Hawker to Hawaii

[Ace-of-the-Base]

How's about trying it in an airplane that was built for the job. A Hawker isn't one of them - XP or not, winglets or not.

You have to ask yourself just one question:
Do you really want to be sweating the fuel for SIX hours?

You're right, the Hawker wasn't designed for this sort of flight, neither was the 737. They both can do it safely under the right conditions. The reason there is so much discussion is that there are a lot of amature jet pilots on this board. Do I really want to be sweating fuel for six hours? Don't know if I want to, but I'm going to (and have several times in each jet I've flown). I don't call it 'sweating' though. I call it cutting into my planned reserve. Legal and safe. I've done it in a Lear and I've done it in a GV. If you don't want to take a jet to its range limits, you should really be letting the pros fly the things.

As for those flight plans that someone ran, 2 comments. 1. That plan is not optomized for the tail number to be flown (could make it better or worse). and 2. Landing with 1:12 (1400#) seems like plenty of fuel in a Hawker. Its over 10% of the total fuel capacity. Look up 121 regs (worse than part 91) and you'll understand. Of course, I haven't seen the drift down so I can't comment on that.

Ace

 

[Stryker]

you are so right, plus the winglets add an additional 7%

 

[corp_da20_guy]

you are so right, plus the winglets add an additional 7%

The thing about the winglets is that even though they were certified, they did not recertify cruise data or even takeoff data I believe. So if you want to split hairs...based on book performance they are technically no better off than a straight from the factory 800XP without winglets. Logic will tell you that your performance will be better than book, but again if you wanted to split hairs I wouldn't want to argue the fact with the inspector as to how I was able to plan for the trip legally. As for crew that have taken the XP with winglets to HI...I was in recurrent about 6 months ago with a crew that had the first one. THe numbers they were seeing were pretty incredible, but I don't see myself taking the airplane to HI...I'll take something a little better suited for the trip.

just my $.02

 

[Capt.LongThrust]

You're right, the Hawker wasn't designed for this sort of flight, neither was the 737. They both can do it safely under the right conditions. The reason there is so much discussion is that there are a lot of amature jet pilots on this board. Do I really want to be sweating fuel for six hours? Don't know if I want to, but I'm going to (and have several times in each jet I've flown). I don't call it 'sweating' though. I call it cutting into my planned reserve. Legal and safe. I've done it in a Lear and I've done it in a GV. If you don't want to take a jet to its range limits, you should really be letting the pros fly the things.

As for those flight plans that someone ran, 2 comments. 1. That plan is not optomized for the tail number to be flown (could make it better or worse). and 2. Landing with 1:12 (1400#) seems like plenty of fuel in a Hawker. Its over 10% of the total fuel capacity. Look up 121 regs (worse than part 91) and you'll understand. Of course, I haven't seen the drift down so I can't comment on that.

Ace

WOW. Pro? Far from it. I get it, you are one of those "hold my beer and watch this pro" guy. A little luck and you just might make 10k hours.

 

[capt601]

I keep hearing this in posts on this topic, having a minimum reserve on a Hawaii trip means nothing. You need to have enough fuel to make it at your ETP. The numbers of your normal reserve fuel on landing on a Domestic trip will normally not be the same as when you land in Hawaii. You are going to have a bit more fuel as you have to carry the fuel to make it at your ETP if you have problems, which if you do not have any problems, will cause you to land with more fuel than your normal reserve. i know from past flights to Hawaii on a CL601, we usually end up landing with 4000-4500 lbs (accounting for the ETP situations). where a normal US trip we land with 3000 # reserve.

So all of this talk with landing with 10% of total fuel capacity, means nothing until you plan the trip and see that you have enough at your ETP's to make it, and not leave yourself with a wet footprint (and dirty shorts).
1400#'s on landing sure seems like not much even on a normal US domestic flight, let alone having enough extra to account for the depress ETP.
It's amazing how we plan flights from the start to account for engine failure on takeoff, and then get airborne and not plan for another emergency.?

see ya.

As for those flight plans that someone ran, 2 comments. 1. That plan is not optomized for the tail number to be flown (could make it better or worse). and 2. Landing with 1:12 (1400#) seems like plenty of fuel in a Hawker. Its over 10% of the total fuel capacity. Look up 121 regs (worse than part 91) and you'll understand. Of course, I haven't seen the drift down so I can't comment on that.

Ace

 

[Rick1128]

You're right, the Hawker wasn't designed for this sort of flight, neither was the 737. They both can do it safely under the right conditions.

1. That plan is not optomized for the tail number to be flown (could make it better or worse). and 2. Landing with 1:12 (1400#) seems like plenty of fuel in a Hawker. Its over 10% of the total fuel capacity. Look up 121 regs (worse than part 91) and you'll understand. Of course, I haven't seen the drift down so I can't comment on that.

Ace

It is interesting that no one seems to be bothered by thought of flying a Jetstar or G2 to PHNL. Although their ranges are quite similar to the 800XP. A couple hundred miles either side of it fact.

While that routing does require careful planning, it is do able. In some aircraft you would not be able to do it every day of the week. And you have to know that particular aircraft. The book figures are a guide only. Some aircraft do better, some worst.

As for knowing your particular aircraft. Keep track of oil consumption. I wouldn't do that route with any active MEL items. O2 topped off. Large capacity bottle or additional bottles installed. You would want at least 3 hours of O2 for every one on board.

Next, there are much worst routing in the world than this one. Just because it is water, doesn't mean it should be a terror. The Sahara, northern Artic and Hymalayias cause me more concern. As for options on the North Atlantic, look at the approach into Narssarssuaq (BGBW). Would you like to shoot that approach at night? I would prefer not to.

As for this particular trip, if it is not a regular thing like much more that once every year or two, I personally wouldn't be too concerned. As long as I was able to retain enough flexibility to conduct the flight to the maximum level of safety. The owner needs to have it explaned to him that while the aircraft is capable of this, it was not designed for this type of operation and that there are limitations to the regular conduct of this type of operation. Add the fact that you might get almost halfway there and turn back.

If conducted properly, the flight will be not only legal, but also safety.

 

[Lead Sled]

I don't call it 'sweating' though. I call it cutting into my planned reserve. Legal and safe. I've done it in a Lear and I've done it in a GV. If you don't want to take a jet to its range limits, you should really be letting the pros fly the things...

IMO, there is a BIG difference between planning on a reserve and intentionally "dipping" into it. I may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but I've figured out the Mother Nature doesn't alway bother to read the winds aloft forecast. That's one of the reasons for the reserve.

There is also a big difference between having an airplane that is only marginally capable of completing a particular leg - if the winds (and everything else) are perfect and one that can routinely handle it. The folks in back don't usually go to places like HI to work. They're on vacation and it's going to make quite an impression on the boss if you have to tell him that you won't be leaving for a day or two or three, until the winds settle down. But hey, what do I know, I guess that I'm one of those amateur jet pilots that hang out on this board.

'Sled

 

[Stryker]

The thing about the winglets is that even though they were certified, they did not recertify cruise data or even takeoff data I believe. So if you want to split hairs...based on book performance they are technically no better off than a straight from the factory 800XP without winglets. Logic will tell you that your performance will be better than book, but again if you wanted to split hairs I wouldn't want to argue the fact with the inspector as to how I was able to plan for the trip legally. As for crew that have taken the XP with winglets to HI...I was in recurrent about 6 months ago with a crew that had the first one. THe numbers they were seeing were pretty incredible, but I don't see myself taking the airplane to HI...I'll take something a little better suited for the trip.

just my $.02

you are issued new charts for data after the winglets are installed. I have touched and caressed them. They are impressive

 

[h25b]

Next, there are much worst routing in the world than this one. Just because it is water, doesn't mean it should be a terror.

I'm sure that is correct, however this is just a matter of each individual's comfort level. I've flown the Hawker 800's for over three years. It's a 6 hour airplane MAX. From what I remember that leaves you with around 1600 # upon landing. My longest leg was about 5 +45. I just can't understand why anyone would want to ride in the back of the Hawker for 6 hrs. to PHNL when they could be in first class a lot cheaper. I say fly them to Signature SFO, open the door, and have a van take them to the terminal. Otherwise they need to be shopping for at least a G-IV..

 

[Dumbledore]

You're right, the Hawker wasn't designed for this sort of flight, neither was the 737.

The 737 comment if overly simplified. The 737s that are typically used to transit the Pacific are not the 737s that made it famous. The wing is completely redesigned and the engines have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the original JT8s.

You're trying to imply that a type certification should define what an airplane can do and that's simply misleading. We both know that it runs FAR deeper than that. There are currently at LEAST 8 different variants of the 737 that are covered by the type rating and some differences training. As for the Hawker, well, let's just say it's the 737 of the corporate world. I wouldn't take a 1A across the Pacific anymore than I'd take a 737-100 on the same flight.

So, could we stop with the bravado and pay some attention to the wet footprint stuff. It REALLY is important and the pros out here REALLY do think about it.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

IMO, there is a BIG difference between planning on a reserve and intentionally "dipping" into it. I may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but I've figured out the Mother Nature doesn't alway bother to read the winds aloft forecast. That's one of the reasons for the reserve.

There is also a big difference between having an airplane that is only marginally capable of completing a particular leg - if the winds (and everything else) are perfect and one that can routinely handle it. The folks in back don't usually go to places like HI to work. They're on vacation and it's going to make quite an impression on the boss if you have to tell him that you won't be leaving for a day or two or three, until the winds settle down. But hey, what do I know, I guess that I'm one of those amateur jet pilots that hang out on this board.

'Sled

'Sled, you dont sound like an amature, you sound like a very book smart guy who doesn't have alot of jet PIC time.

I like most of your posts, they are thoughtful and interesting. On this one I get the impression that you're a bit out of your element.

You seem to have some time to fool around with this stuff, so try this. See how many private jets have ditched on the way to Hawaii. Then see how many Hawkers (and GIIs, etc) have made the crossing. Safely, legaly. Isn't that all we really want. Opinions are like, well you know the rest. Again, I dont know the ETP data on the Hawker. But if it can do it, then it can do it. If we are looking to never end up swiming, then dont go overwater. My big, bad Gulfstream (that was MADE for this trip) could loose both engines and guess what, I'd be swiming.

Ace

 

[G100driver]

I keep hearing this in posts on this topic, having a minimum reserve on a Hawaii trip means nothing. You need to have enough fuel to make it at your ETP. The numbers of your normal reserve fuel on landing on a Domestic trip will normally not be the same as when you land in Hawaii. You are going to have a bit more fuel as you have to carry the fuel to make it at your ETP if you have problems, which if you do not have any problems, will cause you to land with more fuel than your normal reserve. i know from past flights to Hawaii on a CL601, we usually end up landing with 4000-4500 lbs (accounting for the ETP situations). where a normal US trip we land with 3000 # reserve.

So all of this talk with landing with 10% of total fuel capacity, means nothing until you plan the trip and see that you have enough at your ETP's to make it, and not leave yourself with a wet footprint (and dirty shorts).
1400#'s on landing sure seems like not much even on a normal US domestic flight, let alone having enough extra to account for the depress ETP.
It's amazing how we plan flights from the start to account for engine failure on takeoff, and then get airborne and not plan for another emergency.?

see ya.

Best post yet on this subject. It is more than just simple IFR reserves.

 

[Lead Sled]

'Sled, you dont sound like an amature, you sound like a very book smart guy who doesn't have alot of jet PIC time.

I like most of your posts, they are thoughtful and interesting. On this one I get the impression that you're a bit out of your element.

You seem to have some time to fool around with this stuff, so try this. See how many private jets have ditched on the way to Hawaii. Then see how many Hawkers (and GIIs, etc) have made the crossing. Safely, legaly. Isn't that all we really want. Opinions are like, well you know the rest. Again, I dont know the ETP data on the Hawker. But if it can do it, then it can do it. If we are looking to never end up swiming, then dont go overwater. My big, bad Gulfstream (that was MADE for this trip) could loose both engines and guess what, I'd be swiming.

FWIW, I've got more jet PIC time than you have total time. I've also made my share of oceanic crossings - as PIC.

My point is that just because an airplane can point its nose west and end up in Hawaii doesn't mean anything in my book. There are things like having a wet foot print that really matter. I understand that, over the past 40 years, there have only been a handful of bizjets that "landed" short of HI. I also have talked to crews that had low-fuel lights come on during the approach. How many others have turned back? Being a professional also implies that you know when to say no. Besides, the boss and his wife ain't going to be happy if you get them half way to Honolulu and tell them that you've got to turn back.

Get an airplane that fits.

'Sled

 

[HMR]

'Sled, you dont sound like an amature, you sound like a very book smart guy who doesn't have alot of jet PIC time.

I like most of your posts, they are thoughtful and interesting. On this one I get the impression that you're a bit out of your element.

Thanks Ace. I always like to start my morning with a good laugh.

I happen to know 'Sled personally. He's not exagerating when he says he has more Jet PIC than you have total time. He's also taken a mid-size jet more places on the globe than any other pilot I know.

You seem to have some time to fool around with this stuff...

That's because he's the CP at one of the best corp gigs around and never has to "work" anymore.

 

[Bandit60]

you are issued new charts for data after the winglets are installed. I have touched and caressed them. They are impressive

Stryker, you are right. I have a copy of the new charts as well. However, these numbers are not take off numbers. They are however, for inflight performance.
I have been researching the winglets and have talked to alot of the operators of the winglets, and they all tell me that the winglets are doing more than what the new numbers show.

 

[some_dude]

Umm, Ace *did* say that you shouldn't go if you have a wet footprint.

I think we all agree that the Hawker isn't a very good airplane for this trip. The fact that you may have to tell the boss that he can't go on a particular day makes it a poor choice for doing this regularly.

However, that is not to say that it cannot do it occasionally, when the conditions are right (I'm not a Hawker guy, just trying to summarize what I've read here).

Now, you want to know about unsafe, I know a guy who used to take a Lear 35 (not 36) to PHNL. That is unsafe on any day.

 

[vikaero]

Read an article online at aviationpartners.com foar a winglet Hawker800:

VNY - PHOG - 2481 miles / 6 hours 9 minutes with average headwind 55 kts / FL 410 / Fuel remaining 2050lb

PHOG - KLAS - 2753 miles / 5 hours 34 minutes Fuel remaining 2220lb

 

[G4G5]

West coast to Phnl in a Hawker?

One question, where does the copilot sit?

Because the captains nuts will be taking up the right seat, you need to find someone with a pretty big set to do that.

 

[capt601]

This still does not mean anything. Any manufactur or campany can give whatever numbers they want - look at the numbers all of the manufacturers give for departing ASE. You know they work the numbers for the one case out of a 1,000,000 that they can actually do what they promise (which of course never happens in the real world, but the owner sees it and the ego driven pilot is too stupid to say it really can't!)
So the numbers that aviation partners put out may work for the trip with no problems, but are they publishing the numbers that take into account the fuel needed to return or go at your ETP's. Most likely they are not! With their numbers you may land at PHOG with 2050 LBS, but if you have a depress at your ETP are you really going to have the fuel to make it or are you floating shark bait?

Read an article online at aviationpartners.com foar a winglet Hawker800:

VNY - PHOG - 2481 miles / 6 hours 9 minutes with average headwind 55 kts / FL 410 / Fuel remaining 2050lb

PHOG - KLAS - 2753 miles / 5 hours 34 minutes Fuel remaining 2220lb

 

[con-pilot]

Lead Sled has summed up this discussion very accurately. I agree with him 100%.



The bottom line is don’t have a ‘wet footprint’ for any condition, period! If you cannot assure a dry footprint flight for any water crossing, don’t go. It is that simple.



If it so bloody important for the boss to fly to Hawaii on a regular schedule or even on an occasional schedule use an airplane that can always do the job year around.



As far as Hawker 800 are concerned flying from the mainland to Hawaii the only knowledge I have first hand is from a friend, who was an US Air Force pilot at the time flying an Air force 800 flight inspection airplane, who dang near did run out of fuel going from KSFO to PHNL. As a matter of fact he didn’t make to PHNL; he had to land at the first airport on the east coast of Hawaii. He never had a dry footprint. (I guess in the Air Force ya got to expect losses.) Now please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying a Hawker 800 cannot safely make the crossing if planned right, but obviously the aircraft cannot make the flight consistently with a dry footprint.



I have made the crossing numerous times in the Boeing 727 (modified with belly fuel tanks), Falcons and believe it or not a West Wind II. In the West Wind II I sweated wind and weather like crazy. Yes, I did once have to wait 3 days for the winds to change before I could leave SFO. However, the bottom line was I never departed without dry footprint. By the way, I would never, repeat never make another crossing in a West Wind II again because of the land gear design because, if one blows the hydraulic up-lock line on either of the main gear that associated gear will free fall out and with that much drag chances are you are going into the water. I didn’t know that little fact back in 1980.



Personally the smallest airplane I will make the crossing in now is a Falcon 50EX, but that’s just me.



Like the old joke goes; “Why do you only fly in 4 engine airplanes?”

“Because they don’t make 5 engine airplanes!”