Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
CitationShares Sept. Class
- Thread starter terryhfly
- Start date
- Watchers 11
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
amflightpilot
Star of the Party!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Posts
- 32
amflightpilot
Star of the Party!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Posts
- 32
CALRepublic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Posts
- 577
J. Basedow
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Posts
- 11
Hoping to hear from CS regarding an interview very soon and was hoping one of you guys could help with a couple of questions. Ex military and recent part121 freight (company that I was with, just went tits up).
I am used to runway analysis charts and NOT used to converting slope. I have compared the slope listed on some military runways (usually listed on the airport page) to subtracting the low end from the high end and dividing by the runway length and the number is not the same? The question is why?
I can define 2nd, 3rd and fourt segment climb but not sure why it is such a big deal in the fractional world and all the questions regarding it in the interview.
I have seen "gouge" on converting FT/NM to a % but must not be doing that right either. On a particular SID it shows 276' per NM and then under the 150kt groundspeed column it says 690. I take that to mean that if you are doiing 150 kts and climbing at least 690FPM then you will have no problem complying with the climb restrictions so I am not sure why I need to convert to a climb gradient?
The formula that I have seen shows (ex: 500 ft/nm x 1nm) number of nm x 6079 =%.
In my previous example if I take 276 and divide by 6079=.0454. The 100 knot speed column shows 460. Is this the correct way to do this?
Thanks for any help!
I am used to runway analysis charts and NOT used to converting slope. I have compared the slope listed on some military runways (usually listed on the airport page) to subtracting the low end from the high end and dividing by the runway length and the number is not the same? The question is why?
I can define 2nd, 3rd and fourt segment climb but not sure why it is such a big deal in the fractional world and all the questions regarding it in the interview.
I have seen "gouge" on converting FT/NM to a % but must not be doing that right either. On a particular SID it shows 276' per NM and then under the 150kt groundspeed column it says 690. I take that to mean that if you are doiing 150 kts and climbing at least 690FPM then you will have no problem complying with the climb restrictions so I am not sure why I need to convert to a climb gradient?
The formula that I have seen shows (ex: 500 ft/nm x 1nm) number of nm x 6079 =%.
In my previous example if I take 276 and divide by 6079=.0454. The 100 knot speed column shows 460. Is this the correct way to do this?
Thanks for any help!
J.B
As to your first question, I dont know why you are not coming up with the same numbers.
Are you multiplying the final number by 100?
Second question, we operate out of many airports where there is high surrounding terrain so 2nd segment is critical, and unlike the military or 121 where it is provided to you, at many fractionals the pilot does the figuring.
You are correct that if you can do 690' in the example you gave you will be OK, but how do you know you will be able to do the 690' out of ASE on a hot day with an engine failure? The answer of course is in the aircraft AFM but the info provided by the manufacturer is not in FPM but gradients so the necessity for the conversions.
You broke the code on the easy way to do it by looking under the 100kt. column. In the example of 460' this would be a 4.6 gradient required. You would now go into the AFM and see if this is what you could do on that particular day.
Hope this helps.
As to your first question, I dont know why you are not coming up with the same numbers.
Are you multiplying the final number by 100?
Second question, we operate out of many airports where there is high surrounding terrain so 2nd segment is critical, and unlike the military or 121 where it is provided to you, at many fractionals the pilot does the figuring.
You are correct that if you can do 690' in the example you gave you will be OK, but how do you know you will be able to do the 690' out of ASE on a hot day with an engine failure? The answer of course is in the aircraft AFM but the info provided by the manufacturer is not in FPM but gradients so the necessity for the conversions.
You broke the code on the easy way to do it by looking under the 100kt. column. In the example of 460' this would be a 4.6 gradient required. You would now go into the AFM and see if this is what you could do on that particular day.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
J. Basedow
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Posts
- 11
First of all, Chasmo thanks for the response! It helped a lot.
In the freight world or "any other" type of flying jobs we ALL have to make the same types of decisions. i.e. wx, fuel, terrain, perfromance issues etc. In the 121 world we just have different ways of reaching the same conclusions.
If you think flying a state of the art (and usually overpowered) corporate business jet out of mountainous terrain is tough then maybe you should chat with some freight dog someday.
Try departing Bogota, Columbia or Quito, Ecquador at 0300L when you are dead tired, mountains everywhere, ********************ty controllers who speak very broken english and on top of all of that the customer has made barometric pressure corrections (add 435 lbs of freight for every millibar below 1013) so that we are right at the max takeoff weight for the elevation, temperature and altimeter setting for "every" takeoff.
Now that is flying!
In the freight world or "any other" type of flying jobs we ALL have to make the same types of decisions. i.e. wx, fuel, terrain, perfromance issues etc. In the 121 world we just have different ways of reaching the same conclusions.
If you think flying a state of the art (and usually overpowered) corporate business jet out of mountainous terrain is tough then maybe you should chat with some freight dog someday.
Try departing Bogota, Columbia or Quito, Ecquador at 0300L when you are dead tired, mountains everywhere, ********************ty controllers who speak very broken english and on top of all of that the customer has made barometric pressure corrections (add 435 lbs of freight for every millibar below 1013) so that we are right at the max takeoff weight for the elevation, temperature and altimeter setting for "every" takeoff.
Now that is flying!
XTW
XCA Monkey
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2004
- Posts
- 698
JB,
I read chasmo's response and no where did he say it was tough, he simply stated that the pilot is responsible for calculating said performance data and complying with the requirements.
No need for an attitude, you'll probably get more help without it. Just an idea.
Respectfully,
X
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Question Piston engine compression checks - 14mm vs 18mm testing?
- Latest: Cactus Charlie
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
