of thin air, and happened to pick very different numbers for those flights.
There are other possibilities, too, and maybe the mods will merge this into the "ask a UA pilot" thread for more visibility.
There is no UX forum; this is the correct place for a UX employee or FF to be, since UX is a sub-brand of UA. And hey, LarryJ is a pilot for some other airline entirely (neither UA nor UX), but he's still welcome. It's always good to have multiple perspectives...
That's fine. Just be aware that all airlines operate differently and an answer from a pilot at a different airline may not reflect UA procedures at all. UX has zero operational coordination with UA. Totally different operating procedures and completely different airlines. My assumption was that the 'pilots' answering questions on this thread are UA pilots..... Glad I know differently now!
In the interest of fair play, I'm a UA 767/757 F/O based in DCA. I have previously flown the 777 and 320 as a F/O and the 727 as a F/E.
On a recent flight from BOS to SFO, I heard an interesting issue arise regarding cruising speeds as I listened to channel 9. I was on UA 181 (a 757)and about an hour into the flight, UA 15 (also a 757) from JFK to SFO came on our frequency. UA 15 was a little behind us but was obviously cruising at a faster speed at the same altitude and catching up to us. The controller asked each aircraft its mach speed - UA 181 was .78 and UA 15 was .81. The controller asked each aircraft to fly at .79.
The pilot of UA 15 agreed but then asked for a different altitude in order to resume his previous speed and pass us. That was done and since we were both flying nearly the exact same route the rest of the way to SFO, we heard UA 15 get ahead of us and eventually land about 15 minutes before we did.
It seemed curious to me that two different flights both using the same equipment - 757 - for the same airline on the same route would cruise at different speeds. At first I thought that perhaps UA 15 was late and was trying to make up some time, but UA 15 was actually scheduled to arrive after UA 181. I would have thought that company policy regarding such issues as fuel consumption would have dictated the same speed for both aircraft.
About the only thing I could think of was that the passenger load on UA15 was less, since UA 181 was full and since the 757s on the JFK SFO route are configured differently, with F, C, and E+ and therefore carry fewer passengers, even with a full load. If UA 15 was lighter than UA 181, that may have dictated a faster cruising speed.
I'm wondering if anyone with more technical insight than I have would have some insight on this.
There are a multitude reasons that could happen. One reason that comes to mind is that the flight going faster might have had some connections that needed to get there as early as possible, for example some passengers that were supposed to be on an earlier flight but ended up on this one and were connecting out of SFO. The other flight could have had an ill passenger onboard, so they were speeding up to get to SFO. I mean, who knows, there are just too many variables to name, or really even worry about.
Speeds are not company directed. The flight crew has discretion on what speeds to fly. Rarely do I end up flying what I have planned unless it's a oceanic flight. ATC continuously changes our speeds in flight. A good example is flying into Chicago or DCA. I know how bad they can get with delays and slowing down enroute. So even though I may be filed at .75, I'll fly faster to Chicago in anticipation of being slowed down as I approach Chicago Center. Doing this helps me avoid a late delay, and hopefully get there a little early for the connections.
But as I said, it's not unsual for flights to be flying different speeds enroute to the same destination. Not unusual at all.
Cheers,
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Do you remember whether your aircraft had winglets? The ps aircraft probably did. The winglets may dictate a different optimal cruise altitude/speed.
The winglets do change the Mach number for a specific CI, altitude, weight, and temperature, but the difference is pretty small -- definitely not .03.
(The OP (for this question) said the aircraft were at the same altitude.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
Speeds are not company directed. The flight crew has discretion on what speeds to fly. Rarely do I end up flying what I have planned unless it's a oceanic flight.
So now I have a question. Assuming you fly Airbus domestically, is what you have planned constant for all flights, but you vary it yourself (and per ATC), or does your planned speed vary also? Is your planned speed Cost Index, or is it constant Mach?
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jul 5, 09 at 2:45 am.
Reason: merge
So now I have a question. Assuming you fly Airbus domestically, is what you have planned constant for all flights, but you vary it yourself (and per ATC), or does your planned speed vary also? Is your planned speed Cost Index, or is it constant Mach?
Well, both. Our flight plan will be done based on a planned mach number at a certain altitude, but it could change as we climb in altitude during the flight. The cost index will vary our speed as we fly along and get lighter, or climb and descend. ATC doesn't know our cost index, so if our actual speed is different than what we have filed, we let ATC know. Most of the time, we end up flying the speeds ATC would like us at, which is a fast speed. Someone cruising along at .74 mach for cost index is like a speed bump in the road for others flying along. So ATC might ask us to speed up, or take a vector or go to a different altitude. Either one of those affects our planned fuel burn. Not only that, but when flying a cost index, as you start your descent, the cost index can really get you. If I'm cruising along at a cost index giving me .77 mach, that same cost index on descent slows my jet down to .68 mach all of a sudden. If I don't notice, ATC comes on asking what's my speed since I'm backing everyone up. So I'll come out of cost index on descent and use manual speed settings.
It just depends on each flight really.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
.
Because I like it
