Ask The Pilot

[Sprucegoose]

What Airline was that?!?Im not aware of any Australian Airline that flys both 767's and A320's

Qantas group, technically.

 

[Awesom Andy]

And a non-aircraft/flight related question... how long does your passport last before it runs out of pages?

 

[milehighclub]

And a non-aircraft/flight related question... how long does your passport last before it runs out of pages?

As crew members, the only country (of all the places Qantas goes to) that stamps passports is China.

The USA attaches their own little slip to your passport, and once it's full it is removed and they attach another one.

Some countries don't even check passports on arrival such as the UK and South Africa.

Some don't check it on departure such as NZ and whenever you depart Sydney.

 

[jb747]

Singapore stamps them these days as well. Hopefully, it will all be electronic sooner rather than later, and the stamps will reach their use by date.

Passports last the full 5 years. Biggest pain with them is the US visa, which is time consuming and extremely 'unfriendly' to replace.

 

[jb747]

With regard to engine nacelle strakes.

This reference seems to make sense. 747-8: Why The Engine Nacelle Strakes (aka Fins)? — Tech Ops Forum | Airliners.net

 

[tuppaware]

I did a Sydney - Hobart today in a QF 734 and coming into Hobart we started doing a set of banking turns, the engines were kept at a higher then normal level and it seemed like a long time circling before the pilot came over the speakers telling us of a 'flap problem' and they were 'running the check lists' for a different landing.

In the end I noticed that we had a very slow approach with greater use of engine thrust to control decent (from what I'm used to hearing).

Landing was fine, although firetrucks were on standby on the side of the runway.

What might you guess a 'flap problem' might of been? I couldnt see the flaps. Could of been a stuck flap?

 

[Awesom Andy]

Sounds like a flapless landing there... but if that's the case, the approach and landing speed would've been higher than normal.

 

[jb747]

I did a Sydney - Hobart today in a QF 734 and coming into Hobart we started doing a set of banking turns, the engines were kept at a higher then normal level and it seemed like a long time circling before the pilot came over the speakers telling us of a 'flap problem' and they were 'running the check lists' for a different landing.

That just sounds like a holding pattern, but with a bit of flap or slat (or gear) out, so that the aircraft is in a higher drag configuration than normal holding.

In the end I noticed that we had a very slow approach with greater use of engine thrust to control decent (from what I'm used to hearing).

Thrust is used to control speed, not descent, so it may simply have been a response to some wind variations. Why did you consider it to be a slow approach? Flap/slat problems normally involve faster, not slower.

Landing was fine, although firetrucks were on standby on the side of the runway.

They may not have even been asked for by the crew. But, perhaps it's better to be safe than sorry.

What might you guess a 'flap problem' might of been? I couldn't see the flaps. Could of been a stuck flap?

Let's talk about generic Boeing (they tend to be very similar) and see where we end up. I doubt very much that it was a 'stuck' flap. In fact, if a flap were not extended, then it would give you a much higher approach speed.

An airliner wing normally has high lift devices at both the leading and trailing edges.

Trailing edge devices are flaps, and they may just increase the curvature of the wing, or they may also extend backwards, and increase the wing area. They will basically increase the amount of lift available at a given angle of attack and reduce the stall speed. At the very high settings used on most landings, they also increase drag appreciably, and so allow the engines to be spooled up slightly, so that their throttle response is improved.

Leading edge devices come in a couple of forms. Slats or flaps (I don't know which the 737 has). The flaps increase the curvature of the wing, and so give more lift, whilst the slats work quite differently...basically they create a slot behind the slat, that the air flows through, and that in turn tends to help the air stay 'energised' and so not break away from the wing. So, a flap will give more lift at a given angle of a attack, whilst a slat will allow a greater angle of attack (wikipedia has a pretty simple explanation).

What can go wrong? Well, firstly the devices are generally powered by a couple of different power sources. They may be hydraulic, pneumatic, or electric (or any combination). Loss of any particular form of power means you'll need to extend them using the alternate power. That may be automatic, or might require you to use some rarely used switches and checklists (and might take a little time, as well as, in the first instance, forcing a go around). It's relatively unlikely that you'll lose the power to them.

Symmetry must be maintained. Having a device go out (or in) on one side, but not the other would be much the same as an aileron input, and would give a roll command. To avoid this, the flaps might be physically connected, or they might be electrically interlinked, with the system automatically removing their power if they are detected to be even slightly asymmetric.

The devices are normally split up into sections (inboard and outboard flaps), and various slat panels. Partially this is for packaging, to make them fit the wing section, but it also provides another level of redundancy, with, for instance, the ability to have one section faulty, whilst most of the system continues to work normally.

In my experience, Boeing flaps/slats are themselves quite trouble free, with enough backup extension options that moving them is rarely an issue. The biggest issue with them is actually a protection system. The asymmetry system, if it trips, will remove power to the devices, stopping them (actually only the symmetric panels) wherever they happen to be. Whilst this is a great idea, it actually puts another failure level into the system, as a problem with the symmetry protection can itself stop parts of the system from operating....so the flaps themselves might be fine, but the protections system isn't. That's a pretty benign failure though (and rare in itself).

 

[mosanator]

Firstly, fantastic thread. Thank you so much for your time jb747, you are a legend. The first thread on here that I have read from beginning to end, without skipping.

I am saddened to hear some of the comments by yourself and others in the industry regarding careers. As with most "tradesmen" regardless of what that is, they are proud of their profession and want to see it flourish not wane. It does seem however to be occurring in all professions and trades. From your Electrician to your Doctor, there doesn't seem to be a true value of the skills (and as I often say "the tricks" the things you learn with time not books) in getting things done.

From reading your replies you seem to be implying that there are concerns or issues with the computer coughpit, particularly from the Airbus side of things. Am I reading that right?

Would it be safe to say you seem to favour the Boeing product also? I love the 747 and think it will be a very sad day when they are no longer seen in our skies. Your thoughts on the 747 and the new 800 series ?

Thanks in Advance.

 

[markis10]

Lets not forget the 747 has some new orders with owners not announced, its demise down under may be premature (well I am at least hoping it is).

 

[Sprucegoose]

The 747 is a proven workhorse. Been around more than most pilots would say.

 

[jb747]

Would it be safe to say you seem to favour the Boeing product also? I love the 747 and think it will be a very sad day when they are no longer seen in our skies. Your thoughts on the 747 and the new 800 series ?

I think it's fair to say that if I'd had the choice of flying the 777 or the 747-800, then that's the way I would have jumped. Actually, I would have been knocked over in the stampede. The 787 on the other hand, holds no interest for me. They'll be around for a fair while yet. Not only as freighters, but some of the 747-400s are still pretty new. And yes, the 747-800 may still make its own mark. Both the Boeing and Airbus products have their good and bad points. But, as a generalisation, I get the feeling that the Boeing is designed with pilot input, whereas the Airbus is designed in spite of it.

 

[mosanator]

Thanks for the reply. Really interesting to hear a professional view point on the difference between the two makers.

Now looking at the earlier panorama of the A380 coughpit, what are the two big humps (coughs!), on either side of the throttles? Some sort of ergonomic aide?

Was it strange or weird making the adjustment to flying with the control yoke (if you can call it that) over the side?
Even myself when playing flying games puts the joystick in front of me.


And just an observation: a quick look around seems to give an indication on how Airbus sees getting over the crew fatigue issues
- lots and lots of cup holders for lots of coffee !!!

 

[jb747]

Now looking at the earlier panorama of the A380 coughpit, what are the two big humps (coughs!), on either side of the throttles? Some sort of ergonomic aide?

On the side of the humps that you can't see, is a trackball. That lets us select things on the FMCs, or even on the nav displays.

Was it strange or weird making the adjustment to flying with the control yoke (if you can call it that) over the side? Even myself when playing flying games puts the joystick in front of me.

No, the position of the joystick is pretty natural. What is hard to do though, is to learn to make an input and to then let go, especially when near the ground, as 'stirring the stick' is the natural reaction.

And just an observation: a quick look around seems to give an indication on how Airbus sees getting over the crew fatigue issues - lots and lots of cup holders for lots of coffee !!!

Lots of coffee just means you're every bit as tired, but can't sleep. The 380 has a very good crew rest setup, behind the coughpit. It's a better place for sleeping than any Boeing I've been on.

 

[harvyk]

The 380 has a very good crew rest setup, behind the coughpit. It's a better place for sleeping than any Boeing I've been on.

How good are the crew rest area's in various long haul a\c? Compared to the seats in Y \ Y+ \ J \ F what sort of experience can the crew look forwards to during their rest period...

which long haul a\c's have the best \ worst crew rest area??? (of which you've flown)

Also as a side note, I'm the same, I'm also looking forwards to seing a few more B747-8's in the sky... The B787 holds little interest for me, apart from an A/C which I'll fly to tick the box...)

 

[Major]

What is the normal procedure at the end of a flight ? I assume it's not just a matter of switching off the engines and going home or to a hotel.

 

[jb747]

What is the normal procedure at the end of a flight ? I assume it's not just a matter of switching off the engines and going home or to a hotel.

No, that's prettty close to it. There are a few procedures, and a checklist to complete, but they only take a couple of minutes. Put all of the charts away, ditch any rubbish, store the flight plan, fill in the tech log (most likely just the final fuel figure, as any faults will most likely already have been entered). Go and say goodbye to the passengers.

 

[NM]

Sitting on an A380 on Saturday, I noticed (and remembered seeing it before) there is a small pipe that comes out the bottom of the engine (could only see the outboard engine from seat 80A) and points rearward. When idling on the ground there was a clear stream of vapour coming from this pipe. Is the vapour exhaust gases, water vapour, excess bleed air, or something else?

Is this only visible in high humidity places such as SIN?

 

[jb747]

How good are the crew rest area's in various long haul a\c? Compared to the seats in Y \ Y+ \ J \ F what sort of experience can the crew look forwards to during their rest period...

They've varied a lot over the years. The 767 and 747-4, both used very old style first class seats (circa 1990). Actually not too bad, as they are quite wide, and recline flat, though with a few lumps and bumps. The 747-3 had a couple of bunks, but no seat at all. The A380 has both a seat and a bunk in each cubicle. The seat is roughly equivalent to a Y+ seat.

Which long haul a\c's have the best \ worst crew rest area??? (of which you've flown)

The A380 has the best crew rest by far.

Mostly, crew rest areas are a bit of an accident. Whatever space is left over.... So, in the 767 there was a small cubicle on the port side at the forward end of economy. It was truly hideous (although I expect many a passenger would have liked it). But, it is there to allow the crew to get some sleep, and at that it failed miserably. Originally somebody even put a bassinet just outside of it.... There were a couple of iterations on the 747. The 200s are too far in the past. The 300s had an area on the starboard side of the coughpit (just behind the engineers panel), in which there were two bunks mounted one over the other. No chair at all though. Mostly that aircraft operated with a 4 man crew, so there was only one person using the area at a time. The 747-400 has a split setup. There is one area on the port side of the coughpit, just inside the door. Mostly the captain or FO use it. The positive is that you are already inside the coughpit, and so not far from the action. The negative is that it is inside the coughpit, and even with ear plugs you'll hear most of the dings/phone calls/selcalls, etc. The second area is on the port side (upper deck), just next to the stairs. Mostly used by the SOs, and occasionally given over to the cabin crew. The A380 has two cubicles, mounted one over the other, that are just behind the coughpit. The contain both a seat, and a bunk. And mercifully, they're quiet.

Cabin crew areas again vary a lot. Many times they've been given nothing more than a couple of economy seats blanked off. In the 747-300, there was an underfloor area, and in the 747-4, there is an area aft and above the cabin, which contains 8 or so bunks. The 380 has an underfloor area as well.

Sadly, many airline managements consider crew rest to be something that is optional, and the use of a cabin seat (even for the pilots) is common. Sadly, you are unlikely to get any worthwhile rest there.

 

[jb747]

Sitting on an A380 on Saturday, I noticed (and remembered seeing it before) there is a small pipe that comes out the bottom of the engine (could only see the outboard engine from seat 80A) and points rearward. When idling on the ground there was a clear stream of vapour coming from this pipe. Is the vapour exhaust gases, water vapour, excess bleed air, or something else?

Is this only visible in high humidity places such as SIN?

Sounds like an oil breather pipe. I'll have a look next time I get a chance.