April 10, 2015, 17:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8939271
ZeBedie
...Was pilot selection purely on seniority?...
Fortunately, Yes!
It was (almost) exactly the same process as pilot selection for any other aircraft move in BA.
There were two minor differences to the normal BA process that applied once you had been notified of a successful bid and allocated a course date.
Over the years, there were a very small number who were denied a conversion course on technical grounds, one of whom I knew personally.
There were several people who voluntarily withdrew from a course they had been allocated. Often this was after a look-see trip and a chat with crewmembers about the conversion course and life on the fleet. This was not uncommon, and I got my conversion course, at shortish notice, after just such a voluntary withdrawal by a more senior pilot.
Finally, often people are surprised to learn that - for various reasons - most BA pilots never put in a bid for Concorde. The year I got my course, there were around 600 captains in BA senior to me who had declined to bid.
...Was pilot selection purely on seniority?...
Fortunately, Yes!
It was (almost) exactly the same process as pilot selection for any other aircraft move in BA.
- There had to be a vacancy on the type.
- You had to be "unfrozen" and free to bid.
- You had to be senior enough to obtain one of the vacancies.
- You had to pass the conversion course.
There were two minor differences to the normal BA process that applied once you had been notified of a successful bid and allocated a course date.
- Before starting the course, if you changed your mind, you could voluntarily withdraw without penalty and remain on your existing fleet.
- If the Chief Pilot on your existing fleet felt there were clearly defined technical reasons why you would be unlikely to complete the Concorde conversion course successfully, you could be denied the course.
Over the years, there were a very small number who were denied a conversion course on technical grounds, one of whom I knew personally.
There were several people who voluntarily withdrew from a course they had been allocated. Often this was after a look-see trip and a chat with crewmembers about the conversion course and life on the fleet. This was not uncommon, and I got my conversion course, at shortish notice, after just such a voluntary withdrawal by a more senior pilot.
Finally, often people are surprised to learn that - for various reasons - most BA pilots never put in a bid for Concorde. The year I got my course, there were around 600 captains in BA senior to me who had declined to bid.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): British Airways Captains Conversion Course Pilot Selection
April 11, 2015, 11:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8940037
DozyWannabe
Chris Norris did indeed return to the Concorde fleet as a Captain, later becoming the last Training Captain to be appointed on the fleet.
He was one of the most able and respected Captains on the fleet, as well as an excellent instructor, and his signature appears in my licence when he was the instructor on my last Concorde simulator check in June 2003.
Once back on Concorde as a Captain, his previous record and experience as a Concorde F/O would undoubtedly have weighed heavily in his favour on selection for the Training Captain appointment (which was a merit-based selection) however it would have had no bearing on his being offered a return to Concorde as a Captain, which, as described above, was a seniority-based selection.
The annual postings and promotions process in BA, whilst sometimes lengthy and tortuous, had the virtue of being highly transparent. Every application, from every pilot, was listed, along with the results and reasons for the results, and this document was available to any pilot who wished to check!
Chris Norris did indeed return to the Concorde fleet as a Captain, later becoming the last Training Captain to be appointed on the fleet.
He was one of the most able and respected Captains on the fleet, as well as an excellent instructor, and his signature appears in my licence when he was the instructor on my last Concorde simulator check in June 2003.
Once back on Concorde as a Captain, his previous record and experience as a Concorde F/O would undoubtedly have weighed heavily in his favour on selection for the Training Captain appointment (which was a merit-based selection) however it would have had no bearing on his being offered a return to Concorde as a Captain, which, as described above, was a seniority-based selection.
The annual postings and promotions process in BA, whilst sometimes lengthy and tortuous, had the virtue of being highly transparent. Every application, from every pilot, was listed, along with the results and reasons for the results, and this document was available to any pilot who wished to check!
Last edited by Bellerophon; 11th April 2015 at 11:23 . Reason: grammar
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): British Airways Captains Chris Norris Concorde Simulator Simulator
June 15, 2015, 23:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9012984
Subjects: None
January 11, 2016, 22:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9235761
FraserConcordeFan
... How exactly would you get the INS into memory mode so you could input the two digit code to activate the route section...
Concorde did have a facility to input a flight plan route segment into the INS and this facility was used on most flights. To explain this very briefly , let\x92s take a typical LHR-JFK flight as an example:
\x95 Press the amber REMOTE button on each INS CDU
\x95 Load the first waypoint (#1), usually Woodley, manually into an INS
\x95 Key WAYPOINT CHANGE and enter and insert \x930 to 1\x94 on each CDU.
\x95 Select DSTRK/STS and HOLD
\x95 Key WAYPOINT CHANGE
\x95 Key the DME catalogue number (from the flight log, usually 90 on a LHR-JFK sector) and insert
\x95 Key WAYPOINT CHANGE
\x95 Key the Route Segment number (from the flight log, usually 10 on a LHR-JFK sector) and insert
\x95 Cancel HOLD
Then the usual checking routine of:
\x95 Checking the lats and longs of the loaded waypoint lats with those given on the flight log
\x95 Checking the INS distances between waypoints with those given on the flight log
\x95 Checking the lats, longs and frequencies of the DMEs against the database guide
Return the displays back to WAYPOINT, cancel REMOTE, select AUTO and check the INS alignment.
Remember, with only nine waypoints available in the INS, this procedure would have to be repeated in flight, sometimes more than once. Takes much longer to write about than it did to do!
tomahawk pa38
... I'm just curious about what eastbound routings were into Heathrow...
The usual Eastbound routing on a JFK-LHR flight would be via track SN to 15\xb0W then on SL3 to BARIX to MATIM to PITEM to NIGIT and then OCK.
... and where the decel point was....
Let me just check we are talking about the same thing! The Decel Point was the point at the end of the cruise/climb, where we first throttled back and started to decelerate from M2.00 and then descend from, say, around FL 560.
The decel point was calculated in order that we would be just under M1.00 at the designated Speed Control Point , and so the Decel Point was obviously further back than the Speed Control Point.
The usual route was up the Bristol Channel, a bit to the South of our outbound route, crossing the Devon coast just to the North of Barnstaple, routing to a waypoint called MATIM, which is around 51\xb0N 004\xb0W.
In winter, on a JFK-LHR flight via SL3, the Speed Control Point was 110nm before MATIM , and we were required to be subsonic at this point. Typically, we would be just under M1.00, and around FL410, when we crossed the speed control point, having started down from FL 560 around 105nm earlier.
The decel point was of no real relevance to those living on and around the coast of Devon and Somerset, but the Speed Control Point was. The position and time at which we decelerated through M1.00 and became subsonic were always recorded on the flight log, along with the altitude and spot wind, in case of any future claims of boom damage due to a misjudged decel.
Best Regards to all
Bellerophon
Dedicated to the memory of Andr\xe9 \xc9douard Turcat (1921 -2016)
... How exactly would you get the INS into memory mode so you could input the two digit code to activate the route section...
Concorde did have a facility to input a flight plan route segment into the INS and this facility was used on most flights. To explain this very briefly , let\x92s take a typical LHR-JFK flight as an example:
\x95 Press the amber REMOTE button on each INS CDU
\x95 Load the first waypoint (#1), usually Woodley, manually into an INS
\x95 Key WAYPOINT CHANGE and enter and insert \x930 to 1\x94 on each CDU.
\x95 Select DSTRK/STS and HOLD
\x95 Key WAYPOINT CHANGE
\x95 Key the DME catalogue number (from the flight log, usually 90 on a LHR-JFK sector) and insert
\x95 Key WAYPOINT CHANGE
\x95 Key the Route Segment number (from the flight log, usually 10 on a LHR-JFK sector) and insert
\x95 Cancel HOLD
Then the usual checking routine of:
\x95 Checking the lats and longs of the loaded waypoint lats with those given on the flight log
\x95 Checking the INS distances between waypoints with those given on the flight log
\x95 Checking the lats, longs and frequencies of the DMEs against the database guide
Return the displays back to WAYPOINT, cancel REMOTE, select AUTO and check the INS alignment.
Remember, with only nine waypoints available in the INS, this procedure would have to be repeated in flight, sometimes more than once. Takes much longer to write about than it did to do!
tomahawk pa38
... I'm just curious about what eastbound routings were into Heathrow...
The usual Eastbound routing on a JFK-LHR flight would be via track SN to 15\xb0W then on SL3 to BARIX to MATIM to PITEM to NIGIT and then OCK.
... and where the decel point was....
Let me just check we are talking about the same thing! The Decel Point was the point at the end of the cruise/climb, where we first throttled back and started to decelerate from M2.00 and then descend from, say, around FL 560.
The decel point was calculated in order that we would be just under M1.00 at the designated Speed Control Point , and so the Decel Point was obviously further back than the Speed Control Point.
The usual route was up the Bristol Channel, a bit to the South of our outbound route, crossing the Devon coast just to the North of Barnstaple, routing to a waypoint called MATIM, which is around 51\xb0N 004\xb0W.
In winter, on a JFK-LHR flight via SL3, the Speed Control Point was 110nm before MATIM , and we were required to be subsonic at this point. Typically, we would be just under M1.00, and around FL410, when we crossed the speed control point, having started down from FL 560 around 105nm earlier.
The decel point was of no real relevance to those living on and around the coast of Devon and Somerset, but the Speed Control Point was. The position and time at which we decelerated through M1.00 and became subsonic were always recorded on the flight log, along with the altitude and spot wind, in case of any future claims of boom damage due to a misjudged decel.
Best Regards to all
Bellerophon
Dedicated to the memory of Andr\xe9 \xc9douard Turcat (1921 -2016)
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): INS (Inertial Navigation System) LHR LHR-JFK Route Sonic Boom
December 09, 2016, 21:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9604415
FraserConcordeFan
To show you what EXWOK was referring to when he posted ...and then a numerical entry to access the relevant part of the route (or Flight Plan Segment), which would be numbered between 01 and 87. The comms log would list the appropriate FPS number... this is a photo of a Concorde Comms Log from a JFK-LHR sector in 2003
Best Regards
To show you what EXWOK was referring to when he posted ...and then a numerical entry to access the relevant part of the route (or Flight Plan Segment), which would be numbered between 01 and 87. The comms log would list the appropriate FPS number... this is a photo of a Concorde Comms Log from a JFK-LHR sector in 2003
Best Regards
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Concorde Routings
December 20, 2016, 14:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9615418
Reverse Thrust in the air - Limitations
The principal benefit of reverse thrust in the air, in my view, was the ability to reduce speed quickly in a shallow descent, whilst keeping the aircraft attitude (and so the cabin floor) substantially level. Passengers found this more comfortable than using reverse thrust, at a constant IAS, to achieve a very high rate of descent, with the consequent steep nose down attitude.
If a runaway bar trolley, dragging a stewardess behind it, thumped into the back of the flight deck door, you had probably overdone the nose down attitude!
- Inboard engines (either or both) only
- Idle power only
- Between 30,000 ft - 3,000 ft AGL only
- Subsonic only
- Max speed 370 kts over most of the allowable range
- Min speed 250 kts above 15,000 ft
- Min speed 225 kts below 15,000 ft
- 4 minutes only
The principal benefit of reverse thrust in the air, in my view, was the ability to reduce speed quickly in a shallow descent, whilst keeping the aircraft attitude (and so the cabin floor) substantially level. Passengers found this more comfortable than using reverse thrust, at a constant IAS, to achieve a very high rate of descent, with the consequent steep nose down attitude.
If a runaway bar trolley, dragging a stewardess behind it, thumped into the back of the flight deck door, you had probably overdone the nose down attitude!
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Cabin Crew IAS (Indicated Air Speed)
February 04, 2017, 19:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9664951
stilton
... so you might use reverse on only one engine? any assymetric issues with that ?...
No issue at all, on the one occasion I can remember that it happened to me.
... why the 4 minute restriction ?...
I believe the correct answer has been given by CliveL, but, when asked during ground school, the BAe instructors’ traditional answer was “Noise Abatement”. (as in a Concorde hitting the ground makes a lot of noise!)
... BA or AF always had one of their captains as an observer in one of the cockpit jumpseats on these flights ?...
Before my time, so I can’t say if BA crew flew on the jump seat, or in what capacity they were acting if they did, but I believe there is at least one contributor to this thread who may yet post an answer.
CliveL
... Can any of our pilot contributors confirm n5296s's remarks re landing in a strong headwind?..
Speaking personally, I never noticed any problem, and as EXWOK has said, I found using VREF +10 made life a lot easier.
However, Mike Riley, a well respected base training instructor on the fleet (and a past British Aerobatics team member) discussed this point in his “The Concorde Stick and Rudder Book”, where he says that there was a greater incidence of hard landings when landing into a strong headwind and goes on to discuss some of the possible reasons why and what to do about it.
His main recommendation was to leave the auto throttle in later than usual, down to 20R instead of 40R, and maintain a constant attitude to touchdown.
... The certificated approach speed is Vref, Vref plus 7 if memory serves, was introduced as an approach noise reduction...
Yes, VREF +7 was used for Reduced Noise Approaches that were flown whenever possible, and which were generally considered easier to land from than VREF approaches.
... so you might use reverse on only one engine? any assymetric issues with that ?...
No issue at all, on the one occasion I can remember that it happened to me.
... why the 4 minute restriction ?...
I believe the correct answer has been given by CliveL, but, when asked during ground school, the BAe instructors’ traditional answer was “Noise Abatement”. (as in a Concorde hitting the ground makes a lot of noise!)
... BA or AF always had one of their captains as an observer in one of the cockpit jumpseats on these flights ?...
Before my time, so I can’t say if BA crew flew on the jump seat, or in what capacity they were acting if they did, but I believe there is at least one contributor to this thread who may yet post an answer.
CliveL
... Can any of our pilot contributors confirm n5296s's remarks re landing in a strong headwind?..
Speaking personally, I never noticed any problem, and as EXWOK has said, I found using VREF +10 made life a lot easier.
However, Mike Riley, a well respected base training instructor on the fleet (and a past British Aerobatics team member) discussed this point in his “The Concorde Stick and Rudder Book”, where he says that there was a greater incidence of hard landings when landing into a strong headwind and goes on to discuss some of the possible reasons why and what to do about it.
His main recommendation was to leave the auto throttle in later than usual, down to 20R instead of 40R, and maintain a constant attitude to touchdown.
... The certificated approach speed is Vref, Vref plus 7 if memory serves, was introduced as an approach noise reduction...
Yes, VREF +7 was used for Reduced Noise Approaches that were flown whenever possible, and which were generally considered easier to land from than VREF approaches.
Last edited by Bellerophon; 6th February 2017 at 23:31 . Reason: Loss of formatting
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Air France British Airways Captains Rudder
April 28, 2017, 16:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9755285
stilton
...there is what appears to be a fixed red line marked on the airspeed indicator opposite or pointing to around 190Kias...
Could you please show us which picture you are looking at, as there was no such red line on the ASI on BA aircraft and I can't think what purpose such a line might serve?
The only thing I can think of is that there was a V MO Failure Flag window, cut into the face of the ASI dial, adjacent to 190kts.
When the flag was displayed, this indicated a failure of the V MO pointer, something that was very important on Concorde.
This flag had an all red background and bore the letters VMO on it in black.
I just wonder if perhaps what you are looking at might be the edge of the V MO Pointer Failure Flag which has not fully retracted into its window, leaving just its lower red edge displayed, which could look like a red line.
...there is what appears to be a fixed red line marked on the airspeed indicator opposite or pointing to around 190Kias...
Could you please show us which picture you are looking at, as there was no such red line on the ASI on BA aircraft and I can't think what purpose such a line might serve?
The only thing I can think of is that there was a V MO Failure Flag window, cut into the face of the ASI dial, adjacent to 190kts.
When the flag was displayed, this indicated a failure of the V MO pointer, something that was very important on Concorde.
This flag had an all red background and bore the letters VMO on it in black.
I just wonder if perhaps what you are looking at might be the edge of the V MO Pointer Failure Flag which has not fully retracted into its window, leaving just its lower red edge displayed, which could look like a red line.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): British Airways
April 29, 2017, 17:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9756270
stilton
I'd forgotten I'd posted that photo, but now that I've looked at it again, it is indeed the bottom (red) edge of the V MO failure flag that you saw.
A thread you started nearly 7 years ago has now reached 100 pages, generated nearly 2,000 replies and been read roughly 900,000 times.
Who knew a question about an APU would start all that!
Kudos
I'd forgotten I'd posted that photo, but now that I've looked at it again, it is indeed the bottom (red) edge of the V MO failure flag that you saw.
A thread you started nearly 7 years ago has now reached 100 pages, generated nearly 2,000 replies and been read roughly 900,000 times.
Who knew a question about an APU would start all that!
Kudos
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): APU (Auxiliary Power Unit)
September 01, 2022, 18:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11289125
Speedbird223
\x85the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known \x85 Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? \x85 Were there other departure options? \x85
If the runway in use at JFK was not suitable for our departure, we would request a different runway, which JFK ATC were extremely helpful at providing, even though this caused some disruption to their landing/take-off pattern. For our part, we had to accept this request could entail a delay to our departure whilst waiting for a suitable gap in their traffic flow.
Remember that we had two take-off calculations to consider. Firstly, could Concorde get airborne from that runway under the prevailing conditions? Secondly - and this was usually the limiting factor at JFK - could the aircraft then stay with the noise limits at that take-off weight and under those ambient conditions of wind and temperature? If the answer to either question was no, then we needed another runway.
An example might be when JFK was using 04R for landing and 04L for departure. We might have been able to lift the weight off 04L, but would have been way over our noise limit, so we would request 22R for departure.
\x85 I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed \x85
Did you mean a lot less strictly governed? If so, the answer is yes.
Concorde would use whatever landing runway was in use at JFK without problem, save requiring a bit more of a gap between herself and the preceding landing aircraft (due to her higher approach speeds maintained to much closer to touchdown) which ATC at JFK were well aware of and which they managed very professionally.
Even so, on the Canarsie approach, it was instructive to see just how quickly Concorde could close the spacing between herself and a preceding lightly loaded and therefore much slower B757.
31R was our preferred runway due to its proximity to the BA terminal, the Canarsie approach onto 13L was good fun and a frequent approach. 04R was also used and was an Autoland runway with Cat3A limits down to 15R / 700 ft RVR, useful in bad weather. Concorde had landing limits on all JFK runways, but, at least in my experience, the others were rarely, if ever, used.
I'm glad you enjoyed your flight on Concorde, it all seems so long ago now \x96 probably because it was!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
\x85the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known \x85 Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? \x85 Were there other departure options? \x85
If the runway in use at JFK was not suitable for our departure, we would request a different runway, which JFK ATC were extremely helpful at providing, even though this caused some disruption to their landing/take-off pattern. For our part, we had to accept this request could entail a delay to our departure whilst waiting for a suitable gap in their traffic flow.
Remember that we had two take-off calculations to consider. Firstly, could Concorde get airborne from that runway under the prevailing conditions? Secondly - and this was usually the limiting factor at JFK - could the aircraft then stay with the noise limits at that take-off weight and under those ambient conditions of wind and temperature? If the answer to either question was no, then we needed another runway.
An example might be when JFK was using 04R for landing and 04L for departure. We might have been able to lift the weight off 04L, but would have been way over our noise limit, so we would request 22R for departure.
\x85 I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed \x85
Did you mean a lot less strictly governed? If so, the answer is yes.
Concorde would use whatever landing runway was in use at JFK without problem, save requiring a bit more of a gap between herself and the preceding landing aircraft (due to her higher approach speeds maintained to much closer to touchdown) which ATC at JFK were well aware of and which they managed very professionally.
Even so, on the Canarsie approach, it was instructive to see just how quickly Concorde could close the spacing between herself and a preceding lightly loaded and therefore much slower B757.
31R was our preferred runway due to its proximity to the BA terminal, the Canarsie approach onto 13L was good fun and a frequent approach. 04R was also used and was an Autoland runway with Cat3A limits down to 15R / 700 ft RVR, useful in bad weather. Concorde had landing limits on all JFK runways, but, at least in my experience, the others were rarely, if ever, used.
I'm glad you enjoyed your flight on Concorde, it all seems so long ago now \x96 probably because it was!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Auto-land British Airways JFK Noise Abatement
1 user liked this post.