Professional Pilots ??
 

Does anyone know approx what percentage of the posters on here are actually Professional Pilots ?

Judging by the questions that get asked I would think a lot of guys are maybe flight simulator enthusiasts.

:confused:

I'm not convinced that your are qualified to be "judging" professional pilots Virtual.
A little while ago you posted
This displays a lack of understanding of the very basics of operating an aircraft, yet you feel you can judge the professionalism of actual aircrew?
Bit silly don't you think?

Sprung, moron.

I can assure you, I know a lot more than just the basics when it comes to a 737NG. The reason I asked those questions is I could not get an answer anywhere. If you can tell me exactly where those 2 questions get answered properly in the Boeing CBT or Fcoms then you definitely know more than most people.

Getting back on topic, does anyone have any idea of the % of real airline pilots on here ?
It's not a very tough question.

As you can join this forum without any proof of who you say you are (and even that is optional), any guess at the %age would be just that and totally meaningless, just like the question.:ugh:

Thanks for the honest answer.
I guess it's really down to, who sounds like they know their stuff and who doesn't. I am only interested in the Boeing 737-800 and getting answers to a few questions.

Cheers.

And you did, didn't you?

I disagree.

I sure did thank you.

Jason.

hehe, good question. i think depending on the kind of discussion you can see it quickly. aviation fans sometimes have a stunning knowledge when it comes to technical questions since civil aviation is not a secret and when you have the time and joy to search the net deeply you can learn a lot.

but you see it when you discuss the annoying small things you have every day earning your money sitting in a cockpit- bad rostering, stupid slots , private problems when you are barely home. this issues are not covered in a computer game.

i like ( dont laugh) to play chess online with other people. and there are players who have an elo rating - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system- due to their games they made on the server that they could easily start in a international championship. and such a player would have better to do than playing for hours on a free server every day so you can be sure the nick plays via a good chess computer.

the same here- when somebody claims to have flown anything what has wings and scored 20-30 thousand hours and has simultany thousands of postings here being every day present you can move forward without further thinking about it.

but thats the spirit of an open forum , why not !

You need to be careful who you paint with that brush - 411A posted 8,683 contributions and flew Constellations, DC-7 in airline service and passed away recently still occupying the left seat of a Lockheed 1011. Had Howard Hughes visit his home when a lad, and his father was a design engineer with Douglas working on the DC-3 and subsequent.

brian, there may be VERY few exeptions of the above written, i agree.

Aerobat77, you seem to have a problem with the concept that someone who actually likes aviation might actually find time to post on an internet forum.

Look at the histories of Top Bunk, Rainboe, 411A, Con-Pilot and many other long term posters, you will discover that they have had extensive flying careers, yet obviously love posting on Pprune. You could also look at the posts of someone called John Farley, then google his name followed by Harrier :)

I dont understand why you find this so hard to believe?

Mutt

I'll second that, mutt

Aerobat77, I'm sitting in Dubai waiting for the drinks restriction to be removed in 21 minutes. It's a good time to read and post. I've learned a lot from some posters here (thanks, mutt, J_T, Old Smokey, Con-pilot and the rest), been repelled at others and wondered how a few have survived to post at all. Mind you, I'm pretty junior--11,000, 2 ATPLs, 5 civil types and 3 military ones. Only half of mutt's posts, must try to keep up.

Off to happy hour! :ok:

GF

mutt, i do not have a problem with it, quite the opposite, like said i think its the spirit of an open aviation forum that people which like aviation find time to post here intensive.

the question here but was who is "really" an professional actual pilot, and gave my opinion to this . but like said- there may be some rare exeptions.

beyond this its not the intention to "blackmail" somebody specific, i do not name any nick names.

but how i had the right feeling that exactly the professional posters will kick in very quickly and report disgusted their flying hours on widebodies since how the concidence it takes- they are all just right now at off or standby and not in FL390 on longrange missions ? ;)

hey gents, lets take it easy- like said, i call no nicks, i have no problem with it, i like this forum !

cheers

I have a very great interest in aviation, having flown DC3's, viscount 700, Caravelle 12, Dassault Mercure, Antonov 24, Ilyushin 62-86 and Tupolev 134 + 154 to name a few in the past. I must also say as a passenger.

I read books about aviation on a regular basis, have the jet engines - Rolls Royce book, books on the operating systems of the A380 and how to fly it etc. I can contact a pilot of Qatar Airways currently on B777 but looking at moving to A380 etc.

But I wouldn't have a clue about flying apart from 2 trial lessons in a Cessna 150, and being allowed to handle a cherokee.

But to read some of the posts by -411 etc, well, they set my mind racing! The love and interest shown in aviation, the complexities of the aircraft flown and some of the highly detailed answers to some of the enthusiasts questions (mine included) is mind blowing.

Long may these as I see "real" pilots, not just jobbing pilots with no love of flying etc continue to provide fantastic and extremely interesting feedback on forums like this.

Sorry for the waffle, but I love all things aviation, just never got there.

Virtual738;
I suspect about 5% of all posters we read, perhaps less, are professional pilots flying transports for the majors and regionals, military, charter & cargo. Then there are ground and sim instructors who may be retired professional pilots. There will be meteorologists, software/hardware, aeronautical, electrical, mechanical, maintenance and flight safety engineers, human factors specialists, maintenance people, perhaps a few dispatchers, maybe two or three executives and FAs. I suspect the vast majority do not work in aviation in a professional capacity. That said, the questions asked and the engaged, respectful manner in which many are interested in learning more is widespread regardless of profession.

Just an impression, backed up in places with a bit of knowledge through private communications.

PJ2

Jetblast!!

Coat, hat :cool::cool:

+ the wannabes, newbies and fresh fish like me.. CPL next week (hopefully) !!!

I see this forum as a tool for the pro´s and a dreamcatcher for the rest...

Jp

I'm one of the more prolific posters on PPrune - it maintains my sanity to a large extent when beaten to death by management meetings, which are to an annoyingly large extent my lot these days.

On the other hand, I have a professional licence, and I have been paid to do a job of work in an aeroplane from time to time since about 1989. I've not worked outside of aerospace since 1988 (whether I've done much useful work inside it is a healthy debating point of-course :E). For much of that time I've had professional pilots working for me, or alongside me.

Flying has never been my full time job, and the odds are that it never will be. For the years I've been flying, my hours are frankly pretty low.

But, I like to feel that I belong here, can contribute, and I certainly get much more than a hobbyists benefit (despite flying being also very much my hobby, as well as my job) and I'm sure that there are others like me.

Pprune is badly named. Firstly we have every flavour of aviation professional here, not just pilots. Secondly, it is vastly more than rumour. But it's a fantastic place to talk shop - albeit that you have to be cautious to try and understand where people are coming from in terms of their own qualifications and experience.

G

Thanks a lot for the very interesting answers.

Virtual738, what did you want to know about the B737-800?

Hi PJ2 !

Is it uncommon for NG pilots to fly the descent using LNAV and VNAV untill they capture the localizer and glideslope ?
Or would Level Change and MCP speed be more common ?

I haven't flown the B737 series but the question applies to the Airbus type or any other design which incorporates versions of "LNAV-VNAV", (vice the usual descent methods).

The restriction on the use of LNAV/VNAV is usually other traffic and not any technical capability of using both to intercept the ILS, (or RNAV/GNSS) approach when so cleared. In complex terminals, the use of LNAV/VNAV to fly the SID or STAR reduces workload enormously but eternal vigilance is required to ensure routing, altitudes and speeds are flown as cleared. If an altitude or speed clearance is issued which is different than the SID/STAR, some form of intervention is obviously needed. For the Airbus series it would be Idle/Open Descent or Speed/Vertical Speed. For the B737 it would likely be FL CHG and a manual setting of the speed, (speed intervene, IIRC from the B767)

Because the bulk of traffic flies to common destinations, traffic/ATC requirements almost always require some form of intervention and so at some point in the STAR the autoflight will be used at one level below full LNAV/VNAV as described above. On the other hand, complex SIDs (Los Angeles, Frankfurt, London, Hong Kong, etc) are almost always flown using the aircraft's "LNAV/VNAV" capabilities.

You probably already have the Boeing B737-8xx FCOM but of course this doesn't describe management of the operational environment.

PJ2

Well, standard operation for take off and SID's is of course LNAV/VNAV, LNAV is active from 50ft on and VNAV from roughly 400ft AGL.

Arrivals is a different matter. Usually we will get vectors at some point and from that point on VNAV becomes more of a nuisance than a help, basic modes work much better. But even if you get a clearance for a STAR and approach very far out and could fly in theory LNAV/VNAV until GS intercept it works better if you take VNAV out within the last few miles and use basic modes.

I tried it several times, even with all information filled in it will decelerate way too early, early enough to be fully configured at the FAF. In real life that is detrimental to traffic flow and actually not SOP nor recommended practice.

VNAV works fine during large parts of the descent, but within the TMA or latest during the last 10 NM prior FAF i prefer not to use it. Level change works well, but can induce too high descent rates when close to terrain, V/S is in many cases even better. A good pilot uses all tools available, which means of course all auto flight modes, and if he wants to, no auto flight modes at all.

I have to say i can't really measure up to many of the high post count guys here. Although i started flying at age 14 (earliest legal age back then in germany) it took me quite a while to start flying professionally, only do it for the last 11 years, and only on 737s. First the 300 and 500, since a few years back the 700 and 800. Due to my "other job" my flying is nowadays limited, i manage around 400 hours a year. In my opinion tech log is probably the most interesting part of PPRuNe with a pretty high density of professional posters, but as genghis mentioned many of them are not pilots, which is actually the interesting part since we pilots do get quite a few inputs from those professionals that usually know a lot more about certain parts of aircraft, flying and procedures. And of course many of us pilots do work in additional capacities within our airlines, be it training, performance or technical.

Thanks a lot guys. That info is very helpful and I have learned a few things too.
It is too easy for me when it comes to the sim because I can just not bother with any ATC so LNAV and VNAV do a great job but of course in real life that is much different.
Maybe I will try some on-line flying with ATC and get used to the challenges of doing things that way.

Thanks again.

Jason.

One of the best ways to acclimate yourself with ATC would be to download some of the ATC games now available, good for pilots of any level to help understand ATC's perspective.

Good luck, D.L.

And for a bit of extra realism, why not coerce a willing friend or relative to pop in from time to time, tap you on the shoulder and say things like "Captain, there's a woman in 26F having a panic attack".

Isn't nowadays IAN standard? That way there is no procedural difference to an ILS/GLS.

I demonstrate to new F/Os to the automatics the use of VNAV, and LNAV during instrument approaches. We discuss the track miles involved when tracking a radial outbound from a VOR, the turn inbound then the final track. In the part of the world I fly, we need to cross the IAP at 185kts. Thus the speed restriction if input on the Legs Page next to the IAP. The only drawback is that the speed bug will move to the selected flap speed. Thus at heavy weights, Flaps 2 may be required resulting in a speed less than 185 knots. As the motors are at idle and “ARMED” is annunciated in the FMAs you can control the speed with the trust levers. Remember that you will see messages in the scratch pad to the effect that frequency not tuned and course not set. At the time when the plane starts it’s turn inbound, you must remember to set Frequency, Course Selectors, and Heading Bug to the inbound course and Arm the Approach. A minor problem with VNAV is that the A/P will endeavor actions to intercept the G/S thus resulting in an increase in airspeed. This is not really an issue if one is on their game.

The same can be accomplished with accomplished with LNAV and Vertical speed too.

Either way works great lasts a long time.

hi captjns- what aircraft type are you talking about ? and when you say you track a radial outboand - that would be vor navigation, not lnav i think.

in general lnav is very nice being enroute since you do not have to care about things like wind changes and drifts. at approach - like written above- its of course pretty useless when being vectored , and thats mostly the case. on less dense airports you also often get the instruction " descend xxx feet, position yourself 10 miles final rw xx , report when established" . in other words- the atc controller is to lazy to vector you and the airspace around you is free.

on high density airports- frankfurt main e.g you can expect vectors, flying a STAR followed by the published standard ILS is more than rare , it would also take up to much time. and expect questions like " whats your minimum clean speed" ?- reduce as far as possible or keep high speed as long as possible when on approach.

similar at departure - you get a sid with your ifr clearance at startup, but you fly the sid mostly only partially. when clear of altitudes which may conflict with approaching traffic , they handle you over to enroute radar atc which will give you ( in most cases) a direct to an enroute fix and here we go- the sid is for you and atc history. so when cleared via atc to a higher altitude than published for departure its on dense airports a good idea to keep a good climb rate - you will be handled over more quickly .

enroute its sometimes nice to switch in hdg when there is a major course difference between two fixes on your route . leaving lnav engaged would result the ap flies exactly overhead the fix and then goes into a full 25 deg bank - doing it by hdg you can start the turn some seconds earlier and turning the knob slowly smoothens it out . on new track hit "direct to" ( the next fix) and kick in lnav again. the offset to the new fix doing this is that minimal that nobody says a word.

cheers !

In general we use it from departure to landing with the exception of radar headings :) The LNAV just follows instructions from the source, be it VOR or FMS.

Wow, havent heard of this procedure, LNAV will calculate the required lead for starting the turn, plus at altitude it knows it is restricted to half bank. Our autopilot doesn't like humans trying to second guess what it should be doing.

Mutt

Really? Can you explain what you mean by 'follws instructions'. Ours just uses the ground based aids to calculate it's present position.

We have Honeywell SPZ8000 Digital Integrated Flight Control Systems, depending on the source selected the Flight Guidance System will follow the instructions given by the crew, using a VOR as the source, the LNAV will track the selected course, using the FMS as the source, the LNAV will follow the inserted flight plan, or any direct to instructions, holding instructions, in fact it will even fly in circles around a given point at a distance of 1nm to 99.9 nms...... :):)

But considering that all of this falls under the title of Lateral Navigation, isnt that what it's supposed to do?

Mutt

@OK465: of course you are basicly right with the "be careful" . its not an approved procedure and there are situations ( departure e.g) where you should better not shortcut anything. thats why i mentioned doing this - when- enroute at cruise altitude, and only for smoothening the turn and of course not shortcutting several miles without a clearance . further you have to look at your next waypoint doing this "procedure" since it may happen the fms does not realize this shortcutted fix as passed and this may really mess things up ( thats why a "direct to" the next fix) . it may also be aircraft specific how smooth the system handles it when you do not touch anything.

mutt, i do not think you will have much luck trying to fly an ILS with just lnav engaged on the autopilot - hoping that it will follow the instructions "from the source" .
hitting the app button may help a lot when established on an ILS or on interception course to final. :uhoh:

@aerobat77. Thanks for pointing out the error.:\:\

Mutt

no problem mutt !

i found a pic where we are on the return leg from tunis which may help a little what LNAV stands for, what it does and what not, and what is illuminated on the autopilot when active.

the cheyenne III turboprop you see is not equipped with an fms, but with a GNS530 and an autopilot fully capable of flying lnav .
so...

you see on the autopilot panel upper left the following : flight director engaged, autpilot engaged, altitude hold ( the ap just captured alt hold from alt arm since we are in the moment of the pic just at top of climb in fl280- the vario even shows a slight climb rate and the aircraft is levelling off) AND nav coupled . simultany you see a fix on the gns display we are cleared to and the aircraft flying to it. the important thing on the display of the gns is the green "GPS" light bottom left on the display screen.

so : nav on the autopilot , gps mode on gns and a activated waypoint. on bigger aircraft the difference would be that the main position source is INS not gps and you insert the wypoint to a seperate fms- but the final situation is pretty the same.

i could now turn the heading knob where i want or tune in a vor i want- the autopilot will at this setup just follow the wapoint activated on the display. you see actually a vor tuned in ( you see it on the gns display , as well its DME on the dme gauge below the horizon-TUC vor, a course to the vor which is different to the course the autopilot holds- the autopilot is like said in lnav not interested in the vor or whatever radial to it.

thats the mighty lnav gents.

when i would want to fly to the tuned in vor i have two options ( beyond heading mode)

1) inserting the tuc vor as a waypoint and activating it. then on at the above written setup the ap would turn towards it.

2)kick off gps mode , tune the vor freq , center the HSI needle and let nav on autopilot. then the autopilot seeks for following a "real" tranmitted radial to the vor- in the first method the autopilot reckons the vor just as a waypoint and is completely uninterested in a radial or even tuning in the vor freq.

its improtant to say that when you really fly an radial from or to a vor you are not fly lnav but vor navigation.

this aircraft splits lnav and vor navigation in the setup of the gns ( like mentioned- for lnav the green "gps" light must lit !) , some aircrafts have two buttons on the autopilot : nav and lnav. with the one you seek a really tuned vor , with the other you fly an computed waypoint - inserted in the gns or an fms.

you see just one wypoint inserted, not the whole plan. well... the only reason is that we pilots are lazy and inserting 50 or more waypoints on this route ( flight DTTA-EDDC) just to see that atc directs you to something other and you inserted waypoints are pretty useless is a work what we save when smooth at level and everything is fine. in dense areas you of course insert more points and select a departure route. and we of course have the flight plan with all waypoints on hand.

thats how it looks in real life, i hope i could help a little.

best regards !

ps.: i was also to lazy to paint out the callsign, its not that secret for what company i am working ;) - but nevertheless -psssst :oh:

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...robat1/017.jpg







http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...robat1/018.jpg

that is pretty right-but like written , the offset will be that marginal that atc does not even see it. but its true from a pure technical point of view that the ap will track from the position you hit enter after direct to, it will not intercept the line which is between the two pints.

with coffee in left and the sandwich in the right hand??? :E

There are no easy answers.

I can tell you this: PPRuNe members quick to bash a particular manufacturer (A v B) are very likely not flying for a living. The same applies for the overly sensitive folks who staunchly defend even mere wisps of criticism against their chosen brand of big aluminium tube maker.

As an aside, mechanics aka our ground engineers are completely excepted from the above general guide. Those guys learn their prejudices the hard way via frustration, sweat, headache, heartache, and/or bloody knuckles.