[hangover]

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...TECH-SEQ07.pdf

W.r.t the changi fire please refer to the above PDF. It's a different plane. The points below are common to all planes.

Go to page 3: primary engine monitors are only 3

Go to page 7: no cockpit alert

Same page: dry crank the engine is a standard industry term

Go to page 17: if possible keep the engine running

Today's special on the menu of 777's: humble pie

[hangover]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

As I said before, there is a lot of research available on how to board plane fast.
One of the most well known methods is the Steffen Method.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...planes/383181/

Steffen's idea is exactly my idea. And one level better. Its version II.

He says first send in 2 window seat passengers to the back of the plane. One sits on left window. Other on the right window.

I said next, send in 2 more passengers to occupy the window seats in front of the previous guys. Steffen says yes, but let them leave an empty row in front of the first guys. This is version II.

We're on the same wavelength.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

What I always find interesting that all actual tests show that random boarding is typically the fastest or second fastest method!

Jeroen

True. Page 2 of the same test results also says that passengers absolutely hate random boarding like on south west airlines. They prefer an orderly boarding even if it's a mite longer.

[searchingheaven]

Originally Posted by hangover

Thrust reverser uses fuel when airlines are trying to save money with one engine only running at taxiing. Which is obviously irrelevant to a gulfie carrier.

French and German pilots care about passenger comfort more. So they land like butterflies.

Again it's because fuel costs are negligible for gulf carriers. So they step on it.

Wrong once again. Emirates buys it's fuel from the open market, same as the European carriers. And no, fuel accounted for 32% of their total expenditure. Not negligible, I'd say. In fact, the same as most carriers.

I fly to EU a lot, due to a skewed roster prepared by my carrier, but I haven't heard this before. Any sources?

[RVD]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

Wrong once again. Emirates buys it's fuel from the open market, same as the European carriers. And no, fuel accounted for 32% of their total expenditure. Not negligible, I'd say. In fact, the same as most carriers.

I fly to EU a lot, due to a skewed roster prepared by my carrier, but I haven't heard this before. Any sources?

Just curious, what is the typical cost index range that you guys use in your company ? Even though fuel related cost is a MAJOR chunk for flight operations, irrespective of the region, I do think that Gulf careers use a significantly higher cost index on a similar routes than others.

[searchingheaven]

Originally Posted by RVD

Just curious, what is the typical cost index range that you guys use in your company ? Even though fuel related cost is a MAJOR chunk for flight operations, irrespective of the region, I do think that Gulf careers use a significantly higher cost index on a similar routes than others.

Emirates always uses 80 across its complete 777 range. 100% sure about this.

My carrier uses the following values:

Flight with duration more than 4 Hours:

B777-200LR = Cost Index 70
B777-300ER = Cost Index 75

Flights with duration less than 4 Hours:

B777-200LR = Cost Index 80
B777-300ER = Cost Index 75

[hangover]

So on engine de icing:


Ice 101:

Ice is of 2 types.
A clear ice formed by bigger droplets of rain and an opaque ice formed when air is trapped in ice.

The clear ice is extremely hard and adheres to surfaces like an iguana.

The opaque ice is easier to remove, brittle and its formed in light rains by smaller droplets.

There are 3 methods used - Thermo pneumatic, Thermo electric and chemical.

Thermo pneumatic is using the hot engine air bleed. This is fed into the wings and mixed with ambient air.

Ambient air serves 2 purposes:
A) it reduces the temperature to an optimum level.
B) increases air mass

Ambient air enters via 2 flush ram valves, one at the wing tip and other at the wing joint where it joins the fuselage.
This mix is directed into the inner surface of wings to de-ice it.

The second method is Thermo electric. Like your car defrost, thermal elements are used to heat smaller components like sensors and windshields.

This method wasn't used for the wings due to the high amperage it would need.
The new 777 has an improved system that uses only the Thermo electric method. It's also made of composites. So ice formation is lesser compared to all Aluminium structures.
Propeller driven planes use mostly Thermo electric since they have lesser hot air volumes available.

The third method is a chemical spray. This is interesting. A titanium sheet is drilled with 800 holes per square inch, mated to a non perforated steel sheet that is bonded to the leading wing edges.
Propylene glycol seeps in via these holes and gets coated on the whole wing surface due to airflow.

How does that prevent icing? Because it has a freezing point of -27 degrees centigrade. Ice can't adhere to the surface.

With chemical spray there are some pre conditions. A lightly viscous spray will stay on for less than 10 minutes. So you need to start and escape before that. A more viscous glycol mix with anti corrosion chemicals has a green dye. This stays on for 30 minutes.

A few more general points:
1. The pilots (real or imaginary) are wrong when they state that all planes can land with a full load. Maybe once. Or twice. No more. Only a few like the a320 and 737 can do that regularly. They are short haul planes with fewer passengers and lesser tonnage of fuel. Try to land an a380 with a full load if it's not an emergency and you'll be flying paper planes next.
2. The pilots are also wrong when somewhere in the beginning of this thread they state that an A320 can dump fuel. It can't. Search for its manual and read.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

Emirates always uses 80 across its complete 777 range. 100% sure about this.

My carrier uses the following values:

Flight with duration more than 4 Hours:

B777-200LR = Cost Index 70
B777-300ER = Cost Index 75

Flights with duration less than 4 Hours:

B777-200LR = Cost Index 80
B777-300ER = Cost Index 75

Interesting to see its the same value for the ER version. But do they ever fly routes shorter then 4 hours. Seems to defeat the purpose of having extended range to start with!

For those wanting a bit more info on this Cost Index here is an interesting and very readable Boeing article

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...7_article5.pdf

Jeroen

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by hangover

A few more general points:
1. The pilots (real or imaginary) are wrong when they state that all planes can land with a full load. Maybe once. Or twice. No more. Only a few like the a320 and 737 can do that regularly. They are short haul planes with fewer passengers and lesser tonnage of fuel. Try to land an a380 with a full load if it's not an emergency and you'll be flying paper planes next.
2. The pilots are also wrong when somewhere in the beginning of this thread they state that an A320 can dump fuel. It can't. Search for its manual and read.

What is a full/partial load? Are you speaking of pax weight?, Cargo?, Fuel? that is such an unclear term. All airplanes have a maximum 'certified' takeoff and landing weight. That is a limitation which one is bound to adhere to. As long as the airplane is within the maximum certified landing weight it can land safely, period. Sometimes one is forced to land with landing weights higher than the maximum certified weights, say during a turn back due technical or medical reasons. For such emergencies airplane manuals have an overweight landing procedure which aims at minimizing loads on the gear and fuselage to acceptable limits followed by a detailed engineering inspection post landing. Some airplanes have fuel venting mechanisms to ensure weight is reduced to within certified limits, all Airbus aircraft don't have fuel dumping valves as far as I know. Hence we have an overweight landing procedure which doesn't have a ceiling on the maximum weight on one which can land overweight.

[SR71-Blackbird]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

But do they ever fly routes shorter then 4 hours. Seems to defeat the purpose of having extended range to start with!

I have seen them operating the B777-300ER in the DXB-BLR sector which is around 4 hours.

[Gansan]

This is OT, but interesting! Air Asia, partner airline to Rajini starrer Tamil film "Kabali", paints up a plane in special Kabali livery and announced special package flights for Rajini fans from Bangalore to Chennai and back for watching the film first day first show!

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06..._10606834.html

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Gansan

This is OT, but interesting! Air Asia, partner airline to Rajini starrer Tamil film "Kabali", paints up a plane in special Kabali livery and announced special package flights for Rajini fans from Bangalore to Chennai and back for watching the film first day first show!

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06..._10606834.html

Over the years many airlines have put special liveries on their planes for a variety of reasons. Never quite understood how that would draw the crowds in. These days, as a passenger, you hardly get to see the outside of the plane!

Anyway it makes for a nice change
Have a look here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...-revealed.html


And my personal favourite

http://blog.flightstory.net/1472/kulula-air-with-new-funny-livery/
Jeroen

[MinivanDriver]

Originally Posted by hangover

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...TECH-SEQ07.pdf

W.r.t the changi fire please refer to the above PDF. It's a different plane. The points below are common to all planes.

Go to page 3: primary engine monitors are only 3

Go to page 7: no cockpit alert

Same page: dry crank the engine is a standard industry term

Go to page 17: if possible keep the engine running

Thanks for sharing the link to the manual. Very interesting points. I have the following requests
1. Could you please share more of your insights on this? As I understand, the pilots do not have a direct visual of the fire. Hence how would they know for sure that it is only a "tail pipe" fire and they are supposed to do the specific instructions for this scenario? If it turns out that it is really an "engine fire" mis-diagnosed as "tail pipe" fire, there is a good chance of catastrophic consequences isn't it?

2. Requesting other pilots in the forum like @searchingheaven, @jeroen, @rvd and @ifly to comment on the manual sections referenced by @hangover.

PS: This thread is hugely educational to me. My intent is solely to bring out more valuable information, perspectives and insights.

[searchingheaven]

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

Thanks for sharing the link to the manual. Very interesting points. I have the following requests
1. Could you please share more of your insights on this? As I understand, the pilots do not have a direct visual of the fire. Hence how would they know for sure that it is only a "tail pipe" fire and they are supposed to do the specific instructions for this scenario? If it turns out that it is really an "engine fire" mis-diagnosed as "tail pipe" fire, there is a good chance of catastrophic consequences isn't it?

2. Requesting other pilots in the forum like @searchingheaven, @jeroen, @rvd and @ifly to comment on the manual sections referenced by @hangover.

PS: This thread is hugely educational to me. My intent is solely to bring out more valuable information, perspectives and insights.

1. As I said earlier, the 777 has a TAIL PIPE Fire warning on the EICAS. I don't know why he is referring to an Airbus manual for a fire on the B777. They are not the same aircraft, not even the same manufacturer.

2. If there is a fire in any other location, we have warnings for that as well.

2. I cannot speak for other pilots on the forum. But I can tell you this. He is woefully ignorant about anything related to aviation. The procedures and the terms he uses have no resemblance whatsoever to real world aviation. Almost everything he has said till now has been corrected repeatedly by us. But he does not seem to understand this. I corrected him initially, but given his consistently wrong posts, not bothered to do it anymore. If I had a penny for every time I had to correct him, I would be a millionaire by now.

If you want to ask something, ask Jeroen, RVD, apachelongbow, coolboy_007, flyboy747 and me. These people are real world pilots.

[DCEite]

A newbie question:

In terms of passenger comfort (noise levels, cabin pressure etc.), which one would the experts here rate better, between Airbus A-380 Super Jumbo, Boeing 787-8, and Boeing 777 ?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by DCEite

A newbie question:

In terms of passenger comfort (noise levels, cabin pressure etc.), which one would the experts here rate better, between Airbus A-380 Super Jumbo, Boeing 787-8, and Boeing 777 ?

Not sure we are looking for expertise here, a lot of it is down to personal preferences also. It also depends a lot on where you sit in the aircraft!

I have flown with all three regularly. I would say the upper deck of the 380 is very, very good. I had the pleasure of being upgraded to first class by Lufthansa about a year back, coming from San Francisco to Frankfurt. Really nice in terms of comfort, noise level etc.

Apparently, some people do actually choose their flights by looking at the planes. In all honesty I rarely do, I typically look at the carrier as I definitely have preferences there.

And I will take my beloved 747-400 any day over any of these three purely for sentimental reasons. Each one of these is probably much better in any seat in any class compared to a 744.

Jeroen