What is the story on radios. I understand cell phones, walkie-talkies and HAM radios, but why are receive only radios or even GPS banned?
I did take a flight with a handheld GPS receiver before 2000. This was actually a great flight, SFO-BOS, flight attendants were excellent, they saw me with it, they asked the captain, he said it was ok, but the F/A asked if it specifically said it was a FCC class B device. I said it wasn't labeled as such, but since I can take it home, it has to be. They let me use it. She also showed me the captain's watch. He said this was all I needed.
Now they are specifically banned. Clearly this is not an interference issue, as if they made interference, the wouldn't function. Is it a "control of information" issue?
What is the story on radios. I understand cell phones, walkie-talkies and HAM radios, but why are receive only radios or even GPS banned?
Tunable radio receivers are also transmitters; it's a fundamental principle of their operation. Only basic crystal sets are truly passive devices.
Quote:
Now they are specifically banned. Clearly this is not an interference issue, as if they made interference, the wouldn't function. Is it a "control of information" issue?
Thanks to you guys for taking the time to answer our questions.
Mine is pretty simple, and I've been wondering for some time...
If innocent PEDs could even possibly cause instrument problems on the aircraft, doesn't it worry you that a PED could potentially be modified to emit seriously harmful radiation? In other words does it bother you that the avionics are supposedly this susceptible to outside interference?
I'm curious as to how you pilots get your paperwork, flight plans and briefings on weather, etc. I assume that at UA hubs, there's a special UA pilot briefing room, etc. where you check in, and get your materials.
How about at outstations, especially overseas ones? Does UA actually have employees at all its outstations? Where would you go to "check in" and do all this preflight stuff? How does dispatch get the paperwork to you and communicate to you? Are you responsible for filing your own flight plans overseas?
This selective ban only serves to highten my suspicion of the FAA reg.
The FAA reg says that ALL electronic devices are banned UNLESS the operator (i.e. the airline) has determined that the device WILL NOT cause interference. If that regulation was enforced to it's strictest interpretations we wouldn't be allowed to use any PEDs at any time.
The airlines try to develop procedures which are understandable, reasonably easy to implement, and provide a high degree of confidence that any interference that might occur will not cause a serious safety issue while balancing the customer's desire to use his PED's to the extent practical. There is no one clear cut right answer. When you run an airline you can take the responsibility to prove to your FAA Principal Operations Inspector that your set of proposed "rules" meets the requirements of the regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaeMaker
Now they (GPS) are specifically banned.
Unless there is some FAA guidance, of which I'm not aware, that is an airline decision. The regulations themselves put the burden of determining what is, and is not, acceptable on the airline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by braslvr
In other words does it bother you that the avionics are supposedly this susceptible to outside interference?
The avionics are not "supposedly this susceptible", they are supposed to be pretty well shielded. Of course, things break, shielding fails, unanticipated combinations occur. With something over two million passengers flying on US airlines each day on thousands of flights the unlikely combination of just the wrong PEDs with an airplane with just the right problems is going to happen eventually. Since PEDs are not necessary for the operation it is sensible to only their operation only when you have determined to a fairly high level of confidence than any interference that they do cause is unlikely to effect the safety of the flight. The restrictions raise that level of confidence.
There are dozens of things that I check each and every time I fly that I've NEVER seen fail in almost 27 years as a pilot. Should I assume that they will never fail and stop checking them?
I'm curious as to how you pilots get your paperwork, flight plans and briefings on weather, etc.
The same way that you might read this thread from any internet-connected computer anywhere in the world.
The dispatcher prepares the release and makes it available in the airline's computer system. The crew logs into the company computer system and prints his copy and a copy that is left behind at the station.
The avionics are not "supposedly this susceptible", they are supposed to be pretty well shielded. Of course, things break, shielding fails, unanticipated combinations occur. With something over two million passengers flying on US airlines each day on thousands of flights the unlikely combination of just the wrong PEDs with an airplane with just the right problems is going to happen eventually. Since PEDs are not necessary for the operation it is sensible to only their operation only when you have determined to a fairly high level of confidence than any interference that they do cause is unlikely to effect the safety of the flight. The restrictions raise that level of confidence.
There are dozens of things that I check each and every time I fly that I've NEVER seen fail in almost 27 years as a pilot. Should I assume that they will never fail and stop checking them?
Thanks for that Larry, but it was not really what I was asking. My point was if normal everyday PEDs pose even a remote threat, then theoretically one could modify them to pose a serious threat. ie. total jamming. Does that possibility cause you and the other pilots concern?
This is a 777 specific question since UA operates both the 777A(PW4077) and 777-200ER(PW4090) models. Let's take IAD-LHR as an example. Is it possible to say which of the two models (772A or -ER) would consume less fuel, all other things being equal, for such a segment? Would the difference in fuel consumption between the two models be significant - more than 1% for example? Thanks in advance for your responses.
The difference would not be significant. Using our flight planning tables, a 9:20 minute trip at 35,000' in the 777A would consume 132,600 pounds of fuel, while a 9:17 minute trip at 35,000' in the 777B would consume 132,700 pounds of fuel.
Do you wish that Airbus had implemented some sort of simulated "force" feedback on the side-sticks?
Airbus did some research into backdriven sidesticks, but it ends up being a difficult problem to solve. They chose a "hard limit" design philosophy, which allows the pilot to meet but not exceed certain limits when flying the aircraft. The best way to implement a hard limit system is using a small displacement controller (i.e. a small sidestick). Boeing uses a "soft limit" design philosophy, which ramps up control forces as a limit is neared, but the pilot is still allowed to exceed the limit. The best way to accomplish that is via a large displacement controller, and Boeing kept the yoke. There are a lot of urban legends as to why the 777 has a yoke, but Boeing looked at a sidestick and decided against it due to the soft limit design philosophy.
There are certain advantages to an Airbus hard limit design, including the ability to aggressively maneuver the aircraft without fear of exceeding a limit. For example, the terrain avoidance maneuver on the Airbus is remarkably simple - if you simply pull full aft on the sidestick, you will get the maximum performance of the airplane (for the Airbus pilots, we manually select TOGA and retract the speedbrakes, but with full aft sidestick this will happen a second or so later anyway as the aircraft enters Alpha Floor). The disadvantages include the inability to exceed a limit when it's really needed.
In normal line flying operations, none of this makes much of a difference, and it's very easy to get used to the sidestick.
Senior Moderator/As well as the Hawaii, the Hawaii-based Airlines, DiningBuzz, & Only Randy Petersen forums
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: UA 1P, bd Gold (earned this time!), HA Pualani Gold, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 20,592
Today on our DFW-DEN flight the pilot, upon first contacting Denver Approach and also with the 2-3 subsequent approach controllers he was handed off to, asked for (although it sounded more like he was advising them of what he was going to do) an autoland approach.
But he didn't advise/ask when he was finally turned over to the tower.
a) Why does approach control need to know that the pilot wants a practice autoland approach?
b) Wouldn't tower need to know as well, or was that passed along by approach?
I'm curious as to how you pilots get your paperwork, flight plans and briefings on weather, etc. I assume that at UA hubs, there's a special UA pilot briefing room, etc. where you check in, and get your materials.
How about at outstations, especially overseas ones? Does UA actually have employees at all its outstations? Where would you go to "check in" and do all this preflight stuff? How does dispatch get the paperwork to you and communicate to you? Are you responsible for filing your own flight plans overseas?
It's different from station to station. At the hubs, we have flight planning areas in flight operations. Most stations have an area somewhere under the gates with computers. Domestically, the flight crew pulls up the paperwork on a Unimatic computer, and signs off the flight plan electronically. It can also be brought up in the cockpit for a subsequent flight. A Dispatcher prepares the information, including all the weather, flight plan, and maintenance history.
Internationally, all the paperwork is prepared in advance for the crew and put in an envelope. Because the flights are much longer, there is much more paperwork (including oceanic track messages, plotting charts, etc.). It would take much longer to print the paperwork.
The location of flight planning also varies from station to station internationally. At Nagoya, we flight plan at ANA's operations center, while at Taipei it's essentially in the station manager's office. At Frankfurt it's actually in the back of the Red Carpet Club.
a) Why does approach control need to know that the pilot wants a practice autoland approach?
For an autoland, we need decent vectoring onto the approach course, and we prefer to intercept the glideslope from below. It's actually harder to set up for an autoland than to handfly the approach, in my opinion. In the real world, ATC will often turn us onto the approach close to the outer marker and above the glideslope, especially at Denver. With this kind of vectoring, it would be much more difficult to get the airplane and the autopilots stabilized for an autoland.
The ILS critical area also needs to be protected, so that there isn't interference to the ILS signal from aircraft holding short of the runway. The ILS hold lines are a few feet back from the normal runway hold lines. This area is automatically protected if the weather is lower than an 800' ceiling and 2 miles visibility, but wouldn't be normally protected in good weather.
Quote:
b) Wouldn't tower need to know as well, or was that passed along by approach?
It was either passed along by approach, or they weren't using the runway for departures, in which case there would be no need for the tower to know.
As a former fraternity house resident, I have to ask...what's the best prank you've ever pulled on a cockpit-mate, another pilot crew, or FA's?
Well, back in the old days, when the flight attendants would visit the cockpit, I got one good. As she was talking, I asked her if she would help me with a stiff neck. I had her place one hand on my chin, another on the back of my head, and slowly pull it sideways as I pulled against it (to help with my neck). Meanwhile, in my other hand I held a plastic cup. Just as she's starting to pull hard against my chin, I squeeze the cup making a big "SNAP" sound as I go completely limp with my neck. They always let out a big scream thinking they had broken my neck. Hilarious.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Today on our DFW-DEN flight the pilot, upon first contacting Denver Approach and also with the 2-3 subsequent approach controllers he was handed off to, asked for (although it sounded more like he was advising them of what he was going to do) an autoland approach.
But he didn't advise/ask when he was finally turned over to the tower.
a) Why does approach control need to know that the pilot wants a practice autoland approach?
b) Wouldn't tower need to know as well, or was that passed along by approach?
a) Approach would need to know that you were wanting to fly an instrument approach versus a visual approach. Different spacing requirements between aircraft. Also, it tells them you want to intercept the ILS from below the glideslope.
b) I usually tell the tower as well so they hopefully keep the ILS critical area clear. They only have to do that when the weather is less than 800' ceiling and 2 miles vis.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Last edited by aluminumdriver; Jan 8, 08 at 10:26 am.
