Aussie Aircraft Thread

Steve's spot on regarding the average ROD being around 2000FPM, that's if ATC let the crew do what they want If aircraft are being sequenced for their arrival, there are many variations that can affect ROD: high speed descents, reduced speed in cruise with normal descent, reduced speed in cruise and descent, level requirements for sequencing etc... each scenario is different depending on the disposition of traffic. But one thing's for sure, barring avoiding action, the crew will have passenger comfort at the front of their minds

As for the AtlasAir 747: cargo, no paying passengers to worry about, fly it like they stole it!! Those figures may have been accurate, albeit briefly...

Like Steve said, there are no silly questions
a) Correct. Perth arrivals is controlled from here in Melbourne and Melbourne Centre would issue initial descent clearance. Aircraft then gets transferred to Perth Approach (in Perth). Not too sure how far out Perth Approach own.
b) VHF frequencies have a range of approx 200-250nm depending on altitude (way less if you're down low), terrain, atmospherics, etc. Radio calls to/from an aircraft near Perth from Melbourne Centre use local ground based VHF transmitters and receivers which are then relayed via satellite to Melbourne. If you're in range of the transmitter, then there's no reason why you wouldn't be able here calls made from Melbourne Centre.

I've never used liveatc.net so can't really comment on what is available to listen to... FWIW, I typed in YMML into the search window on the site for Melbourne and not all of the arrival frequencies were displayed

Hope this helps

 

Thanks guys (and A320 pal)! I find this kind of stuff really interesting, but there are a lot of holes in my understanding, so hearing from people who know is very helpful indeed

With regard to liveatc.net, it works similarly to FR24 from a technical perspective - people with a suitable radio receiver just send the broadcasts they hear (voice in the case of liveatc or ADS-B (+similar) data packets for FR24) up to a server, that packages it all up and outputs the data in a suitable format - live stream and audio archives for liveatc and the map and so on for FR24.

I believe liveatc is 100% run on feeds provided by people using their own equipment (FR24 sends the receivers out free to appropriate volunteers), so I assume the frequencies are therefore down to the individuals and their choice of how many/which ones are covered. There are a few that list Melbourne Centre as part of their range, but all those seem to be based in Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide, so based on what you're saying they'd never hear (for example) a descent instruction issued by Melbourne Centre to an aircraft near Perth, which explains why I couldn't find it!

Thanks again!

 

I used to use a variation of one of these programs to predict the arrival of aircraft in Sydney. They were often more accurate than the airport arrival boards which take some time to update. That way we could spend more time in the ready room, rather than on a cold and rainy ramp in Sydney. However, on rare occasions, the program showed the aircraft was still in the air several kilometers away, but the aircraft had landed several minutes earlier.

The Atlas flights between domestic cities often fly with little cargo, so they are quite capable of reaching 6000fpm in climb at lower altitudes (assuming no major engine derates), but it would be very unusual to see them reaching 6000' at that altitude in descent. At 40,000', the air is relatively thin and intitial descent can be quicker than at lower alititudes, but not that fast. I suspect a computational error of your tracking program.

If ADS-B uses the same data as the instruments, then vertical speed will be a blend of instantaneous (inertial) vertical speed and barometric vertical speed.

Cheers
Ian
(Ex-avionics engineer)

 

There's a bit of info about where FlightAware data comes from here (and the following sections too - some of it doesn't make total sense to me but might to you):
Frequently Asked Questions ? FlightAware
It implies that flight plans are used as a significant data source.

FlightRadar24, as far as I know, uses volunteer-hosted ADS-B receivers as its primary source outside North America, so anything that's showing up there with speed, altitude etc on a solid track should be actually there in real life (or at least, that's where the aircraft thinks it is...). Dotted lines on FR24 are estimates though, you often see them joining loss-of-contact and established-contact points in weird ways because the position between them is unknown.

 

Interesting, thanks! I don't know what was on that particular Atlas flight on the way in, but when it left for China it apparently had a cargo of sheep. Not too sure why sheep need to be somewhere in quite such a hurry...

Saw a several hour long BA-produced video a while back doing a ride-along on a Concorde flight to JFK. Quite surprised to hear they could use reverse thrust in flight if ATC requested a particularly rapid descent! Don't know what the actual fpm figure was, but it certainly sounded exciting

 

Agreed! I'm very sad indeed that I never got to see her fly, let alone being on board one at the time. I've seen four in various places, and walked through three of them, but somehow it's not quite the same...

It's not the fault of the Greenies, it's the French!

 

My parents went on it a few times. It's about the only thing they've done that, moving forward, doesn't get better....if you know what I mean.

 

I think it started out with the greenies (noise, fuel crises, ozone layer, etc, and people who didn't want their greenhouse windows smashed by the shockwaves). Even when it made rare trips to Australia, I recall it wasn't allowed to go supersonic over the mainland. It was certainly one of the noisiest aircraft ever. The ground shook when it took off. It was spine-tingling. Here in Sydney, they would never let it fly out north over the city, even if there was a tailwind flying south.

Ultimately, it just reached the end of it's airframe life. You can't keep an aircraft flying indefinitely, at least not without basically rebuilding it.

From what I've heard, it wasn't the most comfortable plane to fly in... hard seats, cramped, tiny windows, hot... but there will never be one as beautiful.

 

I had the privledge of meeting and having a beer with the BA Engineering manager for the Concord, who now lives in Adelaide!

Trivia question, what was the date of the post crash Certificate of Airworthiness revalidation flight?

 

The worst day to fly to New York that there has probably ever been

 

My understanding was that BA and AF dropped it because it was uneconomic - not enough saleable seats vs. cost of fuel. Not much to do with greenies or NIMBY's

But, look on the bright side - it gave the world Araldite!

 

Exactly, They landed thinking there would be a big fan fair only to find not a jurnalist in sight.

 

I went to a talk at the Science Museum in London in 2009, given by David Rowland who was an ex-Concorde captain and GM of the Concorde fleet for BA (plus another guy who was an engineer working on modifications post-crash). He said (very stridently!) that it was still making money at the time of withdrawal, but that Airbus were no longer willing to support it and thus there was no choice but to retire them

One could take that to mean that Airbus wouldn't support it at a financially viable cost, I suppose, and therefore they wouldn't be making money soon, but he was very clear that until retirement, they were able to simply price seats appropriately as the market was not very cost-sensitive. In fact, he mentioned doing a survey of their most frequent passengers (who mostly had tickets booked by staff) to ask them what they thought their tickets had cost... then, when finding that number to be somewhat above the actual amount paid, simply adjusting the price to match expectations

 

They probably figured it would be alright for thrust enough to not worry too much about a bit of a tailwind

I think it turned out that with noise abatement procedures they could be quieter than a 707 (which was then regularly visiting JFK, where all the uproar about noise was centred). "Quieter than a 707" is not exactly the loftiest of goals one might aspire to, mind you...

 

Or if they suffered a decompression... It's a long way down from FL580-FL600!

 

From what I remember (it was a long time ago and I was only a freshman ) they did fly over mainland Australia supersonic. Coming from the west, they had a requirement to be at subsonic speed and reach FL290 by longitude 140E, I think. Same thing going out, FL280 until 140E then away they went. Their supersonic route didn't take the aircraft over any populated areas.

Flight only happened twice a year towards the end and there was plenty of advance notice on their arrival and departures. Special procedures were put in place and concessions made for their transit.

You are right, it was a beautiful machine... the likes of which we may never see again,at least not in my lifetime!

 

I can distinctly remember getting my secretary while working in London in '89-90 to get the SNA software engineers in Lowell, Mass on the Concorde ASAP when we had serious issues with IT interoperability between IBM and other machines so they must have been allowed to fly in during that period

 

There is an air museum just south of San Francisco on the 101 which has the fuselage of the Boeing SST.

As I dimly recall, the info boards say something to the effect that airlines didn't order it because they'd moved on to a "bums on seats" business model - hence the success of the 747.

 

And the Boeing SST development programme was gigantically expensive, even more so than Concorde - it was designed to be larger (300ish seats vs 100ish?) and faster (Mach 3). IIRC it was shut down when Congress decided against providing any more cash. Joe Sutter (chief designer of the 747) goes into some detail in his autobiography, which is an interesting read anyway.