Improved outlook for airline pilots?

bob_albertson said:
The Q has over 6300hp per side. They would do a reduced power takeoff. At Max T/O weight and 105 ambient air temp they were at 86% power doing right around 4500FPM and they held that until about DA-15K. So, I'd expect that performance outta Aspen, but at the same time it would definitely out do the Jet's during the winter :)
Click to expand...
So they really are good short field and high DA airplanes on takeoff, just not on landing. I think that's why Frontier preferred them over the RJs, especially because they were trying to operate year-round including the warm summer months.
 
Everskyward said:
So they really are good short field and high DA airplanes on takeoff, just not on landing. I think that's why Frontier preferred them over the RJs, especially because they were trying to operate year-round including the warm summer months.
Click to expand...

Horizon can do CAT II approaches with the Q400. They have HUD's installed on them, and they are in the process of getting qualified to do SAAAR RNAV approaches.

They aren't really good short field planes, but turboprops all share one common advantage -- They are more efficient, including climbs, up to about 8-10K PA (depending on plane) than the jets. We can out climb them for that time.... The difference is that the Q400 does not diverge that much from an RJ above 10K. So.... can't really say they are good short field planes, because in CO they will still need prob a good 4500feet for T/O. The turboprops out climb the jets as a matter of prop efficiency vs turbofan efficiency at lower altitudes.

Bob
 
bob_albertson said:
They aren't really good short field planes, but turboprops all share one common advantage -- They are more efficient, including climbs, up to about 8-10K PA (depending on plane) than the jets. We can out climb them for that time.... The difference is that the Q400 does not diverge that much from an RJ above 10K. So.... can't really say they are good short field planes, because in CO they will still need prob a good 4500feet for T/O. The turboprops out climb the jets as a matter of prop efficiency vs turbofan efficiency at lower altitudes.
Click to expand...
It depends on what turboprop you are comparing to what jet. I've never flown airline-style turboprops or jets, only some types used in business aviation, but my experience has been the opposite, that the jets can outclimb the turboprops once off the ground but the turboprops can take off from a shorter runway. Also, in Colorado I don't know where they have airline operations at airports with runways less than 4,500 feet.
 
bob_albertson said:
I can't speak about the Q400s, but on the Saab we're limited to FL250 because of regulatory issues enacted above FL250... namely oxygen issues.

Most all turboprops can go to FL300, but propeller efficiency drops so drastically above that altitude that you loose more performance than the engine gains.

Bob
Click to expand...

Depends on many other factors as well, starting with whether they are RVSM-equipped. FL280 is a great performance altitude for some turboprops.
 
bob_albertson said:
Oh, BTW, I haven't heard of that before. Is that a stair-step type of climb or more a play on words meaning pitch way up and head up really fast so as to keep below 250?
Click to expand...

Haha. It's something us bugsmashers have to do to cross ridgelines. ;)

Back and forth, back and forth.

No way a Q would ever have to do it.

I keep wondering where the person was going that the turboprops flew lower than the jets to get there.

I've seen FL230 from the pointy end of an ATR42. It's touchy in pitch up there. The autopilot does a better job than I do. ;-)

But that was looooong ago and far away...

Seems as if I recall the main limiting factor at hot/high locales on the ATR was Turbine temps. Plenty of power available, that wasn't the problem. It was overheating things that'd ruin your day.

That or running into large granite mountains.
 
Everskyward said:
Also, in Colorado I don't know where they have airline operations at airports with runways less than 4,500 feet.
Click to expand...

Nowhere anymore. I think the Avon STOLPort was about that short, though.

Those Rocky guys were nuts. DHC-7 into Avon. Wheeee!
 
wabower said:
Depends on many other factors as well, starting with whether they are RVSM-equipped. FL280 is a great performance altitude for some turboprops.
Click to expand...

That's true :)

I read an article the other day about the Q400, which I found really interesting. The Q was optimized for 17,000 so the performance numbers on their website are based for that altitude. The article said the reason behind it was because they felt that would be the optimum altitude that most operators would use the Q at.
 
denverpilot said:
Nowhere anymore. I think the Avon STOLPort was about that short, though.

Those Rocky guys were nuts. DHC-7 into Avon. Wheeee!
Click to expand...
That's why I thought the Q-400 ought to be at least a reasonable short field airplane, at least better than most jets, since it's a descendent.
 
Everskyward said:
It depends on what turboprop you are comparing to what jet. I've never flown airline-style turboprops or jets, only some types used in business aviation, but my experience has been the opposite, that the jets can outclimb the turboprops once off the ground but the turboprops can take off from a shorter runway. Also, in Colorado I don't know where they have airline operations at airports with runways less than 4,500 feet.
Click to expand...

I'll have to see if I can find it on Bombardier's website again, but they had a nice graph that compared the Q to something like a CRJ-700 and a Boeing 737-400. On the Saab I see that we out climb the jets up to about 3,000 before we start loosing steam LOL.

Bob
 
denverpilot said:
Seems as if I recall the main limiting factor at hot/high locales on the ATR was Turbine temps. Plenty of power available, that wasn't the problem. It was overheating things that'd ruin your day.

That or running into large granite mountains.
Click to expand...

That is us on the Saab... It hates Texas - it's Swedish after all :rofl:

I don't know if you guys had it at Eagle, but we have a derivative power program - in a nutshell anytime the engine can not produce rated power at sea level and 35C, they restrict our power settings on the engine to allow us to prolong the engine life..... Not to long ago we were restricted to 78% torque for departure with a plane on the derivative power program :rolleyes:
 
Nice to know you have something in reserve, eh? ;)

I think the Air Florida crash in the frozen river taught us all that if the aircraft is still descending, those levers are going all the way forward no matter what the gauge says, engine life or special maintenance programs be damned! (Or iced up sensors.)
 
denverpilot said:
Nice to know you have something in reserve, eh? ;)

I think the Air Florida crash in the frozen river taught us all that if the aircraft is still descending, those levers are going all the way forward no matter what the gauge says, engine life or special maintenance programs be damned! (Or iced up sensors.)
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah.... In recurrent ground the other day, the instructor asked me what the red lights above the torque indicators were for. It was the instructor's first time teaching recurrent ground, and me liking to capitalize.... I told him that's how you set the power. Push 'em up until those red lights come on, then back them off 1/4 inch :goofy::lol:

It is kinda funny how our books give 2 pages to the derivative power program, and then puts: use firewall power if necessary, in fine print by the CFIT/EGPWS/Windshear escape maneuvers :D. I kinda have this rule that I'll live by when I upgrade. If the sky is getting smaller and the houses bigger I'm going to push the power levers out the front of center pedestal - I promise..... My rule - if y'er gonna put it down, put it down hard :lol:

I do feel bad for the Air Florida accident. That started with whomever thought it was a good idea to send Floridians into the snow. On a serious note, it really was surprising that neither one of them thought to push the power up. If you are descending and a CFIT event is imminent, you really shouldn't be thinking about the engines at all. If one comes apart so be it - you gotta do what you have to in order to survive. Second guessing also kills. That's why I keep telling myself that I'm gonna firewall it.

Bob
 
bob_albertson said:
It is kinda funny how our books give 2 pages to the derivative power program, and then puts: use firewall power if necessary, in fine print by the CFIT/EGPWS/Windshear escape maneuvers :D. I kinda have this rule that I'll live by when I upgrade. If the sky is getting smaller and the houses bigger I'm going to push the power levers out the front of center pedestal - I promise..... My rule - if y'er gonna put it down, put it down hard :lol:
Click to expand...
To me it's interesting how airlines often use less than max thrust but you don't hear about it so much in the business jet world. We had people come from the airlines and I was astonished that they were asking such a question. You mean you sometimes use less than max thrust?! I haven't been exposed to many types (only three) but the only airplane I can recall that had charts for less than max thrust was the Lear 35. In school we were shown how to use them but also told that most operators don't. One guy wanted to experiment so we went through all the numbers and tried it, once, on an empty leg. There didn't seem to be a point since the operator was not asking us to do it that way and everyone else was using max thrust. In the CE-680 there is no option. It's throttles in the takeoff detent (all the way forward) each time even if it's way more thrust than would be necessary to meet the numbers (and it is, 99% of the time).
 
Everskyward said:
To me it's interesting how airlines often use less than max thrust but you don't hear about it so much in the business jet world. We had people come from the airlines and I was astonished that they were asking such a question. You mean you sometimes use less than max thrust?! I haven't been exposed to many types (only three) but the only airplane I can recall that had charts for less than max thrust was the Lear 35. In school we were shown how to use them but also told that most operators don't. One guy wanted to experiment so we went through all the numbers and tried it, once, on an empty leg. There didn't seem to be a point since the operator was not asking us to do it that way and everyone else was using max thrust. In the CE-680 there is no option. It's throttles in the takeoff detent (all the way forward) each time even if it's way more thrust than would be necessary to meet the numbers (and it is, 99% of the time).
Click to expand...
Huh... does your FMS offer the option of doing reduced thrust takeoffs (where you'd still set the throttles to takeoff detent but the "system" sets the engine parameters differently based on the takeoff profile you chose)?
 
TMetzinger said:
Huh... does your FMS offer the option of doing reduced thrust takeoffs (where you'd still set the throttles to takeoff detent but the "system" sets the engine parameters differently based on the takeoff profile you chose)?
Click to expand...
No...
 
Everskyward said:
No...
Click to expand...

It could be a matter of how the engine manufacturers designed the engines.... detuned enough that they can provide for the required climb segments and still provide good t/o performance.

The transport guys do it to prolong engine life, it would be interesting to compare overhaul times :)
 
bob_albertson said:
The transport guys do it to prolong engine life, it would be interesting to compare overhaul times :)
Click to expand...
TBO on the PW306C is supposedly 6,000 hours. We are not even close at about 1,200 hours so I can't speak about whether that is realistic or not. To elaborate on Tim's question, the power on these engines is controlled by FADEC and FADEC does not know the runway length. There is no interface with the FMS.

Philosophically, I can see where it would prolong engine life but it also cuts down on the safety margin. Sure, you can go to full throttle if you encounter some problem during the takeoff or climb. However if you had taken off with full throttle to begin with you already have an advantage in speed and/or altitude which you wouldn't have had taking off with reduced thrust.
 
Everskyward said:
TBO on the PW306C is supposedly 6,000 hours. We are not even close at about 1,200 hours so I can't speak about whether that is realistic or not. To elaborate on Tim's question, the power on these engines is controlled by FADEC and FADEC does not know the runway length. There is no interface with the FMS.

Philosophically, I can see where it would prolong engine life but it also cuts down on the safety margin. Sure, you can go to full throttle if you encounter some problem during the takeoff or climb. However if you had taken off with full throttle to begin with you already have an advantage in speed and/or altitude which you wouldn't have had taking off with reduced thrust.
Click to expand...


Yep, it's hedging operating cost against safety, a decission that gets made every day in every industry, typically to advantage.
 
Well back to the union issues - Unfortunately large major airlines simply will not be allowed to strike anymore (even with a sitting democratic president). Look at how Slick Willy Clinton averted the American Airlines Flight Attendant strike back in the nineties as an example. If a pilot group from an airline the size of American or the new Mega-Major United/Continental followed all the NMB rules and was legally released into "self-help" by the mediators the president would undoubtedly interfere. So insofar as bargaining goes they really ain't got nothing. Judges would FORCE them to go to work.
 
It's funny, but it's my dream to ride a Dash-8 before they are all gone. We still have Frontier flying them to Denver. I scored a flight on Saab-340 back in the day, too. I just hope the crew isn't flying heavy icing on auto-pilot one time.
 
zaitcev said:
It's funny, but it's my dream to ride a Dash-8 before they are all gone. We still have Frontier flying them to Denver. I scored a flight on Saab-340 back in the day, too. I just hope the crew isn't flying heavy icing on auto-pilot one time.
Click to expand...

It's going to be a long time before the Dash-8 Q400 is gone. We're still getting new ones
 
Art VanDelay said:
Well back to the union issues - Unfortunately large major airlines simply will not be allowed to strike anymore (even with a sitting democratic president). Look at how Slick Willy Clinton averted the American Airlines Flight Attendant strike back in the nineties as an example. If a pilot group from an airline the size of American or the new Mega-Major United/Continental followed all the NMB rules and was legally released into "self-help" by the mediators the president would undoubtedly interfere. So insofar as bargaining goes they really ain't got nothing. Judges would FORCE them to go to work.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Spirit Airlines :confused:
 
Henning said:
Yep, it's hedging operating cost against safety, a decission that gets made every day in every industry, typically to advantage.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for all 121 aircraft in service, but at reduced t/o power settings the performance is still robust enough that the manufacturer's have found no reason to make climb performance data available to the airlines. For example, on any given day - the actual climb gradient obtainable is not known prior to departure.

Wally brought up the issue back in the late 90s with the ACF. The semi-answer listed on the site was that the climb performance was so good for all engines operating that it would be a waste of effort on the manufacturers part to publish the charts/data so that crews would be able to have the climb gradient data in their hands prior to departure.

For us, if we can't clear obstacles on the 40:1 slope for the ODP or SID then we get special "pink pages" from APG for OEI Departures - That is typically proprietary information published for each operator as required.

Bob
 
bob_albertson said:
Ummm, Spirit Airlines :confused:
Click to expand...

BoBo,
Did you see the part where I said MAJOR airlines ???? Sure, the little guys will be allowed to strike. When Spirit Airlines struck last summer there were people on the West coast that said "Who ?" If American tried to strike there would be people rioting in the streets claiming that air travel is a Constitutional right.
 
bob_albertson said:
It's going to be a long time before the Dash-8 Q400 is gone. We're still getting new ones
Click to expand...
The sales people we met must have done a good job. :D

It just occurred to me that you said the airline you fly for has operations in Houston. About a couple years ago we were sitting in the FBO at KIAH when we noticed a huge buffet spread being set up. There was also a new Q400 sitting out on the ramp. We were wondering what was going on. Were the passengers all going to eat lunch before getting on the plane to go somewhere? Eventually we noticed that people were going in and out of the airplane but the airplane was not moving. It turns out it was a sales team from Bombardier who said they were showing the airplane to a "Houston based airline". They were on their way back to Montreal after having done a sales tour of South America. They offered up the leftover buffet food and showed us around the airplane although we were obviously not going to buy a Q400. I still have a lapel pin they gave me.
 
Haha, yeah that was probably the Next Gen they were showing. The original idea was to send the new NGs down here to Houston and use them on fairly awesome routes.... Still looks like that is gonna happen at some point :rolleyes::lol:

I was surprised to find out that the Q has the same footprint as a 737-400..... and people always say how small the Q is compared to the RJ they just got off of :mad2::dunno::lol:.

BTW - I'm a SF340 guy :D
 
Art VanDelay said:
BoBo,
Did you see the part where I said MAJOR airlines ???? Sure, the little guys will be allowed to strike. When Spirit Airlines struck last summer there were people on the West coast that said "Who ?" If American tried to strike there would be people rioting in the streets claiming that air travel is a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Value Jet was little also - Then they became re-branded. Spirit has more pilots than several Regional airlines. Spirit is a Major airline, it just isn't one of the Legacy carriers most everyone associates with "Major".

Bob
 
Art VanDelay said:
If American tried to strike there would be people rioting in the streets claiming that air travel is a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

I doubt that.

Outside of EAS airports, there are few locations where you dont have the option to go on at least one other hub-spoke legacy carrier.
 
Sorry if this goes even further afield, but the Union thing is getting interesting at United, er Continental, er... UConn. Ha.

They want Congress to make the pilot's salary negotiations a public event.

As one pilot's wife put it, that'd be fine as long as Executive's pay negotiating is also made public too.

Of course I'm the logical type and pointed out that Exec pay is public, after the fact. But she's got a point that the negotiations for same aren't done in public.

She pointed out that since the pilots do make above average salaries, the Execs want to get them branded by the media as overpaid crybabies, even after years of concessions in pay.

Interesting. Twisted too.
 
denverpilot said:
She pointed out that since the pilots do make above average salaries, the Execs want to get them branded by the media as overpaid crybabies, even after years of concessions in pay.
Click to expand...

Not sure they are overpaid, they ARE crybabies for sure.
 
weilke said:
Not sure they are overpaid, they ARE crybabies for sure.
Click to expand...

hmmmppppfff, I'm not gonna share my toys with you anymore :rofl::lol:

U know the difference between a jet engine and a jet pilot?

The engine stops whining when you turn it off :yesnod::lol:
 
weilke said:
I doubt that.

Outside of EAS airports, there are few locations where you dont have the option to go on at least one other hub-spoke legacy carrier.
Click to expand...


If that's true then why did Slick Willy step in and prevent the American strike back in the nineties ???
 
bob_albertson said:
Value Jet was little also - Then they became re-branded. Spirit has more pilots than several Regional airlines. Spirit is a Major airline, it just isn't one of the Legacy carriers most everyone associates with "Major".

Bob
Click to expand...
Spirit is a bottom feeder, not a Major, a Scavenger.
 
bob_albertson said:
I can't speak for all 121 aircraft in service, but at reduced t/o power settings the performance is still robust enough that the manufacturer's have found no reason to make climb performance data available to the airlines. For example, on any given day - the actual climb gradient obtainable is not known prior to departure.
Click to expand...
Apart from the operational hassles that brings up, that was kinda my point. We hedge safety against efficiency all the time working towards the most effective median where we gain efficiency with minimal appreciable loss in safety. We don't always have to do everything in safeties sake to the elimination of all other considerations. You kind of have to respect the point of diminishing returns when you asses everything.
 
Henning said:
Apart from the operational hassles that brings up, that was kinda my point. We hedge safety against efficiency all the time working towards the most effective median where we gain efficiency with minimal appreciable loss in safety. We don't always have to do everything in safeties sake to the elimination of all other considerations. You kind of have to respect the point of diminishing returns when you asses everything.
Click to expand...
It's just interesting to me to see the difference in the way things are done between two segments of aviation. I guess airlines do this all the time while Cessna didn't even find in necessary to do testing and publish numbers on a fairly new design so there is no option. If it was important to the customers I would have thought they would have done it. I wouldn't necessarily say that one segment of aviation is more frugal, at least about things like that, then others segments so it may be a cultural thing. Who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top