Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Woodreau wrote:It’s not really the flights but the turn on the ground in between flights
When I was a regional turboprop pilot a normal day was 9-10 legs per day - flights being as short as 25minutes but as long as a hour.
ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT as an example - a 9 hour duty day.
The turn on the ground was only 10 minutes so we were constantly on the go and so it really wasn’t that bad. We didn’t sit around for an hour between flights where you’d get tired.
there’s the California flying where the legs are about an hour
you end up flying 4-5 one hour legs as an example. LAS-SAN-OAK-SNA-LAS
An hour-1.5hr flight with a 45-55 minute turns ends up being a 10-11 hour duty day.
given the choice beteeen 4-5 legs and 1 or 2 legs most people would rather do the 1-2 legs.
Starlionblue wrote:It depends a bit on how you are paid. If you are paid based on block time, then long flights are better because there's proportionally less unpaid time before and after. Assuming you have about the same block hours each month, you'll spend less time working.
On the other hand, short flights can be fun because there's no relatively uneventful cruise segment.
Max Q wrote:Woodreau wrote:It’s not really the flights but the turn on the ground in between flights
When I was a regional turboprop pilot a normal day was 9-10 legs per day - flights being as short as 25minutes but as long as a hour.
ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT as an example - a 9 hour duty day.
The turn on the ground was only 10 minutes so we were constantly on the go and so it really wasn’t that bad. We didn’t sit around for an hour between flights where you’d get tired.
there’s the California flying where the legs are about an hour
you end up flying 4-5 one hour legs as an example. LAS-SAN-OAK-SNA-LAS
An hour-1.5hr flight with a 45-55 minute turns ends up being a 10-11 hour duty day.
given the choice beteeen 4-5 legs and 1 or 2 legs most people would rather do the 1-2 legs.
When I flew short haul in the 727 and MD80 it was fine if you kept going without much break between legs, much more fatiguing if you had to swap aircraft (always the longest distance possible between gates) or worse as mentioned having a long sit between flights, that’s when you start feeling really tired and then you have to start all over again
After 10 years of that I was extremely happy to go to one leg a day on the 757 then 767
Starlionblue wrote:Starlionblue wrote:It depends a bit on how you are paid. If you are paid based on block time, then long flights are better because there's proportionally less unpaid time before and after. Assuming you have about the same block hours each month, you'll spend less time working.
On the other hand, short flights can be fun because there's no relatively uneventful cruise segment.
I'll add that once the sectors start creeping into real long-haul, it depends a bit on what you prefer.
I have friends who would rather do 2-3 ultra-long hauls trips a month, with 14+ hour sector times. Sometimes they get these trips back to back with a block of time off after, which is good for commuters. While, yes, you get plenty of rest days off, and don't have to work so many days, it also means a long time away from home. I don't mind long haul but once I get to about 11-12 hour sector time I feel I've reached my limit. Flying over the pole or the Pacific for hour after hour after interminable hour is mind-numbingly boring and I'd rather work a few more days each monthy to avoid it.
Honestly most of the time I'd rather tool around the region for a few days and sleep in my own time zone even if it means more time working. Unless, it's a long haul destination I really love.
The good thing is that different people prefer different things, so we bid on different things.Max Q wrote:Woodreau wrote:It’s not really the flights but the turn on the ground in between flights
When I was a regional turboprop pilot a normal day was 9-10 legs per day - flights being as short as 25minutes but as long as a hour.
ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT as an example - a 9 hour duty day.
The turn on the ground was only 10 minutes so we were constantly on the go and so it really wasn’t that bad. We didn’t sit around for an hour between flights where you’d get tired.
there’s the California flying where the legs are about an hour
you end up flying 4-5 one hour legs as an example. LAS-SAN-OAK-SNA-LAS
An hour-1.5hr flight with a 45-55 minute turns ends up being a 10-11 hour duty day.
given the choice beteeen 4-5 legs and 1 or 2 legs most people would rather do the 1-2 legs.
When I flew short haul in the 727 and MD80 it was fine if you kept going without much break between legs, much more fatiguing if you had to swap aircraft (always the longest distance possible between gates) or worse as mentioned having a long sit between flights, that’s when you start feeling really tired and then you have to start all over again
After 10 years of that I was extremely happy to go to one leg a day on the 757 then 767
Long sits are the worst. And even worse is if you have a long sit that is just 10-15 minutes short of the duration which would give you complimentary lounge access from the company.
joe6273 wrote:are these very short flights kind of a pain?
Flow2706 wrote:Very short flights are fun even if it's 4 sectors (flying the A320 it's extremely rare to get 5 or 6 sectors - over 10 years of flying I never had 6 sectors and only a handful of days with 5 sectors, but I heard Ryanair occasionally used to do 6 sectors, don't know if they still do it). The worst ones for me are 4 longish sectors, resulting in a 12 hour duty, these are really tiring...two long (5/6 hours) sectors are also tiring but not as much as four shorter ones. The company that I am just starting to work for now has no 4 sector days, a lot of one sector days (none longer than around 6,5 hours) followed by a 24 hour layover.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:8 sectors per day is how many hours per day? I can’t believe 16.
CosmicCruiser wrote:I had a couple of memorable short flights: 1980 I was flying a Falcon 20 and we flew from EWR to Teterboro to pick up a part for the jet. It's about 10 miles or less and took about 45 min! We essentially had to leave the airspace and come back in. I'm sure ATC was amused. I flew San Jose to OAK in a DC-10 a few times and ATC had it well handled. A turn to the west to the coast fly south past OAK east turn for the LOC. Piece of cake. Not really a short flight but we used to fly FRA-CDG in the MD-11 and we would see how short we could make it. Very cool if you departed 25s in FRA and landed 27s in CDG. Seems we were well under 40 min most times.
Max Q wrote:We ferried an empty MD80 non stop from JFK to EWR once, that was fun, at 3 in the morning we went direct, a quick flight
Starlionblue wrote:Max Q wrote:We ferried an empty MD80 non stop from JFK to EWR once, that was fun, at 3 in the morning we went direct, a quick flight
It's all fun and games until you see the oh-god-o'clock report time.
Max Q wrote:Starlionblue wrote:Max Q wrote:We ferried an empty MD80 non stop from JFK to EWR once, that was fun, at 3 in the morning we went direct, a quick flight
It's all fun and games until you see the oh-god-o'clock report time.
It is
We had diverted to JFK on a flight from PBI after shutting an engine down due to loss of oil quantity
There were thunderstorms overhead EWR, we sat on the ground in JFK for a few hours (pax were bussed to Newark) while mx fixed the problem then ferried back
Funniest part was we only had take off numbers for the longest runway at JFK and the controller was rather bewildered we would need 15000’ plus for a 20 mile flight
Max Q wrote:Funniest part was we only had take off numbers for the longest runway at JFK and the controller was rather bewildered we would need 15000’ plus for a 20 mile flight
Starlionblue wrote:Max Q wrote:Starlionblue wrote:
It's all fun and games until you see the oh-god-o'clock report time.
It is
We had diverted to JFK on a flight from PBI after shutting an engine down due to loss of oil quantity
There were thunderstorms overhead EWR, we sat on the ground in JFK for a few hours (pax were bussed to Newark) while mx fixed the problem then ferried back
Funniest part was we only had take off numbers for the longest runway at JFK and the controller was rather bewildered we would need 15000’ plus for a 20 mile flight
That last part is so typical.
"Yes, we know it will work. But we only have the data we have, so legally we have to do things in this somewhat counterintuitive way..."
seven47 wrote:I used to fly 747 100s, -200s and -400s for a cargo carrier, and we frequently flew our jets from EWR to JFK (and vice-versa) for repositioning. The workload spiked as we flew through some of the world's busiest airspace at really low altitudes, often at a max of 4000', as I recall.
The analog nature of the "Classics" required lengthy checklists, so I always briefed my Flight Engineers to essentially run the "After Takeoff" through "Descent" checklists as one continuous checklist to ensure that the aircraft was properly configured. We also briefed the arrival and approach in the chocks to avoid briefing at low altitude.
N1120A wrote:seven47 wrote:I used to fly 747 100s, -200s and -400s for a cargo carrier, and we frequently flew our jets from EWR to JFK (and vice-versa) for repositioning. The workload spiked as we flew through some of the world's busiest airspace at really low altitudes, often at a max of 4000', as I recall.
The analog nature of the "Classics" required lengthy checklists, so I always briefed my Flight Engineers to essentially run the "After Takeoff" through "Descent" checklists as one continuous checklist to ensure that the aircraft was properly configured. We also briefed the arrival and approach in the chocks to avoid briefing at low altitude.
You ever just run those VFR?
seven47 wrote:I agree with Cosmic Cruiser. I don't recall ever flying those positioning flights VFR. We were always filed IFR as a Part 91 flight.