Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Commercial Vehicles (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/)

-   -   Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/175938-boeing-777-pilots-review-25.html)

Though it is of no doubt that the expenditure involved in pilot training is huge. But the myth that it can be undergone by only the rich and the privileged is busted. Shrikant Pantawane,auto driver turned pilot, had appeared for the pilot scholarship program run by aviation regulator DGCA or the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and undergone his training in Madhya Pradesh, currently working for Indigo

IGRUA(Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi) The Akademi functions under the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), Govt. of India (GOI) through its Governing Council (GC). Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi (IGRUA) located at Fursatganj District Raebareli Uttar Pradesh, is an autonomous body under the control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Governing Council is the supreme body of the organization headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation


A job in the Defence Forces is undoubtedly the most prestigious and respected jobs in the country. But the transition from a Permanent Commission Officer to a commercial pilot is not at all seamless. Several articles highlight the difficulty in requesting a premature release before 20 years of service.
Link:- http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/i.../1/181022.html
Even if one manages to leave the Force he has to get himself type rated on a aircraft(the cost of the rating has often been needed to be born by the candidates)which is expensive. In this process the candidate looses significant years of his life

Recent typical calendar times for completion of both the CPL and type rating average 24 months with the minimum being 19 months. I beg to differ that papa's jugaad wont come into effect if one is applying for a Gulf Carrier like Emirates or a US Major like American Airlines where candidates apply from across the globe.


Absolutely agree with you that basic knowledge of science specially physics and mathematics is important or rather vital for the pilot training.

The fee charged is Rs.32.50 Lacs whereas the cost of training of CPL at IGRUA is more than 40 Lacs. The gap is made up by the Government. So there is subsidy provided by the Government.

One by one
The rickshaw driver turned pilot is a poster boy, good for business and good publicity, its a mere one of a kind exception than the norm

IRGUA fees are equivalent to fees outside.The so called gap arrangement is for 'weaker section candidates' not for open seats, which are far and few. Fees for India based CPL is close to 40 lacs at current prices. And stop propagating the myth of 18-24 months for CPL. May be in India, however in the US or Canada its between 10-12 months, depending on the candidate's flying abilities.

Please check on the entry requirements to join Emirates or any other gulf carrier. Its at least 2500 hours on 'jet' time, for a FO post. Turbo prop or small piston engine time doesn't count, with a valid ATPL. which itself requires 1500 hours of flying time. So one can't just walk in and apply. So how does one get those hours? Use your 'papa's jugaad' to enter an Indian carrier first:D
Also don't discuss US or European airlines, as an Indian you can't apply, you need local citizenship and right to work to apply.

The other big myth is the requirement of basic physics or mathematics to be a pilot. Its a joke. All airline or commercial pilots in other countries don't have a educational entry barrier to become a pilot, our folks think that we are smarter than international aviation agencies. Also as in all Indian requirements there is an inbuilt loophole. One can get a maths physics conversion degree from any open university and be legal to apply for a CPL. :Frustrati

this is a 777 thread. Lets take this discussion offline or on some other thread. From now on I will discuss only the relevant topic. Cheers

Just on this becoming a pilot. I am of course just a hobby pilot. If you’re really interested in aviation and flying and you ever find yourself in the USA I would suggest you look into the possibility to get your Private Pilot License or Sports License.

It’s hugely interesting, rewarding and if you manage to pass your check ride within 50-60 hours you can still do it for probably $ 7-9.000,-- Which is not cheap, but in most places on the world it will either be much more expensive or very complicated. I passed my check ride on my 42nd flight hour and it cost me in total about $ 6 - 6.500. To put that in perspective, in Europe it would have cost me most likely upwards of $25.000! General aviation is a huge industry in the USA, so everything is extremely well organised and relatively cheap.

I don’t think I ever had to pay landing fees in the US. In Europe on just about any field, large or small, a single landing might cost you Euro 10-25!

It is how every commercial pilot started as well. Again, I’m not a commercial pilot but I do know a lot of them and I fully agree with the level of commitment and dedication it takes from an individual. As indicated earlier by Searchingheaven.

I would add a few thoughts to that.

Becoming a pilot is almost a calling. For most that succeed it also turns out to be a life long career. Or rather, once you are a commercial pilot, you are likely to find it very difficult to switch to a different career path. So it is very much a choice for life almost. Being a commercial pilot requires very specific skills, knowledge, experience and competence that might not be in such high demand outside a cockpit.

One of my sons, one day announced he wanted to become an airline pilot. Which was a bit of a surprise as he had never displayed any particular big interest in aviation, but of course I was more than happy to support him.

So the two of us went to a full introduction day at the KLM Flight Academy. You actually have to pay for that. Shows a level of genuine interest I guess.

Contrary to what the name suggest, this is an independent company from KLM these days. Although a lot of their graduates still make it into KLM cockpits as well obviously.

Thomas became very enthusiastic and applied. Subsequently, Thomas was accepted for the initial test intake phase. A full day of all sort of test and interviews, which he passed.

Next was a three day test program. Every day potential candidates were told they did not make the cut. At the very end of the last day, he was told that on nearly all tests he scored the highest results in the Academy’s history and he had also tested with the highest IQ they had ever seen.

They still turned him down, because he just did not have the right aptitude for becoming a pilot. They told him; we are sure you can do it, but you would become bored pretty quickly and the minute you think it becomes routine and boring you are not a good pilot.

So you don’t need to be a super intelligent person to become a successful pilot. KLM looked for people who would have a College (Bsc) type of profile rather then university (Msc)

Being a (commercial) pilot takes a huge effort. The job at hand is complex. On purpose a lot of standards and routines are built into everything pilots do. But it takes a very special type of skill and dedication to stay agile, focussed and attentive to many details hour after hour. How do you ensure that a pilot goes through it’s checklist with as much rigor and thoughtfulness when he/she is a student pilot and when you have 15.000 flight hours under your belt?

It takes a very special kind of interest and character to do so.

Good flight schools will do these sort of assessments before they take you on as student. The art (if you like) of predicting/selecting good persons started in the second world war where in a very short time thousand of pilots needed to be selected and trained. It quickly became apparent that it is very worthwhile to develop methods on how to select pilots, what to look for in terms of skills, but also character etc.

If I had to compress what to look for in a pilot, it’s all about the ability to work/think/act in a highly consistent way under all circumstances.

That goes beyond the cockpit. Suppose a pilot has a blazing row with his/her partner a few hours before take off. It should not affect his/her performance. For most people it could be, your thoughts still wander back etc.

When I started flying I found it kept me mentally 100% occupied. I have never taken a selfie of myself in the cockpit. I have taken very few photographs whilst flying. I just did not have the mental capacity for anything other then to concentrate on the job at hand. I need every single cell brain.

I actually quite enjoyed it, completely focussed on one task and one task alone for hours at an end. In most of the various jobs I have held over the years, I actually need to change my focus, my behaviour, my thinking continuously. And I would not want it otherwise when it comes to my job.

The American flight schools and American GA aircraft manufacturers will tell you and advertise: anybody can learn to fly.

Once I started to learn to fly I started to disagree with that. It takes a very special sets of sklls and dedication to fly, or at least to fly safely!

Good pilots will never stop learning. It might look routine and to a certain agree it is. Good, of better, safe pilots will keep focussing on where they can improve their overall performance all the time.

The FAA though it’s wings-safety-program has proven that. Safe pilots are those pilots that keep learning and keep questioning their own ability irrespective whether they have done it 10.000 times all ready! Pilots who participate in the FAA-Wings program have nearly 50% less (fatal) accidents as their peers who don’t participate. This program is not about your hardcore flying skills (e.g. stick and rudder skills). In fact not a singly hour is even spend in the cockpit.

It’s about your own ability to consistently assess the situation and take the right decision and carry them through. It’s about how to recognise and ensure for instance that you don’t take off if you don’t feel or are not rested enough. The ability not to get yourself into trouble is much, much more important and relevant than superior stick and rudder skills that might get you out of a sticky situation. Not getting into that situation is more relevant. And not unimportant, far more easily to teach! But it takes a willing ear, time and thus dedication to the job at hand.

One last thing, if you are thinking of getting your pilot license in the USA: After 9/11 there is an additional requirement on the student and the CFI (Certified Flight Instructor). Both need to be vetted and approved through the FBI! So always check that your CFI’s name is on the officially approved list.

Any instructor, approved or not, is not allowed to teach a non-USA national. At best they can give you a one hour introduction flight.

It’s not a big thing to get this clearance for students. Some online forms and you need to have your fingerprints taken I seem to recall. I got my clearance in 2-3 weeks or so. But if you book a “get your PPL in two weeks in Florida” type of course, better make sure you have this arranged up front.

any good flight school will be familiar with it, but not all CFI’s are approved. And the FAA instructor that does your check ride will check!

Happy flying

Jeroen

Just curious: on the airbus we can do a reduced flap landing (conf3 versus conf full) for some fuel savings. Can the same be done in the 777? Also in suspected windshear conditions the fcom recommends a flap 3 landing due better go around performance. Any such thing on the Boeing?

Hi,

I had a question regarding the wind patterns during landing of a flight. What is the difference between 'wind shear' and 'cross winds'.

My wife had a terrible incident on Monday morning (22/08/2016). On landing in Chennai airport, the landing aircraft had a very severe sideways movement and a very hard landing. The sideways movement was so severe that the passanger sitting next to her almost lost his balance and fell on the side passanger.

My initial assumption with my limited aviation knowledge, was that this could be due to extreme cross winds, but now i read about this term 'wind shear' and was confused about the 2 terminologies.

Can the experts please help me understand what is 'wind shear' and what is 'cross winds' and what are the tolerable limits for both of these ?

Regards
Dieseltuned

Really a question for Searchingheaven. But from some old documentation I have on the 777:

The B777 is allowed to use 2 different flap settings for Autolands.
Flap 30 for normal operations
Flap 20 for non-normal operations.
Not approved for flaps 25.



Crosswind and wind shear are two different things.

A little bit of borrowing from Wikipedia:

When winds are not parallel to or directly with/against the line of travel, the wind is said to have a crosswind component; that is, the force can be separated into two vector components:

the headwind or tailwind component in the direction of motion,
the crosswind component perpendicular to the former.

Commercial planes are typically certified for up to a certain cross wind component. If the crosswind is more than the certified number you will have to look for a different runway to land.

For General Aviation planes it is somewhat different. They are not certified but have a maximum demonstrated crosswind. So that means if you have the skills or the balls you can land anyway. You’ll be perfectly legal, but it could be really stupid to do so.

Here is a good demonstration of cross wind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUdXJPUwm8

Windshear according to Wikipedia:

Wind shear, sometimes referred to as windshear or wind gradient, is a difference in wind speed and/or direction over a relatively short distance in the atmosphere.

So where as cross wind in essence means a steady pretty predictable wind not parallel to the runway, windshear means that the wind speed and or direction suddenly change dramatically.

The big problem is it can really destroy lift and the plane plummets down.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfGVkaDVu34

Jeroen

Wow, That 737 pilot showed incredible skill in landing the nose on the center-line even with such wind shear at low altitude! Amazing!

It's very difficult to judge exactly what's happening with one video. Angle and lens can give a pretty distorted view. But if we leave that for what it is, I think the real question is whether the pilot should have executed a go-around rather then land.

I would be very interested to hear from the pro's.

It's difficult for me to judge flying small single engine planes, but there is such a thing as stable final approach. Meaning you are aligned with the runway, correct air speed, correct vertical speed, correct configuration. If anything upsets that you would go around, rather then recover and land

Jeroen

Umm, no. I think your documentation is old.:)

In general, all 777s use 25 & 30 as normal landing configuration. Most operators use flaps 30 most of the time, including mine. However, some do use flaps 25 for example British Airways. Flap 20 landings are used throughout the 777 family in an engine out condition to ensure good climb performance.

As far as windshear is concerned, the general rule of thumb is not to attempt an approach if windshear is predicted. But if you do decide to risk it, the aim is to optimize for climb performance. A slightly lower flap setting, i.e 25 is used when low level wind shear is predicted or if we hear a storm or thundering). Also, the faster you are, the more responsive is the aircraft.

Jeroen sir has already cleared up your confusion regarding windshear and cross winds. As far as the limits are concerned, here is a table highlighting the takeoff and landing limits.




As you correctly noted, it's difficult to judge the strength of the crosswind looking at the video, particularly videos like these which are usually shot with a telephoto lens. These telephoto lens give a distorted view. If the crosswind was within the limit prescribed in his FCOM for the 737, then the pilot was correct in continuing the approach. Having said that, by experience, this looks something in the range of 18-25 knots, which is not even close to the 36 kt limit for the 737 on a dry runway i.e a runway with good braking performance.

Also, if low-level windshear was present, there would have been a PWS warning. With a PWS/GPWS warning, the approach should have been discontinued, no two ways about that.

In the above context, came across this P&W video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aPIEsnKb6o

In the comments section, there are informative comments by a YouTube user called 'AgentJayZ', his jet-engine channel is "must-subscribe" for jet-engine enthusiasts :)
-

EK521 preliminary report released. It's very comprehensive. But I didn't get the time to go through it. If someone can do so and summarize, it would be great.

So I just went through the report and I must say that I am aghast. They are consistent with my earlier observations in post#312. Here is the gist of it. Other pilots, please correct me if I am wrong in my observations. Important sections highlighted in yellow.

There are so many things wrong with this incident that I don't know where to start. Some important points:

1. Windshear was present, but not the reason for a go-around. The crew decided to go around due to a long landing i.e landing farther down the runway than normal.
   
   
2. Considering the fact that there must've been a windshear warning due to the sudden change in wind direction 5 second before touchdown, the procedure followed should've been a WS recovery procedure, not a normal GA.
   
   
3. Even if the crew was attempting a normal GA, gear retraction before conforming positive ROC is an absolute no-no.
   
   
4. In this case, forget ROC, the thrust levers remained at IDLE for 12 seconds after the decision to GA was made. I just cannot understand how this happened. There is only one scenario I can think of. The crew pushed the TOGA button while the aircraft was still on ground. In this case the switches are inhibited below -2 RA until the aircraft is over 5 ft RA again. They did not realize in the heat of the moment that the thrust levers hadn't advanced to GA thrust.
   
   Although my FCOM clearly states and this is drilled into us during simulation that both PF and PNF have to verify/adjust GA thrust before gear retraction. The inquiry clearly indicates that the Emirates aircraft was still operating with idle thrust, and slowing down, as it attempted to climb away. I just cannot believe that this actually happened.

It is sad but a credit to Boeing that all lost 777s have been no fault of the plane itself. Only human intervention has lead to the loss of 4 hauls. I remember pondering a mere 2 years ago that 777s were flying over 10 years with out an accident. Not for one minute could I have believed a couple of years later 4 would be destroyed in unimaginable circumstances.

The first time I read this report I just couldnt believe it. I thought I must be reading it wrong. But it looks, for whatever reason, the crew really messed up.

In essence I appears they attempted a Go around without thrust (TOGA button was disabled, they didn't firewall the throttles), to boot they retracted the gear way to early compounding to their problems.

Jeroen

Might be slightly veering away from topic, but ...
There have been 9 accidents so far involving the Boeing 777. Nine. It is, in itself, a very very low number given the number of flights made by this aircraft every day. Over 1200 of these aircraft are in passenger service today.

Of the 9 accidents:
2 were due to Uncontained Engine Failure (British Airways 2276, Korean Air 2708). No loss of life.
2 were due to other Engine related causes (Singapore Airlines 368, British Airways 38). No loss of life.
2 were due to pilot error (Asiana 214, Emirates 521). 3 fatalities.
1 was due to cockpit fire while parked (Egyptair 667). No loss of life.
1 was due to missile strike (Malaysia Airlines 17). 298 fatalities
1 is still a mystery (Malaysia Airlines 370). 239 fatalities

So far, 3 people have died in 777 accidents caused by the kind of things that are potentially preventable. Amazing safety record, don't you think?