For the aviation fans

[kosmonooit]

What do you make of this emergency landing in Argentina today?

 

 

Looks like it came in tail down, wobbled a bit, bled speed then the nose dropped. Well done is all I can say.

Edited December 28, 2019 by kosmonooit

[DJR]

What do you make of this emergency landing in Argentina today?

 

 

 

Looks like it came in tail down, wobbled a bit, bled speed then the nose dropped. Well done is all I can say.

Aliens, I tell you, all crop circles are made by aliens. They just put the plane there to confuse us.

Edited December 29, 2019 by DJR

[kosmonooit]

Aliens favor wheat crops tho ....

 

I am sure the designers of that Cessna did not intend it to be a tail dragger

[Long Wheel Base]

LWB; with the A350's operating commercially (at last), any idea how much more duel efficient they are?

I always question the answers given wrt fuel efficiency. The article kosmonooit posted is a good example. When you say it is X% more efficient, you must be comparing it to something. So we have been told they 25% more efficient. I asked 25% more than what and no one seems to be able to tell me. Our A350-900s are essentially replacing our A340-600s so out the box going from 4 powerplants down to 2 is a saving BUT we could transport a lot more pax with 6 A340-600s than we can with 4 A350-900s. So are we saving there? Well we have reduced our flights and destinations so in theory, Yes we are because we now are transporting less pax. 

I used to work on the line, I used to see the aircraft in and out, do the turnaround checks, fuel the aircraft and I always use this as a good example because in one night I did both our LHR flights(SA234 and SA236-one has since been cancelled). So they left basically an hour apart, so weather, temp etc etc was all the same. The first aircraft was an A340-300 with 4 CFM56-5C and the second aircraft was an A330-200 with 2 Rolls Royce Trent 700. The seating config on those 2 aircraft is the same so both take the same amount of pax and crew. The A340-300 I fueled with 110 tonnes of fuel and the A330 I put 70 tonnes. So simply going from A340 to A330 we saved as they more efficient but here I am able to compare Apples with Apples. 

As technology advances the aircraft are naturally getting more and more efficient with each mod that gets done. Take those winglets on the B737-800 for eg, they something like 12%(can't remember the exact figure) more efficient. If you go buy a new B737-800 now, it comes standard but with each Manago that comes in for a major check we are doing the mod. They say within a year, the cost of the mod has paid for itself in the fuel saving.

 

Us(SAA) also can't just look at fuel saving as we lease all our aircraft. We need to look at the deal as a whole. 

 

So to answer your question with the answer we as employees are being given-They 25% more fuel efficient.

[Twaatie]

This is what aircraft looks like too me when I'm working

[Long Wheel Base]

This is what aircraft looks like too me when I'm working

Are you ATC at CPT? 

[Twaatie]

Are you ATC at CPT?

Yes, CPT area

[Long Wheel Base]

Yes, CPT area

Awesome. Would love some more posts from you, please? Have heard it is one of the most stressful jobs in the world.

[Twaatie]

Awesome. Would love some more posts from you, please? Have heard it is one of the most stressful jobs in the world.

Its like any job, has its stressful moments.

 

Will take some more pics when at work again

 

If you have any questions ask away

[Bateleur1]

Its like any job, has its stressful moments.

 

Will take some more pics when at work again

 

If you have any questions ask away

 

Oooo can I ask the first question?  Do you get tought to talk so quickly in code?  I do listen often to conversations between aircraft and ATC and I am always amazed about the speed that the quys talk and am not sure who I am admiring the most, the person talking or the person listening and actually hearing what was said.

[porqui]

Yes, CPT area

 

So you and allouette3 chat every now and then

Edited December 30, 2019 by porqui

[Robbie Stewart]

Oooo can I ask the first question?  Do you get tought to talk so quickly in code?  I do listen often to conversations between aircraft and ATC and I am always amazed about the speed that the quys talk and am not sure who I am admiring the most, the person talking or the person listening and actually hearing what was said.

 

I watched this clip last night of a new Lufthansa A350 on approach to Boston. The ATC on this approach speaks in a machine-gun style, and I had to really pay attention to make out the instructions, purposefully ignoring the subtitles to put myself in the pilots shoes.

 

[edit - listen to the machine gunner at 06:28

Edited December 30, 2019 by Robbie Stewart

[Twaatie]

 

 

Oooo can I ask the first question? Do you get tought to talk so quickly in code? I do listen often to conversations between aircraft and ATC and I am always amazed about the speed that the quys talk and am not sure who I am admiring the most, the person talking or the person listening and actually hearing what was said.

Yes we taught too talk like that. Its official ICAO aviation language used world wide except ,

only america uses some different phrases in there country,. It only sounds fast because you don't speak/listen to it everyday.

 

The clip above speed sounds perfect when talking

 

So you and allouette3 chat every now and then

Who does he fly for?

[Bonus]

I guess once you understand the format of the instruction it is easier. Height, speed, direction.

[Patchelicious]

Its like any job, has its stressful moments.

 

Will take some more pics when at work again

 

If you have any questions ask away

Are you John Cusack or Billy Bob?

[Frosty]

I always question the answers given wrt fuel efficiency. The article kosmonooit posted is a good example. When you say it is X% more efficient, you must be comparing it to something. So we have been told they 25% more efficient. I asked 25% more than what and no one seems to be able to tell me. Our A350-900s are essentially replacing our A340-600s so out the box going from 4 powerplants down to 2 is a saving BUT we could transport a lot more pax with 6 A340-600s than we can with 4 A350-900s. So are we saving there? Well we have reduced our flights and destinations so in theory, Yes we are because we now are transporting less pax.

I used to work on the line, I used to see the aircraft in and out, do the turnaround checks, fuel the aircraft and I always use this as a good example because in one night I did both our LHR flights(SA234 and SA236-one has since been cancelled). So they left basically an hour apart, so weather, temp etc etc was all the same. The first aircraft was an A340-300 with 4 CFM56-5C and the second aircraft was an A330-200 with 2 Rolls Royce Trent 700. The seating config on those 2 aircraft is the same so both take the same amount of pax and crew. The A340-300 I fueled with 110 tonnes of fuel and the A330 I put 70 tonnes. So simply going from A340 to A330 we saved as they more efficient but here I am able to compare Apples with Apples.

As technology advances the aircraft are naturally getting more and more efficient with each mod that gets done. Take those winglets on the B737-800 for eg, they something like 12%(can't remember the exact figure) more efficient. If you go buy a new B737-800 now, it comes standard but with each Manago that comes in for a major check we are doing the mod. They say within a year, the cost of the mod has paid for itself in the fuel saving.

 

Us(SAA) also can't just look at fuel saving as we lease all our aircraft. We need to look at the deal as a whole.

 

So to answer your question with the answer we as employees are being given-They 25% more fuel efficient.

Less PX doesn’t necessarily mean less income. It might result in fuller flights on the fewer flights available. Then supply and demand principles can be applied, resulting in higher prices for limited seats.

 

But I could be completely wrong.