Do pilots have to 'know' every airport.

[flyingtincan]

Following a recent RYR flight from Spain I pondered, as you do, on where would the aircraft go to next? Flightracker gave me the list of countries and airports the aircraft went to for the remainder of the day. However, the following day’s flight, after returning from Spain, went to a different set of countries and airports and on the day after that yet another set and so on..
So - do pilots have to be familiarised with each airport and route they fly to or can they be flying to a new one having never seen it before? If so how does scheduling sort that out?

[Intruder]

We use standardized charts and diagrams to familiarize ourselves with the airport before takeoff. If it is an unusual layout, photos and other text aids may be added.

[wiggy]

do pilots have to be familiarised with each airport and route they fly to or can they be flying to a new one having never seen it before

Possibly depends on the airline .... but as intruder has said the pilots will have at hand documents/charts ("plates") describing the various approaches available at the destination airport, runway diagrams, charts of the ramp layout, and so on. Most airports are fairly straightforward and so all :rolleyes: you do is study the plates and brief/agree a plan with your colleague.

However on our network we have a few airports have slightly unusual procedures or perhaps adjacent terrain. Company rules dictate that you have to study a video or computer presentation covering the unusual aspects of that airport if you haven't physically visited the place in the previous 12 months (e.g. JFK, MEX)

Some others are even more complex and unforgiving airports to operate into and a simulator "visit" may be a pre-requisite ( the likes of Bogota).

Finally there are (?were) some that were so demanding that a jumpseat "visit", behind a qualified crew, might be a requirement...not so common in these days of very accurate and realistic Flight Simulators....

[flyingtincan]

Wiggy and Intruder thanks for the rapid replies.

[Exascot]

jumpseat "visit"

Kai Tak, I used to love that approach to 13 :cool:

Narsarsuaq (Greenland) was another interesting one.

[redsnail]

It would be impossible for me to know every airport I could go into. After 6 years I am still visiting new airports.

Category A
An aerodrome which satisfies all of the following requirements:
• An approved instrument approach procedure;
• At least one runway with no performance limited procedure for take-off and/or landing;
• Published circling minima not higher than 1000 feet above aerodrome level;
• Night operations capability.

Category B
An aerodrome which does not satisfy the Category A requirements or which requires extra considerations such as:
• Non-standard approach aids and/or approach patterns
• Unusual local weather conditions
• Unusual characteristics or performance limitations
• Any other relevant considerations including obstructions, physical layout, lighting, etc

What we do here is get briefed on the specific issues. This is done by reading the notes about the aerodrome in Operations Manual Part C. Usually applicable to the PIC.

Finally there's the Category C airports. Aka the fun ones.
An aerodrome that requires considerations additional to those for a Category B aerodrome. Prior to operating to a Category C aerodrome, the Commander shall have completed the appropriate training or familiarisation and be current in accordance with the recency requirements as detailed in the OM Part C.
More often than not, we'll do specific simulator training for those.
Some examples are Innsbruck, Samedan, Sion, London City etc.

Since the majority of airports fall under Category A, then there's no need to do specific familiarisation for them. A standard 3 degree ILS isn't too tricky.

[Piltdown Man]

Good question. The basic 'guts' of an airport are covered quite well in Aerad/Jeppesen style charts. These are drawn up from government issued charts like these. (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-A8C7D5B3AFF3FA32B632B239BD18E26F/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGLL_2-1_en_2011-03-10.pdf) Approach charts look like this (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-A8C7D5B3AFF3FA32B632B239BD18E26F/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGLL_8-6_en_2011-03-10.pdf). So using these and other charts, together with various notes you brief yourself on what you expect to see and how you actually use the airport. Local knowledge however can be useful. Like don't bother ever asking for a visual approach at Dusseldorf or Bremen. Even if you are the only person flying you won't get it - it's not allowed. However, at Hannover and Nuremberg the controllers couldn't be more helpful if they tried so at these airports you have the possibility of saving up to ten minutes of flying time. As as result, you plan your descent accordingly. At many UK airports they are so keen to maximise aircraft noise over houses underneath the approach path they'll insist on a minimum of a seven mile line up. But this stuff is just nice to know, not essential. So if you are going to a straight forward airport (Cat A) for the first time you will probably brief yourself in flight. For a slightly more complicated one (Cat B) you may well see what the limiting factors are before you set off. This will generally only take a few minutes though.

[Northbeach]

When you are first hired as an airline pilot and go into training it is a time of intense preparation and high pressure when everything is unfamiliar and is accompanied by a very steep learning curve. Once you complete training and get out on the line your head is jammed full of emergency and normal procedures and you begin to get it all sorted out flying the line where familiar patterns emerge. Virtually every trip is to some new destination. Being a new hire you likely do not have a routine schedule and are on “reserve” filling in where needed. Eventually this gives way to some semblance of routine when you begin holding a regular schedule; many routes and airports become as familiar as your personal neighborhood. As the years go by your familiarity with the destinations in your route system grows.

I find the airport environment the highest threat environment that I face. Not that I will end up in some catastrophe; rather it is likely to be some incident. And there has been a rash of recent incidents; the Airbus 380 striking the tail of the commuter jet at JFK in New York comes to mind. The complexity, traffic congestion, closures and modifications to taxiways due to construction, constant changes, darkness and inclement weather all contribute to making the airport environment a hazard rich environment. Personally I find getting myself through airport security and related difficulties, preflight planning, to my seat in the jet, the jet off the gate and taxied correctly to the appropriate departure runway the most difficult part of my job-and that is not hyperbole.


does scheduling sort that out?

Scheduling does not care. All they care is whether on not they have a legal crew for the trip that needs to be crewed.

or can they be flying to a new one having never seen it before?

We may fly routes and to destinations that we have never seen before. Standardized training, professional discipline, company procedures and worldwide homogeneous navigation facilities, approaches and procedures make this a safe and reliable operation.

[Mungo Man]

Scheduling does not care. All they care is whether on not they have a legal crew for the trip that needs to be crewed.

Too true! I normally do repetitive scheduled flights but recently did a charter flight to a country I've hardly ever flown to. The Captain had just been upgraded and it was their first day 'on-line' unsupervised! Scheduling don't care that this might be a higher workload than rostering a new Captain on the regular and more familiar routes.

That said, it wasn't a problem, ATC take a lot of the strain, we have good charts to study and performance data for every conceivable airport we might need. Once on the ground at an unfamiliar airport can be the hardest bit, but at least if you're in doubt you can stop, which is not a luxury available to us in the air!

[ShyTorque]

Airports are relatively easy. It becomes quite a lot more difficult when the pilot is given a postcode and told that is where the passengers want to land.

[Nicholas49]

Too true! I normally do repetitive scheduled flights but recently did a charter flight to a country I've hardly ever flown to. The Captain had just been upgraded and it was their first day 'on-line' unsupervised! Scheduling don't care that this might be a higher workload than rostering a new Captain on the regular and more familiar routes.

Interesting. I thought the flight operations department prevented this sort of thing because it is considered an increased risk (albeit a manageable one by a professional crew)? In the same way that new captains are not [supposed to be] rostered to fly with inexperienced F/Os? I realise it's not always possible simply for operational reasons, but I thought there was 'accepted good practice' here? Does it depend on the airline?

[Mungo Man]

In the same way that new captains are not [supposed to be] rostered to fly with inexperienced F/Os?Don't get me wrong, new Captains aren't thrust into normal ops unprepared. They have an extensive programme of line training then more flights with a 'normal' line FO where the line trainer sits on the jump seat.

Then during the first 25 sectors flown without a line trainer the Captain must do all the takeoff and landings to allow themselves to bed in. They also are subject to increased minima for the first 50 sectors:


extra 200m visibility required for take off and landing,
extra 100m visibility for a low visibility (CAT II) approach (This restriction lasts for 100 hours flying)
Max crosswind 25kts if runway less than 30m wide

Yes you are correct, rostering will ensure no two 'inexperienced on type' pilots will fly together. Inexperienced in this instance is less than 100 hours in 120 days or 150 hour total time. Mind you, 100 hours on type in not really very much if the pilot is straight out of school but then even a new upgraded Captain should know what they are doing!