Ask The Pilot

[mannej]

The 717's aren't too bad. A bit like a rocket but fun in the wake of a bigger bird it seems

 

[Tortuga]

This has probably been posted before but I enjoyed it. Looks like a brazilian pilot (first part is from Santos Dumont airport in Rio). I never realised they had a stick, does the first officer on the right also have a control stick and if so is it hard to get used to using the opposite hand - similar to getting used to changing gears in a manual car with the opposite hand when overseas? I loved the view this video shows, would be great if you could do something similar JB! Appreciate your work. Can you tell what the aircraft is from the coughpit? In the second video a bird attempts to say hello to the pilots at what looks like a highish altitude - has this ever happened to you?

LiveLeak.com - Very Cool FPV from a pilot.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f2_1340906956

 

[markis10]

The 717's aren't too bad. A bit like a rocket but fun in the wake of a bigger bird it seems

I love them when you are in Row 1, lots of room and very quiet, albeit looking a bit tatty now.

 

[mannej]

I love them when you are in Row 1, lots of room and very quiet, albeit looking a bit tatty now.

I guess they do get used very frequently don't they

 

[jb747]

I never realised they had a stick, does the first officer on the right also have a control stick and if so is it hard to get used to using the opposite hand - similar to getting used to changing gears in a manual car with the opposite hand when overseas?

Airbus by the look of it. The 320, 330, 340, 380 all have sidesticks. It's one of the big philosophy differences between Boeing and Airbus. And yes, the FO has his own joystick to play with.

Changing hands at various stages of your career happens, no matter what the configuration. The pilot in the left seat flies with his left hand whether using a sidestick or a control column. It's just one of the added joys of command training..not only do the mess with your mind, but your hands as well. Most GA pilots actually start out using their left hand, switch to the right when they become FOs, and then back to the left as captains. Because I came from the military, and had only flown aircraft with joysticks, it was right hand flying all the way to command training...and then the switch. You get used to it.

I loved the view this video shows, would be great if you could do something similar JB! Appreciate your work.

A joystick view shouldn't be all that interesting...as best I can tell there's a lot of overcontrolling going on in this video...it really shouldn't be moved all that much. The less you touch it (even when manually flying) the better.

Can you tell what the aircraft is from the coughpit?

Small Airbus I guess. Light twin in any event.

In the second video a bird attempts to say hello to the pilots at what looks like a highish altitude - has this ever happened to you?

Not at altitude. Birdstikes are common...and mostly result in a smear on the paint. I've only ever had one that did any damage, and that was when we ran into an entire flock of birds at 1212 feet on a departure from Perth. Multiple strikes on the starboard engine and wing...so we did a quick circuit and landed again. Whilst the engine had suffered some damage, it kept on running. We ran it at idle for the remainder of the flight, but it would have given full power if needed.

 

[mjt57]

Quick question; the Google Machine seems to be reluctant to divulge the glide ratio of an A380. What would it be?

A friend's grandson wants to fly. At the moment he's doing glider training. His grandfather, my friend made the comment that "big planes don't glide". I've already sent a link to the Gimli glider incident. Just want to tell them what the A380 can do, if I can find the info.

 

[jb747]

Quick question; the Google Machine seems to be reluctant to divulge the glide ratio of an A380. What would it be?

A friend's grandson wants to fly. At the moment he's doing glider training. His grandfather, my friend made the comment that "big planes don't glide". I've already sent a link to the Gimli glider incident. Just want to tell them what the A380 can do, if I can find the info.

They glide very well. The Gimli glider isn't the only example. I think there was an A310 in Europe, and an A330 over the Atlantic.

The A380 is about 3.5 nm for every thousand feet.

 

[harvyk]

Quick question; the Google Machine seems to be reluctant to divulge the glide ratio of an A380. What would it be?

A friend's grandson wants to fly. At the moment he's doing glider training. His grandfather, my friend made the comment that "big planes don't glide". I've already sent a link to the Gimli glider incident. Just want to tell them what the A380 can do, if I can find the info.

There was also a B747 over Indonesia, although they managed to get 3 of the 4 engines started again before landing...

 

[ColinP]

The A380 is about 3.5 nm for every thousand feet.

Which is a lift/drag ratio of about 20:1. About the same as an albatross. The Boeing 747 is around 17:1
A Cessna 150 is around 7:1 and even a helicopter has a 4.5:1 L/D.

Wikipedia lift to drag ratios.

 

[markis10]

They glide very well. The Gimli glider isn't the only example. I think there was an A310 in Europe, and an A330 over the Atlantic.

The A380 is about 3.5 nm for every thousand feet.

A330 Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is quite a varied list as you would expect:

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Index > (Contributary) Cause > ASN Aviation Safety Database results

There was also a B747 over Indonesia, although they managed to get 3 of the 4 engines started again before landing...

Two , one just gets more press than the other since it happened 7 years earlier, and there was the SQ flight a few days after the BA event that almost lost 4.

KLM Flight 867 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jb747]

There is quite a varied list as you would expect:

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Index > (Contributary) Cause > ASN Aviation Safety Database results

The Indian A300 is one that I hadn't heard of.

It's an interesting example of being 'boxed in'. Weather was bad, but diverting had most probably been allowed for at some stage of the planning. But, what is NEVER covered, is the possibility of being forced into that weather/diversion corner whilst also suffering a failure of some sort. A flap/configuration problem will almost certainly take away all of the diversion options....so now you have to land at the destination, irrespective of the weather. Autoland systems don't cater for everything and aren't available everywhere, so it could rapidly become seriously interesting.

An example to think about. A 767 arrives at Wellington on a windless day. At top of descent, it has fuel available to fly to Auckland/Christchurch. During the approach, the flaps asymmetry trip at 2/3rds extension, so a 'dirty' go around is flown. Checklist requires approximately 30 knots extra on the approach speed. Sadly that approach speed is unlikely to allow the aircraft to stop on the runway. In the configuration the aircraft is in (even with gear retracted), no suitable airfield is within range.

Things like that can come up. A rule of aviation is that bad things always happen at the worst possible time (i.e. you find out about gear extension problems at the end of a flight...when you have little fuel, and so little time to work on things). Time pressure becomes very real....but the time you are playing with is not some mythical schedule, but rather the time at which things will go very quiet. These things will not be covered in some checklist, or EICAS, and they won't have been thought of by engineers sitting in their offices (and the motto of some is surely 'it will not happen'). Putting together mixed items from different checklists and procedures, deleting some items, and simply going outside of the book, is sometimes required. And, in the future of the cheapest pilots, with minimal training, these are the very capabilities that will disappear.

 

[juddles]

Just a question out of very left field - please feel free to demolish the concept in swift fashion:

I have recently been reading a bit about ultra-long-haul commercial flights, specifically the design battle between A350´s and 777 variants. I understand that very long sectors (eg SYD LHR) are hampered due to the sheer cost of carrying all that fuel. My question is this: have there been many studies on air refueling of commercial planes? Why isnt it viable?

 

[richie9x]

An example to think about. A 767 arrives at Wellington on a windless day. At top of descent, it has fuel available to fly to Auckland/Christchurch. During the approach, the flaps asymmetry trip at 2/3rds extension, so a 'dirty' go around is flown. Checklist requires approximately 30 knots extra on the approach speed. Sadly that approach speed is unlikely to allow the aircraft to stop on the runway. In the configuration the aircraft is in (even with gear retracted), no suitable airfield is within range.

I know that was mainly for the sake of example. To have a windless day in Wellington would be very unusual. But wouldn't in that situation the plane be able to divert to Ohakea airforce base? Or would the fuel be too low to even attempt that?

 

[jb747]

I know that was mainly for the sake of example. To have a windless day in Wellington would be very unusual. But wouldn't in that situation the plane be able to divert to Ohakea airforce base? Or would the fuel be too low to even attempt that?

Ohakea is about 80 miles away. By the time you go around off the approach to the south and then head up to Ohakea you'd have to fly about 120 miles. Speed would be limited to about 180 knots, so you're looking at about 40 minutes. Minimum arrival fuel is based upon having 30 minutes (clean) at the end of the landing roll, so it would be quite conceivable that the only fuel left to play with in the go around could be variable...which might be around 10-15 minutes worth. So, even though reasonably close, the RNZAF base could still be out of your reach (or you'd be playing with running out during the approach).

It's an example....but it happened. You basically HAVE to land at Wellington...but how?

PS. The point about a 'top of descent' alternate is that it isn't really an alternate at all.

 

[markis10]

Just a question out of very left field - please feel free to demolish the concept in swift fashion:

I have recently been reading a bit about ultra-long-haul commercial flights, specifically the design battle between A350´s and 777 variants. I understand that very long sectors (eg SYD LHR) are hampered due to the sheer cost of carrying all that fuel. My question is this: have there been many studies on air refueling of commercial planes? Why isnt it viable?

This was discussed earlier in the thread:

For a start you'll have the cost of tanker aircraft. Then the cost of modifying the receiver aircraft. Then you have to train the crew. Then you'll have to keep them current.

Anyway, it's dangerous and quite difficult. Much safer, easier, cheaper, to just make a tech call.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/your-questions/ask-the-pilot-30478-25.html#post455254

 

[mjt57]

And, in the future of the cheapest pilots, with minimal training, these are the very capabilities that will disappear.

And this is a disconcerting thought, particularly when Jetstar captains earn less than me...

 

[mosanator]

A joystick view shouldn't be all that interesting...as best I can tell there's a lot of overcontrolling going on in this video...it really shouldn't be moved all that much. The less you touch it (even when manually flying) the better.


. I've only ever had one that did any damage, and that was when we ran into an entire flock of birds at 1212 feet on a departure from Perth. Multiple strikes on the starboard engine and wing...so we did a quick circuit and landed again. Whilst the engine had suffered some damage, it kept on running. We ran it at idle for the remainder of the flight, but it would have given full power if needed.

I was thinking the same thing with the joystick - seemed to be floppin about all over the place.

JB - What AC were you flying with the bird strike?

 

[jb747]

JB - What AC were you flying with the bird strike?

GE engined 767-300.

 

[straitman]

Which is a lift/drag ratio of about 20:1. About the same as an albatross. The Boeing 747 is around 17:1
A Cessna 150 is around 7:1 and even a helicopter has a 4.5:1 L/D.

Wikipedia lift to drag ratios.

Don't you mean glide ratio?

 

[ColinP]

Don't you mean glide ratio?

It's effectively the same thing.
From the linked Wikipedia article:

As it turns out, the glide ratio, which is the ratio of an (unpowered) aircraft's forward motion to its descent, is (when flown at constant speed) numerically equal to the aircraft's L/D.