When dreams come true... (long)

nddons said:
Hehe! Yes!

Talking to a seat-mate:

"Man, FO Jonesy must have been a Navy pilot. I think he was trying to snag the third wire on a pitching deck." (Followed with visual sign of disgust and implying that I could do it sooooo much better.)

:D
Click to expand...

Just give me a few months to perfect my landings in the real machine. :wink2:
 
That's awesome! Congratulations and good luck with the next part of your flying career.
 
Congrats!

While Tim is making snide comments on your landings, I'll be going "Hmm, I haven't heard that noise from the engines before..." :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Congrats!

While Tim is making snide comments on your landings, I'll be going "Hmm, I haven't heard that noise from the engines before..." :D
Click to expand...

We're very kind to our engines! We try for reduced thrust takeoffs on every flight, unless conditions dictate otherwise....and I can recite those conditions from memory! :yes:
 
LDJones said:
It was possibly the easiest checkride I've done....even easier than MEI which I thought was pretty easy. Had a great captain seat-sitting which was a big help. I only muffed one thing on the LAX departure but sorted it out fairly quickly and had an uneventful flight to PHX with the ILS to rwy 8. After a quick turn I was Pilot Monitoring on flight from PHX to SLC. Very simple when all was said and done.

And I still don't completely believe I've just earned my ATP with CL-65 Type Rating with RVSM and CAT II qualifications....one week shy of my 58th birthday!

It's crazy. But I'm loving every second of it!
Click to expand...

Now that you have experienced the process, coming from a GA background, do you see what I have repeated over and over about standardization and a regimented training program? Of course your checkride was easy, you received top notch training which basically makes the check ride a non event, especially when done via AQP.

And remember, "props are for kids"....:D
 
LDJones said:
We're very kind to our engines! We try for reduced thrust takeoffs on every flight, unless conditions dictate otherwise....and I can recite those conditions from memory! :yes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the reduced thrust takeoffs really have have an impact on LLPs and allow longer between shop visits. But, less thrust isn't always truly being nicer, but that's a whole other story.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Now that you have experienced the process, coming from a GA background, do you see what I have repeated over and over about standardization and a regimented training program? Of course your checkride was easy, you received top notch training which basically makes the check ride a non event, especially when done via AQP.

And remember, "props are for kids"....:D
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. I've enjoyed riding the jumpseat and observing the procedures of other carriers. It's readily apparent we have far more in common than we have differences in terms of profiles and callouts.

I like the AQP model with several specific evaluation events over a period of time in sequence with the training you've received, rather than trying to dump it all within the context of a single checkride event. That would end up being a two-day affair!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, the reduced thrust takeoffs really have have an impact on LLPs and allow longer between shop visits. But, less thrust isn't always truly being nicer, but that's a whole other story.
Click to expand...

They say every 1% decrease in takeoff thrust translates into 10 degrees cooler ITT which, they claim, improves component life. As long as you have the runway length it seems like a smart way to go. They are pricey parts!
 
LDJones said:
They say every 1% decrease in takeoff thrust translates into 10 degrees cooler ITT which, they claim, improves component life. As long as you have the runway length it seems like a smart way to go. They are pricey parts!
Click to expand...

It's not just runway length, it's climb performance too.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
It's not just runway length, it's climb performance too.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a given, but climb thrust is often a percent or two lower anyway so if there are no obstacle clearance issues you're just starting that power setting a bit earlier.
 
We had a Chief Pilot that insisted on FLEX TO's with packs off, every flight to help "save on engines" (most were from SL airports), yet on landing insisted on max reverse for every landing (regardless of runway length).

The tables showed that for a majority of the TO's the packs off resulted in less than a .5% reduction using packs off (negligible), which any savings were wiped out at the application of max reverse on landing.

On a long runway my (and others) technique is to touch down and use "idle reverse" which just opens the buckets without accelerating the engines. This reduces noise as well as giving the engines a nice long cool down through the approach and landing, taxi phase.
 
Interesting about the flex takeoffs. The airplane I fly (CE-680) doesn't even have numbers for them, so every takeoff is in the T/O detent on the throttles. We certainly don't need all that thrust every time, or even most of the time, because our field length required is very short and the airplane has an excellent climb.
 
RotorAndWing said:
We had a Chief Pilot that insisted on FLEX TO's with packs off, every flight to help "save on engines" (most were from SL airports), yet on landing insisted on max reverse for every landing (regardless of runway length).

The tables showed that for a majority of the TO's the packs off resulted in less than a .5% reduction using packs off (negligible), which any savings were wiped out at the application of max reverse on landing.

On a long runway my (and others) technique is to touch down and use "idle reverse" which just opens the buckets without accelerating the engines. This reduces noise as well as giving the engines a nice long cool down through the approach and landing, taxi phase.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I can see how that would make sense. I think our reverse max's at 70%, then must be at idle below 60.
 
Everskyward said:
Interesting about the flex takeoffs. The airplane I fly (CE-680) doesn't even have numbers for them, so every takeoff is in the T/O detent on the throttles. We certainly don't need all that thrust every time, or even most of the time, because our field length required is very short and the airplane has an excellent climb.
Click to expand...

The 200s don't have FADEC so the PF sets the thrust levers close then calls "Set Thrust" as the PM tweaks the settings to the TO number before 60 kts. The 700 and 900 have FADEC so you just push the thrust levers to the stops. If you're doing a Flex TO (reduced thrust) on the 700/900 the FADEC has that already bugged so it's still to the stops.
 
RotorAndWing said:
We had a Chief Pilot that insisted on FLEX TO's with packs off, every flight to help "save on engines" (most were from SL airports), yet on landing insisted on max reverse for every landing (regardless of runway length).

The tables showed that for a majority of the TO's the packs off resulted in less than a .5% reduction using packs off (negligible), which any savings were wiped out at the application of max reverse on landing.

On a long runway my (and others) technique is to touch down and use "idle reverse" which just opens the buckets without accelerating the engines. This reduces noise as well as giving the engines a nice long cool down through the approach and landing, taxi phase.
Click to expand...
Rotor, I'm not in anyway defending the technique, but we takeoff with packs off in the Bus.
 
Kritchlow said:
Rotor, I'm not in anyway defending the technique, but we takeoff with packs off in the Bus.
Click to expand...

Do you guys use the LPC? Depending on airport elevation, runway and temperature, as well as wind, the packs off doesn't do hardly anything as far as fuel consumption or reduced engine wear.

Our management gurus took a memo from Airbus and bastardized it to fit their agenda.

The reality is I look at which runway gives me the best flex at the best flap setting (config 1, 2 or 3). I will also look at packs off/on to see if there is an advantage there as well, but the majority of the time, there isn't.

Now, take the airplane on a hot day above 3000' FE and you'll start to see a difference.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Now that you have experienced the process, coming from a GA background, do you see what I have repeated over and over about standardization and a regimented training program? Of course your checkride was easy, you received top notch training which basically makes the check ride a non event, especially when done via AQP.

And remember, "props are for kids"....:D
Click to expand...


I guess some of us will always be kids. ;). You poo poo face. :)
 
tmyers said:
Kinda nice that I own my prop and everything behind it
Click to expand...

Sure, but walking up to a gate to get on a plane to go anywhere I want for free is almost better than flying myself there.
 
From now on, make sure to preface anything you say about flying here with 'well we in the part 121 world'.....
 
LDJones said:
The 200s don't have FADEC so the PF sets the thrust levers close then calls "Set Thrust" as the PM tweaks the settings to the TO number before 60 kts. The 700 and 900 have FADEC so you just push the thrust levers to the stops. If you're doing a Flex TO (reduced thrust) on the 700/900 the FADEC has that already bugged so it's still to the stops.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. The 680 has FADEC but they didn't go to the trouble of engineering in the option for reduced thrust takeoffs. Not sure how many operators would use them even if they were available. There were numbers for the Lear 35 but I think I only did a reduced thrust takeoff once and that was only because the other pilot wanted to see what it was like. There were some extra calculations to go through (before the computer age) and there was no guidance from the company whether or not to use them. I don't think anyone did.
 
weilke said:
From now on, make sure to preface anything you say about flying here with 'well we in the part 121 world'.....
Click to expand...

I'll be living in both worlds. I'm jumpseating to south FL tomorrow to fly a buddy's light sport back to MN for him. He had a heart episode a couple of weeks ago so has self-grounded and will be flying back commercial.
 
LDJones said:
I'll be living in both worlds. I'm jumpseating to south FL tomorrow to fly a buddy's light sport back to MN for him. He had a heart episode a couple of weeks ago so has self-grounded and will be flying back commercial.
Click to expand...


All that way without a crew of two? Are you crazy?????

:)
 
RotorAndWing said:
Do you guys use the LPC? Depending on airport elevation, runway and temperature, as well as wind, the packs off doesn't do hardly anything as far as fuel consumption or reduced engine wear
Click to expand...
Seeing as though I'm only vaguely familiar with LPC, I would say we do not use it. We use AWP to calculate our performance in the airplane.

I don't like departing with packs off. I have sensitive ears and always feel a pressure bump.
 
Kritchlow said:
Seeing as though I'm only vaguely familiar with LPC, I would say we do not use it. We use AWP to calculate our performance in the airplane.

I don't like departing with packs off. I have sensitive ears and always feel a pressure bump.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, that's why I don't do it (packs off TO). It's a false economy.
 
Mason said:
Yes! As long as you don't get bumped. And, you can ride in the back and drink.
Click to expand...
Non-revving has mostly been a non issue for me. I'm one of four kids so we usually had all 6 of us travelling. We've almost always made it to our destination on our original flight or the next flight after that. It all depends when you travel and what city pair your flying out of. We always try to catch the first flight out and avoid ATL at all costs!
 
LDJones said:
They say every 1% decrease in takeoff thrust translates into 10 degrees cooler ITT which, they claim, improves component life. As long as you have the runway length it seems like a smart way to go. They are pricey parts!
Click to expand...

Without going into a whole lesson on life limits of turbine parts, that is mostly true and will extend time between performance restoration. You do sometimes get into odd dynamics where less thrust can cause other issues, but that really gets into dynamics of parts interactions rather than temp issues. You're thinking of strictly temp. As R&W pointed out, reverse matters just as much.

Everskyward said:
Interesting about the flex takeoffs. The airplane I fly (CE-680) doesn't even have numbers for them, so every takeoff is in the T/O detent on the throttles. We certainly don't need all that thrust every time, or even most of the time, because our field length required is very short and the airplane has an excellent climb.
Click to expand...

Bizjet engine life is also different because typical bizjet missions are calculated differently from airlines, and going 10k hours between any sort of shop visit is less of a need than airlines.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Bizjet engine life is also different because typical bizjet missions are calculated differently from airlines, and going 10k hours between any sort of shop visit is less of a need than airlines.
Click to expand...
True. Business jets don't acquire nearly the number of cycles that airliners do in any given length of time. Also the cost to engineer and test a variable system which most operators who buy the airplane wouldn't care about doesn't make sense.
 
Everskyward said:
True. Business jets don't acquire nearly the number of cycles that airliners do in any given length of time. Also the cost to engineer and test a variable system which most operators who buy the airplane wouldn't care about doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Yep. Adds cost without any benefit.
 
Mason said:
Yes! As long as you don't get bumped. And, you can ride in the back and drink.
Click to expand...

As long as you are jumpseating, it doesn't matter where you are in the plane, you are part of the crew and as such aren't permitted to drink.
 
nddons said:
All that way without a crew of two? Are you crazy?????

:)
Click to expand...

Scary, I know! But I made it from Naples, FL to Nashville, TN in 6.4 hrs last night. Had dinner and a night's rest in a crew lounge recliner....:yes::D...then flew a 5.4 hour non-stop to within 50 nm of home but had to make a quick gas stop to protect my reserve margin. So 12.4 total flight time Naples to Minneapolis in a Light Sport. Fun flying!
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
Scary, I know! But I made it from Napels to Nashville in 6.4 hrs last night. Had dinner and a night's rest in a crew lounge recliner....:yes::D...then flew a 5.4 hour non-stop to within 50 nm of home but had to make a quick gas stop to protect my reserve margin. So 12.4 total flight time Naples to Minneapolis in a Light Sport. Fun flying!
Click to expand...
Better than the RJ right?:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top