Improving Direct Operating Cost (DOC) help please
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: here and there
Age: 53
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chill out toffeez.......
That is the biggest amount of academic bull**** that I've heard in my 40 years in the industry. Only the Lufthansa Cost Method was as ridiculous.
You missed the point, mate. It does not matter if the task is related to real life or not, it appears to be a seminar, where some worldly innocent tutor comes up with a ridiculous task which has to be solved by Bearcat.................
Stallfail,what the fuk has cabin crew cost got to do with the problem in hand? Bearcat has to concentrate on the changes, not worry about what stays the same. Luckily academics don't run airlines. At least not successful ones.
Look at Bearcat's inital post:
Hi guys,
I need to improve the DOC of the Fokker F27 specifically in terms of the avionics and control system (if applicable). Searching google for an exact definition of aircraft DOC is proving a bit difficult as most sites just give some formula to calculate it but don't really mention anything specifically in terms of time-scales involved.
We are told that modifications have to be cheap because of DOC. So how do I justify a new avionics suite for the F27 to improve DOC? Does it need to pay for itself in a week, a month, a year?
And the second thing is, would it be feasible to change the control system to something else (e.g. FBW) for lower maintenance costs? Again, I am not 100% by which point a modification has to pay for itself.
(P.S. I know its stupid "improving" the F27 as its obviously a century behind modern technology but nonetheless that's the little assignment I need to do).
I need to improve the DOC of the Fokker F27 specifically in terms of the avionics and control system (if applicable). Searching google for an exact definition of aircraft DOC is proving a bit difficult as most sites just give some formula to calculate it but don't really mention anything specifically in terms of time-scales involved.
We are told that modifications have to be cheap because of DOC. So how do I justify a new avionics suite for the F27 to improve DOC? Does it need to pay for itself in a week, a month, a year?
And the second thing is, would it be feasible to change the control system to something else (e.g. FBW) for lower maintenance costs? Again, I am not 100% by which point a modification has to pay for itself.
(P.S. I know its stupid "improving" the F27 as its obviously a century behind modern technology but nonetheless that's the little assignment I need to do).
In my initial reply, I gave a definition of DOC (academically/ iaw. IATA) and stated that the LCC concept should apply,instead of the standard Cost Benefit Analysis methods.
Simple : Focus on Modification costs, Changes of operating costs, changes of revenue, length of life cycle.
Bearcat, there are defined ways of cost and potential saving estimations for aircraft modifications, although you need to collect a lot of data.
Apparently your pro did not provide relevant information, so you are not able to provide accurate numbers ...............
LCC-OPS model:
1)Modification Cost (Cm)
by calculating Labour costs, Material costs, Tool costs, Downtime costs
2) Changes of operating cost per trip (Co)
by calculating Changes of fuel and oil cost (Cof), Changes of fuel cost due to weight changes (Cofw), Changes of fuel cost due to parasite drag (Cofd), Changes of fuel cost due to (direct) power consumption changes (Cofp), Changes of fuel cost due to changes of fuel up-lift (Cofu), Change of oil cost (Cofo), Change of maintenance cost (Com), Changes of routine maintenance cost (Coms), Changes of none routine maintenance cost(Comn), Changes of unscheduled maintenance cost (Comu), Changes of maintenance dependent cost (Comd), Changes of required spares (Comp), Annual changes of depreciation cost (Cod)
3) Changes of revenue
Changes of revenue due to availability changes (Ra), Annual changes of revenue due to changes of scheduled maintenance time (Ras), Changes of revenue due to Changes of none routine maintenance time (Ran), Changes of revenue due to Changes of unscheduled maintenance time (Rau), Changes of revenue due to Changes of functional performance (Rf), Changes of revenue due to capacity changes (Rfc), Changes of revenue due to speed changes (Rfs) Note:Block speed normally depends on ATC
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GNS430W is TSO C146a so that will meet your needs. That price is pretty low compared to having to hold for an hour (800 litres of fuel) or divert due weather. Not sure of your installation cost but can run into £1000s. Even then you will save that money pretty quickly.
Higher end FMS's are going to be in the order of £50,000 plus installation. So the savings need to be that much more.
Higher end FMS's are going to be in the order of £50,000 plus installation. So the savings need to be that much more.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stallfail, don't worry about opinions here. I read your posts and thanks for the info. I appreciate what evryone has to say and I can then pick out info which I need or dont need.
Roger Greendeck, I see thanks for the info. Any idea on maintenance costs for a GNS 430W? Whats involved in the maintanence of these GPS's?
And, why is it occasionally that aircraft are fitted with 2 identical GPS units?
Roger Greendeck, I see thanks for the info. Any idea on maintenance costs for a GNS 430W? Whats involved in the maintanence of these GPS's?
And, why is it occasionally that aircraft are fitted with 2 identical GPS units?
we are just proposing mods to improve DOC so I best come in with something as opposed to saying that its a pointless exercise and I should get and A for doing no work on this whatsoever as the F27 is not worthy of being modded at this time in history.
If you were to take a selection of the technically-feasible mods that have been mooted here and, after a careful cost/benefit analysis, conclude that none of them generated a positive net value over a reasonable period, then that would (or should) satisfy the aims of your assignment.
If, on the other hand, you are expected to come up with cost-effective mods that would pay back the non-recurring cost with DOC savings, and that no F-27 operator in the last 55 years has though of, then you should be seriously considering changing your tutor or educational institution.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree.
If you were to take a selection of the technically-feasible mods that have been mooted here and, after a careful cost/benefit analysis, conclude that none of them generated a positive net value over a reasonable period, then that would (or should) satisfy the aims of your assignment.
If, on the other hand, you are expected to come up with cost-effective mods that would pay back the non-recurring cost with DOC savings, and that no F-27 operator in the last 55 years has though of, then you should be seriously considering changing your tutor or educational institution.
If you were to take a selection of the technically-feasible mods that have been mooted here and, after a careful cost/benefit analysis, conclude that none of them generated a positive net value over a reasonable period, then that would (or should) satisfy the aims of your assignment.
If, on the other hand, you are expected to come up with cost-effective mods that would pay back the non-recurring cost with DOC savings, and that no F-27 operator in the last 55 years has though of, then you should be seriously considering changing your tutor or educational institution.
I am not trying to justify stupid modifications through BSing. I am looking at realistic ways of doing it. Given the fact that we have so many unknown variables, I can get away with justifying modifications that might in real life be impossible. But don't assume I am not taking it seriously. I'm sure there are things we can do and perhaps things which have not been done by F27 operators as 90% of F27s are no longer in service.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dispose of F27 and DOC zero is a possibility.
Your project is an interesting diversion from the usual tech log threads, though not the first of this type.
Care to share with us more of the actual details of the project that you have been set? Does it seriously have to keep flying or can you consider parking it in a tourist area and turn in into a coffee shop, cocktail bar or similar? It could be called "Get Fokkered". Any other names?
Your project is an interesting diversion from the usual tech log threads, though not the first of this type.
Care to share with us more of the actual details of the project that you have been set? Does it seriously have to keep flying or can you consider parking it in a tourist area and turn in into a coffee shop, cocktail bar or similar? It could be called "Get Fokkered". Any other names?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha-ha. We could call the cocktail bar "Fokk This"
There are no outlined rules or details however I assume that for a 4th year Aeronautical Engineering project, the fact that it has to keep flying is kind of a prerequisite.
On the plus side, I spoke the guy that runs this nonsense and he said we are allowed to justify stuff using verbal reasoning, fractions, cost difference etc and do not require the use of a DOC formula alone. At least this makes it slightly more doable now.
WRT the avionics, any upgrades I do should improve DOC just about anywhere unless the plane really does fly only between 2 dirt strips in the middle of nowhere all year long.
But anyway, I would really appreciate some technical knowledge now regarding the following things:
1) Why do aircraft have dual GPS units?
2) What costs (or time) are involved in maintaining something like a GNS 430W
3) Similarly, what amintenance costs would be involved in maintaining a dual flight display unit such as a Garmin G3X
4) How much could it (very roughly) cost to maintain the original F27 avionics?
Any help, hugely appreciated as this sort of info just can't be found in google search
There are no outlined rules or details however I assume that for a 4th year Aeronautical Engineering project, the fact that it has to keep flying is kind of a prerequisite.
On the plus side, I spoke the guy that runs this nonsense and he said we are allowed to justify stuff using verbal reasoning, fractions, cost difference etc and do not require the use of a DOC formula alone. At least this makes it slightly more doable now.
WRT the avionics, any upgrades I do should improve DOC just about anywhere unless the plane really does fly only between 2 dirt strips in the middle of nowhere all year long.
But anyway, I would really appreciate some technical knowledge now regarding the following things:
1) Why do aircraft have dual GPS units?
2) What costs (or time) are involved in maintaining something like a GNS 430W
3) Similarly, what amintenance costs would be involved in maintaining a dual flight display unit such as a Garmin G3X
4) How much could it (very roughly) cost to maintain the original F27 avionics?
Any help, hugely appreciated as this sort of info just can't be found in google search
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearcat,
Dual GPS that I have used averaged the position and over time, updated the already very accurate inertial position. I expect a new panel mounted dual GPS would just average the two positions and present you with enough nav info to follow the selected tracking. If the position difference of the GPSs was too great it would be another matter and there should be a wealth of experience out there for you to call on.
A question you have not asked, is the actual DOC savings from GPS use. If you have to assume operation in europe, there will be many small direct tracking efficiencies that when added together would slightly reduce DOC. It is the significant direct tracks that can really help and you might only get one of these in a full day of operating.
The tracking distance reduction is not the end of the matter. Your direct track might give a few minutes earlier arrival time that avoids a few times around a holding pattern because of other flights arriving around the same time as your original ETA. If ATC requires passing a certain enroute point at a specific time, your crossing time is more assured with modern navigation gear. Getting something like that wrong is not going to improve the chances of an efficient flight!
Arriving at your destination parking position on time or early usually gives more chance for the subsequent departure to be on time or a little early. There are enough difficulties maintaining a schedule in busy airspace. Every chance should be taken to minimise such difficulties. A good schedule keeping reputation impacts on efficiency. Got to keep those seats filled with happy customers who will go to another operator if your operation is unreliable.
Being late can impact on flight crew duty limitations. If the crew needs an unscheduled rest period where there are no standby crews available, flight has to be cancelled or significantly delayed.
Some of these difficulties can reduced with the accurate navigation available from GPS. From my own experience in Australia, Europe, ME, North Africa and Asia in airline jets (and F27 long ago) the immediate tangible efficiency advantage from modern nav gear can be be about 2%. Your F27 could get about 2%, depending on the routes.
If crew are paid per flying hour, the benefit could be less. My expat crew in one airline could regularly carve 30 minutes flight time from a particular 1 hour 45 minute schedule. We were effectively on a fixed salary. Locals were paid for excess hours. GPS expenditure in your project should therefore be linked to a pilot salary that does not reward greater flight times, meaning the commercial, industrial and operational parts of your project are linked to your avionics part.
Replacing the original nav comms and radar would be based on reliability and maintenance matters and not relate to operational use in the same way as adding GPS.
Dual GPS that I have used averaged the position and over time, updated the already very accurate inertial position. I expect a new panel mounted dual GPS would just average the two positions and present you with enough nav info to follow the selected tracking. If the position difference of the GPSs was too great it would be another matter and there should be a wealth of experience out there for you to call on.
A question you have not asked, is the actual DOC savings from GPS use. If you have to assume operation in europe, there will be many small direct tracking efficiencies that when added together would slightly reduce DOC. It is the significant direct tracks that can really help and you might only get one of these in a full day of operating.
The tracking distance reduction is not the end of the matter. Your direct track might give a few minutes earlier arrival time that avoids a few times around a holding pattern because of other flights arriving around the same time as your original ETA. If ATC requires passing a certain enroute point at a specific time, your crossing time is more assured with modern navigation gear. Getting something like that wrong is not going to improve the chances of an efficient flight!
Arriving at your destination parking position on time or early usually gives more chance for the subsequent departure to be on time or a little early. There are enough difficulties maintaining a schedule in busy airspace. Every chance should be taken to minimise such difficulties. A good schedule keeping reputation impacts on efficiency. Got to keep those seats filled with happy customers who will go to another operator if your operation is unreliable.
Being late can impact on flight crew duty limitations. If the crew needs an unscheduled rest period where there are no standby crews available, flight has to be cancelled or significantly delayed.
Some of these difficulties can reduced with the accurate navigation available from GPS. From my own experience in Australia, Europe, ME, North Africa and Asia in airline jets (and F27 long ago) the immediate tangible efficiency advantage from modern nav gear can be be about 2%. Your F27 could get about 2%, depending on the routes.
If crew are paid per flying hour, the benefit could be less. My expat crew in one airline could regularly carve 30 minutes flight time from a particular 1 hour 45 minute schedule. We were effectively on a fixed salary. Locals were paid for excess hours. GPS expenditure in your project should therefore be linked to a pilot salary that does not reward greater flight times, meaning the commercial, industrial and operational parts of your project are linked to your avionics part.
Replacing the original nav comms and radar would be based on reliability and maintenance matters and not relate to operational use in the same way as adding GPS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearcat,
Dual GPS that I have used averaged the position and over time, updated the already very accurate inertial position. I expect a new panel mounted dual GPS would just average the two positions and present you with enough nav info to follow the selected tracking. If the position difference of the GPSs was too great it would be another matter and there should be a wealth of experience out there for you to call on.
A question you have not asked, is the actual DOC savings from GPS use. If you have to assume operation in europe, there will be many small direct tracking efficiencies that when added together would slightly reduce DOC. It is the significant direct tracks that can really help and you might only get one of these in a full day of operating.
The tracking distance reduction is not the end of the matter. Your direct track might give a few minutes earlier arrival time that avoids a few times around a holding pattern because of other flights arriving around the same time as your original ETA. If ATC requires passing a certain enroute point at a specific time, your crossing time is more assured with modern navigation gear. Getting something like that wrong is not going to improve the chances of an efficient flight!
Arriving at your destination parking position on time or early usually gives more chance for the subsequent departure to be on time or a little early. There are enough difficulties maintaining a schedule in busy airspace. Every chance should be taken to minimise such difficulties. A good schedule keeping reputation impacts on efficiency. Got to keep those seats filled with happy customers who will go to another operator if your operation is unreliable.
Being late can impact on flight crew duty limitations. If the crew needs an unscheduled rest period where there are no standby crews available, flight has to be cancelled or significantly delayed.
Some of these difficulties can reduced with the accurate navigation available from GPS. From my own experience in Australia, Europe, ME, North Africa and Asia in airline jets (and F27 long ago) the immediate tangible efficiency advantage from modern nav gear can be be about 2%. Your F27 could get about 2%, depending on the routes.
If crew are paid per flying hour, the benefit could be less. My expat crew in one airline could regularly carve 30 minutes flight time from a particular 1 hour 45 minute schedule. We were effectively on a fixed salary. Locals were paid for excess hours. GPS expenditure in your project should therefore be linked to a pilot salary that does not reward greater flight times, meaning the commercial, industrial and operational parts of your project are linked to your avionics part.
Replacing the original nav comms and radar would be based on reliability and maintenance matters and not relate to operational use in the same way as adding GPS.
Dual GPS that I have used averaged the position and over time, updated the already very accurate inertial position. I expect a new panel mounted dual GPS would just average the two positions and present you with enough nav info to follow the selected tracking. If the position difference of the GPSs was too great it would be another matter and there should be a wealth of experience out there for you to call on.
A question you have not asked, is the actual DOC savings from GPS use. If you have to assume operation in europe, there will be many small direct tracking efficiencies that when added together would slightly reduce DOC. It is the significant direct tracks that can really help and you might only get one of these in a full day of operating.
The tracking distance reduction is not the end of the matter. Your direct track might give a few minutes earlier arrival time that avoids a few times around a holding pattern because of other flights arriving around the same time as your original ETA. If ATC requires passing a certain enroute point at a specific time, your crossing time is more assured with modern navigation gear. Getting something like that wrong is not going to improve the chances of an efficient flight!
Arriving at your destination parking position on time or early usually gives more chance for the subsequent departure to be on time or a little early. There are enough difficulties maintaining a schedule in busy airspace. Every chance should be taken to minimise such difficulties. A good schedule keeping reputation impacts on efficiency. Got to keep those seats filled with happy customers who will go to another operator if your operation is unreliable.
Being late can impact on flight crew duty limitations. If the crew needs an unscheduled rest period where there are no standby crews available, flight has to be cancelled or significantly delayed.
Some of these difficulties can reduced with the accurate navigation available from GPS. From my own experience in Australia, Europe, ME, North Africa and Asia in airline jets (and F27 long ago) the immediate tangible efficiency advantage from modern nav gear can be be about 2%. Your F27 could get about 2%, depending on the routes.
If crew are paid per flying hour, the benefit could be less. My expat crew in one airline could regularly carve 30 minutes flight time from a particular 1 hour 45 minute schedule. We were effectively on a fixed salary. Locals were paid for excess hours. GPS expenditure in your project should therefore be linked to a pilot salary that does not reward greater flight times, meaning the commercial, industrial and operational parts of your project are linked to your avionics part.
Replacing the original nav comms and radar would be based on reliability and maintenance matters and not relate to operational use in the same way as adding GPS.
I'm guessing you don't know what's involved in maintaining GPS units? Are they trouble-free for the most part?
Thanks again for the help though, much appreciate it
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look around and see what has been done in the past. On the cross Channel Car Ferry we would do two rotations, there and back, in about 1 hour 20 minutes, carrying three ordinary cars and their passengers in each direction. ( I think that Duty Frees were sold in the rear cabin, too.)
Passengers and cars would take about the same time from arrival at one airport to departure from their destination airport. The chock to chock time was 20 minutes, except on a few longer distance flights. It was usual for a crew to do six trips, 12 landings per day - and it was mostly day flying.
The Company carried a number of export AND import cars to fill the otherwise empty spaces and a certain amount of low priority freight.
I recall that SW Airlines were said to turn a DC3 around in 90 seconds when not refuelling.
It is said that F.W.Smith when at Yale in 1962 got a "C" Grade because when he made a suggestion for an Air Freight Carrier, his professor said the he was supposed to put forward a feasible idea, and so he gave him a "C" Grade. Perhaps the professor was correct - at the time.
Fedex started in 1973...
Few would have anticipated that something like Startrek's Communicator ( of 1966 +) could ever be nearly universal, affordable and in nearly everyone's pocket.
Just wait for the Startrek Transporter Room ! 2024 ?
Passengers and cars would take about the same time from arrival at one airport to departure from their destination airport. The chock to chock time was 20 minutes, except on a few longer distance flights. It was usual for a crew to do six trips, 12 landings per day - and it was mostly day flying.
The Company carried a number of export AND import cars to fill the otherwise empty spaces and a certain amount of low priority freight.
I recall that SW Airlines were said to turn a DC3 around in 90 seconds when not refuelling.
It is said that F.W.Smith when at Yale in 1962 got a "C" Grade because when he made a suggestion for an Air Freight Carrier, his professor said the he was supposed to put forward a feasible idea, and so he gave him a "C" Grade. Perhaps the professor was correct - at the time.
Fedex started in 1973...
Few would have anticipated that something like Startrek's Communicator ( of 1966 +) could ever be nearly universal, affordable and in nearly everyone's pocket.
Just wait for the Startrek Transporter Room ! 2024 ?
Last edited by Jetdriver; 9th Feb 2013 at 11:06.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some maintenance costs may be cyclical like tyres and U/C. Also engines will tend to last longer if they can be treated gently. (I flew with a Captain who liked to hear his Merlins backfire. He left the Company for another reason.)
A Salty atmosphere may tend to corrode, this is more likely in the bits that are harder to get at. ( During the AirLift salt had to be flown to Berlin in flying-boats, which were designed for salt water.)
Some electrical bits do not like being switched ON. Where possible, leave them ON for the "working day". ( The earliest computers HAD to be left on to get any reliability - and it got hot in the summer, they said !)
Condition Monitoring may be possible, perhaps something like Oil Monitoring, to check the engines for their condition, perhaps giving better warning of impending problems.
A Salty atmosphere may tend to corrode, this is more likely in the bits that are harder to get at. ( During the AirLift salt had to be flown to Berlin in flying-boats, which were designed for salt water.)
Some electrical bits do not like being switched ON. Where possible, leave them ON for the "working day". ( The earliest computers HAD to be left on to get any reliability - and it got hot in the summer, they said !)
Condition Monitoring may be possible, perhaps something like Oil Monitoring, to check the engines for their condition, perhaps giving better warning of impending problems.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pointy thing right at the front of the F27 is the radome. Inside is the weather radar antenna. Bearcat, it is time for you to arrange to visit a F27 operator to have a good look at one of their aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear
I did a lot of engine testing, and my boss NEVER liked the idea of two samples of data. "Three is the ideal number", he said.
And transoceanic widebodies of the 70s had 3 INS units - so if any two agreed, the third could be disregarded. But if GPS is sufficiently reliable, two seems a good plan.
1) Why do aircraft have dual GPS units?
And transoceanic widebodies of the 70s had 3 INS units - so if any two agreed, the third could be disregarded. But if GPS is sufficiently reliable, two seems a good plan.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pointy thing right at the front of the F27 is the radome. Inside is the weather radar antenna. Bearcat, it is time for you to arrange to visit a F27 operator to have a good look at one of their aircraft.
I have a more relevant question though. Is the weather radar necessary if the EFB can provide immediate weather information?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4th year Aeronautical Engineering ...
If there was one within a 20 miles radius I might ...
Is the weather radar necessary if the EFB can provide immediate weather information?
... "radar" I assume you mean wether radar?
Any idea on maintenance costs for a GNS 430W?
why is it occasionally that aircraft are fitted with 2 identical GPS units?
£6594. Sounds pretty expensive
no need for IFR equipment? Just an iPad?
anything I could do with the landing gear to improve DOC?
Is the weather radar necessary if the EFB can provide immediate weather information?
... "radar" I assume you mean wether radar?
Any idea on maintenance costs for a GNS 430W?
why is it occasionally that aircraft are fitted with 2 identical GPS units?
£6594. Sounds pretty expensive
no need for IFR equipment? Just an iPad?
anything I could do with the landing gear to improve DOC?
Spend some time in and around airfields and learn at least something about general aviation, avionics, aircraft systems, etc.
Of course, there has to be DESIRE, without some degree of desire, interest and passion, all is pointless.
Now I better understand why some aviation technocrats, out of so called "aeronautical engineering schools," and end up in SMS, maintenance planning, parts purchasing, audits, etc., are creating so much havoc in the industry and, have no clue whatsoever of what they are doing.
PS. To your latest question if you need a WX radar (vs. EFB or MFD uplink weather only): you should know that the mosaic of data displayed on your MFD is far from being "immediate" as it is obtained and processed from multiple NEXRAD sites, the information could be more then 20 minutes old (cf. NTSB safety alert on limitations of cockpit weather displays).
Last edited by avionimc; 9th Feb 2013 at 11:53.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, if it is too late for you to change school or vocation, I highly recommend you should consider working as a trainee in a reputable aircraft maintenance shop and learn some basics. As it was suggested earlier, you should also make a point to go to some aviation events such as AeroExpo, AirVenture, Avalon or similar. Even if they are more than 20 miles away.
Spend some time in and around airfields and learn at least something about general aviation, avionics, aircraft systems, etc.
Of course, there has to be DESIRE, without some degree of desire, interest and passion, all is pointless.
Spend some time in and around airfields and learn at least something about general aviation, avionics, aircraft systems, etc.
Of course, there has to be DESIRE, without some degree of desire, interest and passion, all is pointless.
I can also see that you have little understanding of what 4th year of Aeronautical Engineering is like. Can you imagine how much time I would spend traveling to places if I had to do research on the scale you are suggesting for every one of my projects? No, I didn't think so. Perhaps you are unaware of the amount of coursework we need to complete for all of our subjects not including the projects this year. No one expects us to go find actual F27 operators a gazillion miles away. And WRT the general avionics questions that I am asking - an internet forum with people who are in the industry and are willing to help is plenty enough.
Now I better understand why some aviation technocrats, out of so called "aeronautical engineering schools," and end up in SMS, maintenance planning, parts purchasing, audits, etc., are creating so much havoc in the industry and, have no clue whatsoever of what they are doing.
Why exactly you expected us to come out of the box as being great in any of the disciplines you mentioned above, is beyond me. Perhaps you are confusing what we do and what they do in college? We are not learning to be mechanics, we are learning how to be the spear head for future break throughs in aviation.
So you either want to help or you don't. I have a feeling I have squeezed as much as I could out of this thread. And I have no interest in wasting time here any further.
I appreciate the help that was provided previously and I have taken all of it on board. If someone else could contribute something further, that would be greatly appreciates. Especially in terms of costs associated with maintenance of avionics and GPS systems.
PS. To your latest question if you need a WX radar (vs. EFB or MFD uplink weather only): you should know that the mosaic of data displayed on your MFD is far from being "immediate" as it is obtained and processed from multiple NEXRAD sites, the information could be more then 20 minutes old (cf. NTSB safety alert on limitations of cockpit weather displays).
Thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a PPL, I have been in hundreds of airports in multiple countries and I have used a Garmin GPS during an engine emergency. I can assure you I have enough passion for this.
Furthermore, we have nothing to do with avionics... the "systems" people deal with that.
I "should know" it? OK. I'll take your answer as a "no, you don't need the WX radar as the info displayed is not immediate while the EFB's data link provides accurate real time weather".
Thanks.
Furthermore, we have nothing to do with avionics... the "systems" people deal with that.
I "should know" it? OK. I'll take your answer as a "no, you don't need the WX radar as the info displayed is not immediate while the EFB's data link provides accurate real time weather".
Thanks.
Bearcat,
With all due respect for the carreer you are about to embrace and the rather unrealistic but challenging project you have been assigned, I am not convinced (yet) of the wx info that could be provided through a datalink/EFB while in the air at up to 25000ft (latest F27 max) if my memory serves me right, while circumnavigating storm cells. One on board Wx radar is a must, two independant is best (and rare).
I remember crossing the Gulf of Guinea at night about 25 years ago at about FL330 and loosing my (still monochromatic Wx radar) while circumnavigating CBs. Had no spare one except the full moon high above.
My only option was to deviate quite a lot to the West and keep it in sight.
ITCZ are quite interresting in this part of the world!
Give me a wx radar (or two)!!
As soon as you have time, make the effort of visiting the end users (ie. airline crew) you will learn a lot and make a very usefull links between theory and practice.
All the best and good luck for you project.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the suggestion. I have a few friends who are airline pilots or just have an ATPL. I'll ask them as well and see what they say.
As mentioned before, I don't have the luxury of time of going and visiting the end users even if I ever get access to speak to the people I need to speak to - i.e the guys who do the maintenance or maybe the pilots. That's why I am using the forum as the next best thing, if not better.
As mentioned before, I don't have the luxury of time of going and visiting the end users even if I ever get access to speak to the people I need to speak to - i.e the guys who do the maintenance or maybe the pilots. That's why I am using the forum as the next best thing, if not better.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS. To your latest question if you need a WX radar (vs. EFB or MFD uplink weather only): you should know that the mosaic of data displayed on your MFD is far from being "immediate" as it is obtained and processed from multiple NEXRAD sites, the information could be more then 20 minutes old (cf. NTSB safety alert on limitations of cockpit weather displays).
Some of the smaller GA aircraft take wx info from a local station. But I assume the wx radar in the F27 uses radio waves that bounce off moisture and hence gives a real-time picture to the crew.