Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

We hear a lot about advanced flight planning and routing. Can you please explain how these two very separate tracks, that I imagine were planned by airline experts, can result in almost the same departure and arrival times?

I doubt that there was any human input in the planning at all. It's basically a case of starting at the destination, and working backwards through the various possible routes and flight levels, overlaid on the projected wind/temperature. Slow when done manually, but computer systems can run through huge numbers of variations in no time.

For these two routes to take more or less the same time (ignoring the fact that the different aircraft probably fly at different speeds/altitudes), it would require that the number of "air" miles, not actual distance, is roughly the same. An air mile is what you end up with after correcting for wind. So, you could fly a greater actual distance, if you have more of a tail wind component...adjusting your air miles. Basically, there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat (why pick on cats?).

As for hearing about "advanced flight planning and routing"...that's more in the line of the standard QF enhancements, i.e. it's simply a way of legally giving the pilots less fuel, not a way of actually burning less. Flight plans are in many ways like war plans; they never survive contact with the enemy. They make no allowance for other aircraft beating you to an altitude you're planned for, weather deviations, ATC requirements, etc. They simply look at the averages of the past. I really don't care if the last 9 guys arriving at Dubai had only 15 minutes of holding, if I happen to get there on the day that you need an hour.

 

[jpp42]

I doubt that there was any human input in the planning at all. It's basically a case of starting at the destination, and working backwards through the various possible routes and flight levels, overlaid on the projected wind/temperature. Slow when done manually, but computer systems can run through huge numbers of variations in no time.

One thing I did note is that the QF flight was an A380, not subject to ETOPS restriction, and the UA flight was a 787-9 which might be certified to ETOPS 330 (though it might be less). Does this actually affect transpacific planning or not? I would think that all reasonable flight paths would be within the ETOPS 330 circles anyway, but wondering if that could be part of the picture here?

 

[jb747]

One thing I did note is that the QF flight was an A380, not subject to ETOPS restriction, and the UA flight was a 787-9 which might be certified to ETOPS 330 (though it might be less). Does this actually affect transpacific planning or not? I would think that all reasonable flight paths would be within the ETOPS 330 circles anyway, but wondering if that could be part of the picture here?

Only a few 330 minute circles give coverage over the vast majority of the ocean, so I can’t see ETOPS being a part of reason these flights diverge.

 

[jpp42]

Only a few 330 minute circles give coverage over the vast majority of the ocean, so I can’t see ETOPS being a part of reason these flights diverge.

Thanks, I know that's the case in general, but I was going to ask if in a particular instance could have been a MEL that would have reduced the ETOPS circle. However, after studying the graphic more carefully I think it's actually the UAL flight that went further away from Hawaii.

 

[aplmac]

It has been reported that the pilot on QF505 on Monday morning. suffered chest pains en route from BNE to SYD. The co-pilot declared a PAN PAN medical emergency and took over flying, with cabin crew standing by with a defibrillator, and landed the plane, but the pilot then had to taxi the plane to the gate as it can't be done from the co-pilot's seat. The pilot was then assessed and taken to hospital.
My question is this: is there any reason the pilot and co-pilot wouldn't just switch seats to allow the co-pilot to complete the landing and ramping procedure, rather than have an unwell pilot have to taxi the landed plane to the gate?

 

[jb747]

It has been reported that the pilot on QF505 on Monday morning. suffered chest pains en route from BNE to SYD. The co-pilot declared a PAN PAN medical emergency and took over flying, with cabin crew standing by with a defibrillator, and landed the plane, but the pilot then had to taxi the plane to the gate as it can't be done from the co-pilot's seat. The pilot was then assessed and taken to hospital.
My question is this: is there any reason the pilot and co-pilot wouldn't just switch seats to allow the co-pilot to complete the landing and ramping procedure, rather than have an unwell pilot have to taxi the landed plane to the gate?

I don't know why it's this way, but as far as I know, none of the 737s have steering tillers on the right hand side. The wide body aircraft, on the other hand, all do. There would be a limited amount of nose gear steering available, via the rudder pedals (about 7º on most aircraft), but you wouldn't be able to do a tight turn.

You possibly could stop and change over, but it would probably be best if the ill person stayed still in his seat. To be honest, it's their call at that point. The general thinking was to just get clear of the runway, and have support come to you.

 

[RSD]

Sounds like he made a right coughup of the approach to 34L at HRG - EasyJet plane was seconds from disaster after flight nearly hit a MOUNTAIN

Can any of our pilots see how he might have dug himself into such a hole?

 

[jb747]

Sounds like he made a right coughup of the approach to 34L at HRG - EasyJet plane was seconds from disaster after flight nearly hit a MOUNTAIN

Can any of our pilots see how he might have dug himself into such a hole?

I read the initial "click bait" line and was immediately offside. But then I looked closely at the entire approach. Wow, it really was an interesting effort, to say the least.

The track flown is similar (but not exactly the same) as this one. Note the numbers in blue. They're showing "not below" heights.




If he wasn't flying that, then he should have been radar vectored, and this shows the various minimum radar heights.







The actual FR24 track has him low, but also very fast. What happened to 250 below 10,000'? How did he get here. No idea. I'd have expected the FO to be having a meltdown. Irrespective of what ATC is doing, you should be keeping track of the minimum altitudes. You only have to be wrong once. And ATC...if they were providing vectoring, what happened to the minimum altitudes?

At approximately the point at which he should have been at 6100 feet on the arrival, he was at about 3,000! The sink rate that the report mentions is somewhat irrelevant. It's the actual altitude that's the issue. He's not going to descend on to the hill, he's going to run into it.

I get the feeling that there is more to this story.

 

[RSD]

I read the initial "click bait" line and was immediately offside. But then I looked closely at the entire approach. Wow, it really was an interesting effort, to say the least.

The track flown is similar (but not exactly the same) as this one. Note the numbers in blue. They're showing "not below" heights.
View attachment 435505



If he wasn't flying that, then he should have been radar vectored, and this shows the various minimum radar heights.



View attachment 435506



The actual FR24 track has him low, but also very fast. What happened to 250 below 10,000'? How did he get here. No idea. I'd have expected the FO to be having a meltdown. Irrespective of what ATC is doing, you should be keeping track of the minimum altitudes. You only have to be wrong once. And ATC...if they were providing vectoring, what happened to the minimum altitudes?

At approximately the point at which he should have been at 6100 feet on the arrival, he was at about 3,000! The sink rate that the report mentions is somewhat irrelevant. It's the actual altitude that's the issue. He's not going to descend on to the hill, he's going to run into it.

I get the feeling that there is more to this story.

Its certainly got me stuffed. The prevailing wind there means that 34L is the runway used at least 95% of the time - 34R is kept free for the QRF gents that reside at each end of 34R. Anything coming from Europe apart from the Russian airlines is normally SOKOT - ALMOD - SOBEL - turn right and straight into 34L - keep the mountains on your left. I haven't seen the FR24 info (can't work out how to bring it up for an older flight), but this is how it is normally done - 70-100 times a day. You shouldn't be over the mountains to the south and west of the airport.


Usually the only ones that do anything stupid at HRG are the Russian airlines - they are known for pretending to have difficulty understanding the Egyptian controllers.

 

[jb747]

At this point he's at the lowest, and is reducing the sink rate. Next data point he's climbing at 3,200 fpm.

 

[RSD]

At this point he's at the lowest, and is reducing the sink rate. Next data point he's climbing at 3,200 fpm.

View attachment 435567

At that point he would have had a windscreen full of mountain!

I don't know what is going on there - here's a couple of others trying to do the same thing right now -

It definitely isn't the normal way things are done there - normally it is over the islands and then turn right - every time - for obvious reasons!

I will see if I can find the photos I took when I climbed that mountain he was headed towards - its a pretty spectacular view from up there.

 

[RSD]

Someone is going to headbutt a big rock if they keep this up -