aluminumdriver

The decision can be made by the station personnel before the crew arrives, or the Captain after he arrives. Whether a jet de-ices can have many variables. For example, two jets could be sitting next to each other, and one may have to de-ice and the other not. One may have been at the gate overnight or for many hours, getting a chance to cold soak, so if any snow falls, it adheres to the jet. The other jet may have just come in, is on the ground for a short period, and since it is light snow flurries, anything falling will just blow off the jet, so no de-icing is needed. It comes down to each individual situation and crew.

Thanks for asking, I thought this thread had petered out

seagar

Last night on a flight from DEN-ORD (757) I was listening to channel 9 and each time ATC asked for a turn, the pilot (or 1st officer) literally turned hard immediately. On other flights I have noticed that it can take seconds to half a minute to execute a turn or altitude change. Is there a limit or standard required, say within 10 seconds, 20 seconds????

kenhawk

Recently, I was sitting in my car (traffic light) at the end of SAN Diego's runway 27 and a Southwest 737 made a very dramatic pull up at about 300 feet above me, at the end of the runway. (Weather was clear, and I could not see an incursion from my viewpoint.) His wings rocked back and forth a couple of times before going around.

What's the lowest altitude you've made the decision to go around and why?

coolbeans202

While flying IAD-SFO yesterday evening and listening in to channel 9, somewhere of Nevada a business jet and ATC got into a discussion over whether or not a Locke1 arrival exists for Oakland.

Controller says no, pilot says he's staring at an up-to-date plate. (They agreed there is a Locke1 for SFO). Controller says he'll check. Controller comes back and says it definitely does not exist for Oakland. Then an American Airlines pilot chimes in and says that he, too, is staring at a Locke1 arrival plate for Oakland. Controller asks for the plate publisher and says he'll pass the info on but that according to them it doesn't exist.

So, what happened here? Not that it's any definitive reference but FlightAware also has a Locke1 into Oakland. Was the controller mistaken? Does this happen a lot where published plates won't have the most up-to-date information? Seems like quite a disparity between both viewpoints. Note that the discussion was very civil between all parties as opposed to a "I'm right and you're wrong" type of thing.

Peacock

I recently flew on N517UA - one of the p.s. 757s that has been retrofitted with winglets. So, about how much savings (in fuel gallons and/or dollars) does a wingletted 757 achieve compared to a normal one for a LAX-JFK-LAX round trip. I have seen claims of "5%", but I don't really have an idea of what the typical baseline fuel consumption is.

12172003

I'm a GA pilot so if anything is different for the big guys, feel free to chime in. Otherwise they can buy me a beer for saving them some keystrokes.

The pilots always turned 'nearly immediately.' I'm guessing within 5-10 seconds. Any longer you need to tell ATC to 'standby' or 'unable' or 'unable for X minutes/seconds.' ATC is expecting a nearly immediate action and if not there could be a loss of separation of a/c which could be ugly...recurrent training, FAA citation on their record, loss of license, etc.

A GA is a normal procedure practiced all the time. It's usually practiced at the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) or Decision Altitude (DA) depending on the type of approach which translates to anywhere from 100' above the touchdown elevation for that runway up to 1500' or more. It just depends on the approach. It can happen lower but by then they'll be visual and see something they don't like such as an a/c holding short of the runway starts rolling onto the runway at LAX....seems to happen there every week. This would be a quite serious infraction and we'd probably read about it in the newspaper.

Considering there are thousands upon thousands of instrument approach procedures and fixes + hundreds of database configurations for different types of avionics that need to be updated every 30 (or more) days, things are always changing so it does happen from time to time. Further, there are some procedures that only exist for the military so sometimes a controller might ask a non-military a/c to go to a fix that doesn't exist in their database. So in your case, maybe a chart didn't get deleted from the approach plates the pilots had or it was a new procedure that the controller wasn't aware or something wilder like say a VOR got destroyed (GMN,Gorman a few years ago due to a fire) while the plane was in the air so a NOTAM was issued canceling a procedure for an extended period of time. No idea how the controllers are notified of cancellation of a period but I'm guessing the approach would then not appear on their radar computer screen. I made that up so no idea if that could really happen but I could see something wild like that happening. Overall though, things are very well choreographed and separated in IFR so it is very unlikely it is a big problem.

aluminumdriver

I've had to go around just before touching down once for an airplane crossing the runway, many years ago. Not really a huge deal since we practice these, more an issue of gas use and time (we'll be another 15-20 min to land). As someone else posted, a go-around can be from a couple hundred feet on an instrument approach to just off the runway for wake turbulence or windshear.


I believe the AIM says a pilot is supposed to immediately begin his turn to comply with a controller's instruction, I don't know if there is a time limit published. Some aircraft autopilots might be a little slower to respond than others, and if someone is hand flying the turn rate can sometimes be quicker since he will start the turn while the other pilot is dialing in the heading versus first dialing in the heading and waiting for the autopilot to start the turn.

ConciergeMike

AD, thanks for the answers...I'd been watching the thread for about a week now and none of the usual suspect pilots had been around. Thought maybe the thread had run its course, but rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated.

l etoile

The approach plates that are in use by controllers do not list the Locke arrival as an arrival for Oakland. The Locke arrival is the Southeast plan (wet weather, southerly winds, frequently runways 10 instead of 28, which are "west plan" runways) arrival to SFO. For Oakland what's used is the Manteca arrival.

There are occasionally minor discrepancies (maybe a change in an expected altitude crossing restriction) between ATC charts/plates and the ones used by pilots. They are usually something that didn't get to Jeppesen or the other publishers in time for the update, but did make it to the government provider. There have also had a few instances of an entire procedure being published before actually being authorized or going into use by ATC. I think this happened recently with a new arrival for SFO, the Yosem. It was solved with phone calls to airlines and a Notice to Airmen stating the arrival was not yet in effect.

Back to the Locke arrival. About 5 to 10 years ago the Locke did go to Oakland as well as SFO. The arrival wasn't used that often and the Oakland traffic was not nearly as numerous as it is today. ATC would sequence Oakland arrivals between SFO arrivals and approach (BAY TRACON at the time) would peel the OAK jets out at the appropriate time. As OAK traffic built, Oakland Center began running the OAK arrivals parallel to and north of the SFO flow, over Manteca. A new arrival was eventually published that reflected the Manteca arrival and Oakland was deleted as a destination on the Locke.

Possibly some kind of computer hiccup caused OAK to again appear on the Locke, but if there are any pilots with some outdated plates I would be curious to see if this just happened, or has nobody noticed this error for several months, or even years.

This information was provided to l'etoile by an occasionally reliable source of vast experience, but no warranty, implied or express is made to the accuracy of its content, and as such l'etoile cannot be held liable, nor shall she be flamed, for any small or large, meaningless errors.

aluminumdriver

I check in every couple days, but no one was posting any more questions so I thought we had answered them all

lucky9876coins

Honest question here, so please don't take it the wrong way. I was talking to a VX pilot friend of mine the other day who has worked for many regional carriers and LCC's and we discussed the general state of the legacies. He was telling me how either the captain or FO on all the airlines he has worked for ALWAYS (assuming the landing was smooth) stand at the door as everyone deplanes to tell the passengers goodbye. I mentioned that I see that maybe 20% of the time at UA, and he was totally shocked. So it made me wonder, what's the reason for this among UA pilots? Is it the general "I'm not going the extra mile" attitude or are UA pilots schedule more tightly than the LCC pilots, or what? I always love to thank the pilot on the way out for a safe ride, but there don't seem to be many opportunities for that at UA...

braslvr

FWIW Lucky, My experience is about 60-70% domestic and <10% intl.

GoingAway

A few disparate questions ... are Mesa pilots part of ALPA? I saw a MESA guy with an alpa lanyard the other day and I was surprised as I didn't realize they were there, too. Is ALPA separated into groups that represent each base of employees, do they have many activities that cross the groups or is it all by employer base? (DL vs NW). Since its so obvious UA wants to sell/merge, has the ALPA representing UA aready defined their requirements or is this something that can't be considered until they know who the merge partner would be - have they been preparing the pilots for possible disappointment or is all very upbeat?

-- I know 737s are the bottom of the pile, but what implications are there for the pilots that UA is grounding some of their fleet for gas reasons? Is that a good thing as those pilots will have an earlier opportunity to move up or a bad thing due to the shrinking opportunity to fly?

Last, I was on a small jet a few times the past two months with decent turbulence (hold the cup, with the arm going up and down with the jumps and lifts uncontrolled, or have the drink spilled all over yoU). Do the smaller jets feel the turbulence more than a larger ones, e.g. are the same bumps out there but they are more noticeable to the passengers on the small jet versus the large ones?

coolbeans202

l'etoile, thanks for the very informative post!

UALPilotDC

GoingAway,

Yes MESA pilots are part of ALPA. ALPA represents all types and size of pilot groups from the largest (UAL) to small (Bearskin Airlines).

UAL ALPA is very aware for Tilton's desire to merge. They are as prepared as they can be at the time being. Until a specific partner is announced, ALPA can only wait and see. And ALPA certainly has told Tilton that the pilots/other employee groups need to be on board for any merger to succeed. Mergers on a whole do not benefit the employees, only management and wall street. Employees and Passengers are rarely a concern when putting together the deal.

The grounding/selling of aircraft is never a good thing for pilots. Less planes usually means less of a need for pilots. Since UAL is currently short of pilots (as is the norm over the past 10 years) hopefully the grounding will not result in any furloughs, but actually get us to a more realistic staffing level.

As far as turbulence goes.... What may feel like something light on an RJ may actually feel worse in the back of a 757. But the tendency is usually the larger the plane, the more turbulence it takes to spill your drink.

DC