Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2529 posts, RR: 5 Posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7886 times:
I was looking through some photos and found a few similar to the one below... How to pilots feel about having to wait behind a small turboprop or recip. engine aircraft? Do they feel it to be an inconvenience, or does their supreme love of aviation accept any type
PS: I realize the cessna below probably isn't just a normal GA aircraft, but you see my point
SW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7835 times:
I am not a commercial pilot, so this is just a guess (and probably a wrong one at that!). Every pilot has to start somewhere! Even that Lufthansa 747 pilot had to start on a small prop plane. So my guess it that yeah it's a little bit of an inconvenience, but they know that without the small prop planes, they wouldnt be behind the wheel of a transatlantic jumbo.
Bucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7754 times:
I don't think GA aircraft should be allowed into most major airports. There are only so many takeoffs and landings that can be accomplished, and a C-172 takes up the same slot as a 747. Worse really, because of the slow speeds of small prop plane, it screws up the traffic flow for a bit. I feel the same about a corporate jet. Its not fair for a lear with maybe three passengers on board to hold up the departures and arrivals of airlineres with between 50 and 250 people on board.
B747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7746 times:
Dear Corey07850 -
I fly a 747 for a living, and I got a L-21 (Super Cub) for fun flying and teach my son to fly.
How do I feel about GA aircraft...?
The picture you show is the problem... we share the same skies, although at much different altitudes. Sharing the same airports or runways a quite a big concern, being the little guy, or the big guys. I never fly my little plane to airports normally used by large airliners, unless I have no other solution. This presents a problem for the GA pilots, and the airline pilots.
I try to be extra careful with light airplanes around the 747, but many times do they realize the wake of the engine if I do not know they are behind us, in order to breakaway from standing. Why if they understimate how bad it could be, and stand too close behind, this often happens.
There should be airports for little airplanes and for large ones, plenty of these in the USA, even Europe. I do not see why a C-152 who is flying an ILS at a speed of 80 knots, should be the reason for the 747 that follows to be forced to do a $3,500 go around, unable to slow down more than 140 knots.
Sure, in the USA, equal rights at many airports... but, do you admit bicycles, or small scooters on freeways...? Let us be practical at this stage. Airline pilots try to save fuel as much as they can, so, the airlines do not have to raise the fares, at the end, you the passengers will pay for the wait for takeoff, or the go around. The passengers pay for the fuel, not the pilots.
I help a lot of GA pilots to learn to fly, many kids who are not rich... I operate from little grassy fields with no tower, they get three times as many landings per hour as they would get at a busy airport. And the ground time is to a minimum. I hardly ever land at big airports with my little plane.
Other than that, I am a GA pilot too, in my L-21...
Happy contrails -
Danielbk From Israel, joined Feb 2003, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7707 times:
I completely disagree.
I have flown with anything from Cessna 172's to Seneca V into JFK , EWR , GA / KLGA), USA - New York">LGA , MDW , DCA and BOS and done correctly and professionaly (I think that professional radio work is crutial in this conditions) has no effect on incoming or outgoing traffic. Most aircraft which are capable for less then 150-180kts to the outermarker would usually get a different runway (parallel if avail) to land / t/o on to be as a minimum of a factor. Aircrafts like Lear's, Citations and other business jets are just as speed capable as any airliner and are no different in time consumption.
Airports are a public service (non privately owned airports anyway) and most require a fee to be paid, calculated based on MTOW (max t/o weight). In airliners, the bill is paid by the pax at the end. With GA aircraft, it's paid by the pilot flying to the airport (I'm talking about private GA flights). They all pay for a service they are entitled to receive, and do so with accordance to ATC who decide they can accept them. So final point - that pesky Cessna in a row of aircraft waiting to depart will not consume more time. The plane will usually be directed and is able to to turn out side of runway heading much quicker after departure and thus become no factor, althorugh he only flies at 80-100kts at that time.
...Sorry for the long lecture.. Just my few cents..
edit: i'm have a problem writing the airport list above.. the stie keeps translating it..
[Edited 2004-03-11 20:36:58]
[Edited 2004-03-11 20:43:11]
cockpit? it's that little room in the front of the plane where the pilots seat.. but that's not important now
CRFLY From Costa Rica, joined Jan 2004, 197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7648 times:
The Commercial pilots might feel a little bored to see the little plane taking position, roll and then take off and clear the pattern... On the other hand, landing behind a heavy aircraft (especially the 757) really make us private pilots to suffer: those vortices really make bumpy and hard your final approaches and landings...
Type-Rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7597 times:
I feel the same about a corporate jet. Its not fair for a lear with maybe three passengers on board to hold up the departures and arrivals of airlineres with between 50 and 250 people on board.
I totally don't agree with this. A corporate jet can take off and depart the airport traffic area and get established on it's route just as fast, if not faster than most airliners. Then it's just a matter of the speed limit.....
Additionally, I just find that there are a lot of line pilots that forget where they came from....... even your 747 Captains started off in a single engine recip!
Coa764 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7485 times:
Not bringing a pilots view but as a dispatcher I due feel that the GA community should be subjected to the same delays that the commercial folks endure flying into the larger airports. When their is a Ground Delay Programs (GDP) in effect that airport essentially becomes slot controlled airport to regulate the demand. For various different reasons the GA community, for years, has been able to circumvent these programs and in doing so can create problems for the users that are in the program. One example would be the excess GA traffic causing a spike in the demand forcing a lower rate thus increasing the average delay. The excess demand can also cause holding which could result in diversions but if not still forces the airlines to burn more fuel while spinning. Either way it is not an equitable situation for the commercial airlines.
Please oh please Mr Moderator Nazi, dont delete my thread.
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6206 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7395 times:
As a general aviation pilot, I try to be a good citizen around major airports by avoiding them during peak hours, but I'm totally opposed to banning GA aircraft from any airport. They are public-use airports funded by the taxpayers and should be open to everybody. Even the busiest airports have down time when there's not much going on and there's no reason to ban GA.
I know alot of airline pilots who are also active in General Aviation, plus general aviation creates the airline pilots of the future, so I'd say most are probably friendly towards GA. There are exceptions, those who stay in GA just long enough to launch their airline career and then couldn't care less about it; those people are sad.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
Nwairlinkfo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7332 times:
Personally I love aviation....that's why I got into it. I enjoy seeing all the different types of aircraft that are out there. I am certainly not bored or upset when a smaller plane is in front of us at any airport. Granted, I don't fly a 747 or "heavy" yet, but I think some pilots have a tendency to forget where they came from. The problem in the U.S. is just as the picture above illustrates....there are WAY too many airplanes trying to cram into the same over-stressed, ancient technology ATC system. That is the real problem, not the guy who wants to fly his 172 into a major airport. If the FAA would solve some of their capacity issues, then there wouldn't be any problem.
Bucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7219 times:
Look, I have nothing against CA aircraft, or a lear with 3 pax. But as someone else wrote, the issue is capacity. Most major airports are at or near max capacity. Should some of that capacity be taken up by GA aircraft or Corporate aircraft when these aircraft have other options? Every city has airports other than the major commercial airport which can handle GA and corporate aircraft. Why does a GA aircraft need to land at Laguardia?
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7115 times:
I've got to smile at this post. The assumption is being made that GA pilots are somehow and in some ways inferior to the airline types. I refuse to accept that assumption. I've done both types of flying and I am a corporate pilot by choice. Guys, there are really very few differences between flying that 747 and a bizjet. They are more a like than they are different.
Personally, I find the better comparison to be comparing airliners with old clapped out school buses with those hideously uncomfortable seats - but hey, that just me. When it comes to the flying I found airline flying to be extremely boring - but the pay's good. Personally, I find corporate aviation much more challenging and rewarding. In the past we have lagged behind the airline guys as far as compensation and we will probably never catch up to them. However, things are getting better, I would have to take a pay cut to fly as captain on most of the new LCCs (and that is where the action is going to be for the foreseeable future.)
On the plus side, we fly better (not larger) equipment with all of the state of the art "whistles and bells"; we have the chance to fly world-wide on a more less regular basis; (Eat your hearts out Southwest pilots - I'd hate being stuck flying domestic routes in 737s for an entire 35 year aviation career - more money or not.) our aircraft are maintained to the strictest standards; and we receive arguably better training. Granted, like every other career field, there are good jobs and bad ones. I'm fortunate enough to have a good one. However, there are plenty of them out there, you just have to look. I guess what I trying to say is take a hard look at your options - the majors are not the only game in town. There are plenty of opportunities in aviation, whether it be in corporate or airline.
Apurnicus From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7083 times:
As a GA pilot, I do my best to accomodate the traffic flow. If done correctly, we can coexist and have a positive effect on one another. Here's a case in point: I trained out of OAK, and although there are two separate airfields, there air times when commercial carriers have to use the GA field (ie. main runway construction).
On the typically foggy Bay Area mornings, I would request vectors to the ILS for 27R. ATC would issue vectors and instructions to maintain best forward speed due to traffic behind me (typically a Southwest 737 or Jetblue A320). My instructor taught me to fly these approaches in a C172 at 120 kts, or in a Beech Duchess (light twin), C182 at 140kts or greater. In such cases, ATC would thank me before handing me off to the tower. If I did not fly faster, the aircraft behind me would get speed restrictions, thus disrupting the flow (such is my belief)
There is a good article in IFR magizine that discusses the issues of a stablized approach in a GA aircraft (Reference: Wheeler, R.; IFR Magazine, Feb. 2004, Vol 20, No. 2, pg. 16)). In summary, GA aircraft can fly a "high speed" approach and still be slowed to give a great landing.
"High-speed" approaches are actually very fun and challenging. Always do then with an instructor first. There's a lot that can go wrong. You'll learn something about yourself, your plane, and you won't disrupt the flow. Well, not too much anyways.
C172Akula From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 1010 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7081 times:
I think as long as the GA pilot is good and quick on the radios, and is able to accomodate special requests (such as high speed approaches and quick turns after departure) than this isn't much of a problem.
If the runway is long enough you can bring a 172 in at about 110 knots or so and still get er down nice and fast. I did this all the time during my training at YYC and continued to be accomodated easily by ATC during the years I spent as an instructor based there as well.
Heck there were times when I think ATC was trying to see if I could squeeze between two 737's and still make the landing without the other 737 needing to go around!
Ahsanf28 From Bangladesh, joined Mar 2002, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7033 times:
How do I feel ?
Although I take pride in flying a wide-body jet for a living, I fondly remember my days in Piper and Cessna singles. Afterall I have learnt to spread wings in those cute little ones. I have never suffered from any superiority complex while waiting behind a small aircraft for take-off.
Flyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6979 times:
I do not see why a C-152 who is flying an ILS at a speed of 80 knots, should be the reason for the 747 that follows to be forced to do a $3,500 go around, unable to slow down more than 140 knots.
A cessna doing an ILS landing at 80 knots is a perfectly good reason for you to go around, despite the plane you are flying. You could have slowed down way back, or the ATC could have you do a few "S" turns.
Here at Battle Creek, A-10's and F-15's repeatedly hold short for WMU's cessna 172's. Sometimes, they even help us down and critique our landings
B757capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6869 times:
NWAairlink hit it on the head. Its not that we have problems with the GA traffic its that the system is so old that it makes a mess to put 2 757's a 737 and a 172 into an airport like MDW or GA / KLGA), USA - New York">LGA.
The views written by this user are in no manner the views of my employer and should not be thought as such.
B747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6825 times:
Dear Flyingbronco05 -
I once had to go around behind a GA airplane... was like a Cessna 172 maybe.
He did a good job in going fast knowing we were coming behind...
I think his speed could have been 120 knots maybe... we were 140...?
Then he landed... but continued on the runway, he missed a turn-off to clear.
So here we go, go around thrust, $3,500 in fuel and flying time.
Excuses to the passengers...
Then on board, I have a passenger, a certain Mr. Flyingbrinco05...
After he goes home, he hits the A.Net... he writes...
"Have you ever have been on an aborted landing...?
"I was in one just two hours ago... the idiot had to go around...!
"Just because he cannot do S turns...!
"These South American drivers are poor pilots, really...!
Happy contrails, thank me for you logging a go around in a 747 -
We did not have the time to offer you a complimentary drink.
Canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2844 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6718 times:
I believe the concern has more to do with the experience of the pilot rather than the size of the airplane. I remember being very overwhelmed when flying into ORD in a KA90 for the first time (right seat). I felt very fortunate to have an experienced pilot in the left seat. No one starts out flying 747's, but you take an experienced line captain and put him in a PA-32 and he's quite competent in a high traffic environment. However, you put a 200 hour pilot in a PA-32 and enter airspace around ORD, you become a hazard.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4236 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6656 times:
I used to have to fly a Saratoga into SA - Georgia">ATL many times... only one time did a Comair CRJ have to go around behind me- because the controller messed up and stuck us in a bit too close together. I hauled butt in there and pulled off at the first turnoff, was still just too close. I cleared the runway and saw him passing over head. Always kept my speed up...Saratoga was very hard to slow down. I got thanked for the help and tight vectors 9 out of 10 times I landed there. It was nice the first time I brought a seminole in there... I can hold 170 to just past the marker, Just need to be slowed to 140 to put out the gear, which isnt much slower than regular traffic. Got asked to slow down a couple times haha. Been known to eat CRJ's alive when on approach in the nole
I don't mind GA traffic a bit as long as they keep it clean. Was always one of my pet peeves seeing GA pilots that dont keep their heads in the game and have poor SA and radio communications. I know my roots and love going up in piston planes occasionally still. The key thing is, they just cant expect to be flying a cat A ILS into a large international airport.