Add me to the dyslexic... 74, 72 camp.

Yeah, me too. When airline pilots get together, I hear "72", "73", "75", etc. I don't thik I've heard one say "I fly a 37".

The ICAO type is B738, for example, which is a Boeing 737-800, which emphasizes the first two digits.

Mike C.

Maybe because I’m from the maintenance end of things.

37, 67, 27, 47

Murray

FWIW, from the Cessna 525A (CJ2, not CJ2+) operations manual, it says 900 nm zero wind ISA, using "normal cruise thrust" at MGTOW (12,375 lbs), FL390, is 2312 lbs fuel, 2:59 flight time. Works out to 116 GPH block, 302 knots block.

If you fly it at max thrust, block is 137 GPH, 333 knots.

If you fly it at long range cruise, block is 103 GPH, 284 knots.

In real life, with vectoring, approaches, more headwind than tailwind,numbers will be worse.

Mike C.

It definitely improves on longer legs. At 900 nm, and FL390, won't be as good.

Mike C.

Mark - you might be going a bit faster and saving some fuel, but what good is that gonna do you if you die from blood infections from your finger? It's time to break out the Q-tips and the big bottle of alcohol and clean that screen and those buttons out! Filthy stuff!

That was a pretty broad question, hard to tell what he was getting at. From his perspective (long oceanic flights) he has to consider all of the international fuel reserves , 2 or 3 different ETP's, re-release flight plans, alternate altitudes with commensurate differences in fuel burns, and calculate that into a "required fuel". Maybe he assumed you did all that too, but he might have meant how did you do it.

From his operation the answer is simple; he doesn't do it, a super computer does, and if you are factoring all of those contingencies into your required fuel , I'm quite certain a computer does that too, unless you have a lot of time to take all of the weather data and aircraft performance charts to calculate the ETP's, burns, etc.

So Erwin, now you have me curious too; how do you know how much fuel to upload on long flights? I'm guessing that your long flights are not like his long flights. [/quote]


<me be a slow learner but not that slow>

I guess! [/quote]


______________________________________________________________________


Yeah, me too when I was flying light jets Part 91 not having bean counters peering over my shoulder about tankering fuel, landing with too much fuel, or cost efficient flying down to the finest detail.

There was some criticism in this thread of 121 guys using dispatch to do the flight plans. There is no possible way a person could develop these flight plans to the accuracy they have by using performance tables, weather charts etc, and the dispatchers only enter the pertinent information such as departure and destination , planned weight etc. , push a button, and the computers figure it out with such accuracy that after a New York to Frankfurt flight the estimated time enroute comes out to within 3 minutes of planned very often, and within a couple of thousand pounds of fuel remaining for a plane that burns 25,000 pounds per hour. The flight plans also are tailored to the tail number and it's fuel burn history, putting a correction factor into the trip fuel burns of up to 5%, sometimes as little as 1%.

I would think that the long range corporate jets do the same thing, using a flight plan service for computer generated flight plans, nothing to do with the abilities of the captain.

When I was flying I think there was only 2 or 3 flight planning companies that used super computers to generate flight plans. We used EDS, Electronic Data Systems. There are probably more now.

<me be a slow learner but not that slow>

I guess! [/quote]


______________________________________________________________________


Yeah, me too when I was flying light jets Part 91 not having bean counters peering over my shoulder about tankering fuel, landing with too much fuel, or cost efficient flying down to the finest detail.

There was some criticism in this thread of 121 guys using dispatch to do the flight plans. There is no possible way a person could develop these flight plans to the accuracy they have by using performance tables, weather charts etc, and the dispatchers only enter the pertinent information such as departure and destination , planned weight etc. , push a button, and the computers figure it out with such accuracy that after a New York to Frankfurt flight the estimated time enroute comes out to within 3 minutes of planned very often, and within a couple of thousand pounds of fuel remaining for a plane that burns 25,000 pounds per hour. The flight plans also are tailored to the tail number and it's fuel burn history, putting a correction factor into the trip fuel burns of up to 5%, sometimes as little as 1%.

I would think that the long range corporate jets do the same thing, using a flight plan service for computer generated flight plans, nothing to do with the abilities of the captain.

When I was flying I think there was only 2 or 3 flight planning companies that used super computers to generate flight plans. We used EDS, Electronic Data Systems. There are probably more now. One of the biggest differences I encountered getting into 121 was the expectations the company has of you. If it's down to minimums in blowing snow at your destination, they expect you to take the flight, and arrive at the gate, whereas in my corporate 91 flying I could scrub the flight if I didn't like the weather.[/quote]

A 121 cockpit on a routine route is a Swiss watch, the level of training at the airlines is exponentially more than simcom or flight safety. If you go anywhere new that might be hard, they send somebody that’s done it before with you. 121 all you have to do is show up an hour before the flight and fly it, everything else is pretty much covered.

91 you do everything (your work starts days before the flight), most routes are new, training is minimal and some days are adventures! Airlines don’t ever want their pilots on an adventure.

But pull back in either cockpit and houses still get small!

You are not kidding, the internet at this hotel is so slow ForeFlight it taking for ever to update

Andrew

Agreed John, except we went to new places for the first time without someone being sent with us that had been there before. Some airports like Kai Tak Hong Kong and Petropavlovsk required special sim training and they tried to include those airports in IOE.

I don't miss the corporate days of the 3 piece suit, making sure everything was on board the boss wanted, and making sure he was taken care of from the time he showed at the airport until he checked in at the hotel on trips, with flight planning , rental car arrangements, catering etc., on top of that. Comparatively I found domestic corporate flying routine and not very challenging compared to international. I can't recall ever having a red carpet rolled out for me in 121 flying though.

Apparently, that can afflict others:

"Roseanne Barr is blaming Ambien for her racist tweets"

Warning label should say "Do not operate electronic devices or post on the Internet while on this medication. Can lead to career limiting events."

Mike C.

What is ambien used for? Never heard of it except here.