Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Northwest DC-9 FMS question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Northwest DC-9 FMS question

    Hi,
    I was hoping someone could help me with identifying the type of FMS used on the Northwest Airlines DC-9s. They appear to be the same on both the -31 and -51.
    Thanks,
    Eric

  • #2
    At one point in time I don't even think they had FMS...they flew that thing straight VOR to VOR

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, that's definitely a more involved type of flying. A lot less rest breaks. Northwest is one of the few that still fly them and the FMS on there is much different than the Boeing and Airbus ones. I couldn't identify it.
      Eric

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ecagan
        Yeah, that's definitely a more involved type of flying. A lot less rest breaks. Northwest is one of the few that still fly them and the FMS on there is much different than the Boeing and Airbus ones. I couldn't identify it.
        Eric
        The NWA DC-9's have no FMS/GPS.

        The green-screen box that looks like an FMS is actually the ACARS.
        Anybody can fly a round airplane....

        Comment


        • #5
          So I guess they still use the oldschool paper performance charts to figure up takeoff and landing distances? What kind of navigation do they use? Do they use VOR's more than other planes or are they pretty much vectored around by ATC anyway?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JordanD
            So I guess they still use the oldschool paper performance charts to figure up takeoff and landing distances?
            Well, isn't that what we do in the Cessna too!

            IFR and VFR navigation for that matter can be done without GPS/FMS, or ATC telling you where to go all the time. That's really the way it's supposed to be learned, as it's good to know as every plane you fly won't have all the goodies on board and if you have a plane with all the nice avionics you still have to know what to do if that stuff fails. Normal SID/STAR's are published for aircraft without RNAV/GPS/Whatever it may be and all the navigation can be performed without it, then there are some that are RNAV or GPS only.

            However having the GPS in the plane does make us lazy I think. I kinda feel bad for using it, instead of just relying on the charts, but then I get scared that I effed something up, and am going to get lost or bust someone's airspace by accident, so I keep checking back with the damn thing anyway

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Airbus_A320
              Well, isn't that what we do in the Cessna too!
              Well, just for the checkrides and the odd event I'll be flying out of an airport with a runway less than 3,000 feet.

              Comment


              • #8
                They use VORs. I've heard them get vectored to various fixes as well. It's pretty common to get an assigned heading the direct to a VOR when able.

                I would imagine their performance data comes from their dispatch release.
                Bite me Airways.....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Many airlines still do their takeoff performance from paper charts... even in 747-400's, 767's etc. Not all have it sent over by acars, or use the FMC calculated figures (which don't actually meet some countries speed calculation requirements)

                  The US airways are very much VOR to VOR anyway. Very different from the rest of the world these days, with very few air-routes being described by ground based aids.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What do you mean that they don't meet some countries requirements? Is it that it doesn't give realible calculations, or something to that effect?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ok, take the example of the 744. The FMC can calculate V1, VR and V2.

                      However, some airlines don't use the V1 figure, as there are a few variables that you can apply to change the performance of the aircraft, dependant on the runway, terrain ETC.

                      The FMC figures are reliable, however sometimes better performance can be calculated manually, if that makes sense.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Do most airlines equip their DC-9s with ACARS?

                        One kinda-related question, do the older turboprops like the Dash-8 and Embraer 120 still fly VOR to VOR or are most GPS equiped by now?
                        sigpic
                        http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=170

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Crunk415balla
                          Do most airlines equip their DC-9s with ACARS?

                          One kinda-related question, do the older turboprops like the Dash-8 and Embraer 120 still fly VOR to VOR or are most GPS equiped by now?
                          I'd imagine the Dash 8 and ATR are now using GPS. The Q400 is so advanced it doesn't even have a controller lever.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Most comments here seem to be insinuating that either GPS, or VOR to VOR are the only navigation options... they aren't!

                            You're forgetting probably the most important navigation tool... INS/IRS.

                            Qantas' 767's don't have GPS, but still fly thousands of miles away from the nearest VOR. Thats what Inertial systems are for.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is no FMS on the NW DC-9's. The autopilot can't even fly a course. Its all hand done. Now thats what I call flying.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X