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.