Ask The Pilot

[juddles]

Crosswinds and the 747.

Is it possible that in a max component crosswind landing.... Irecall hearing somewhere that the 747 wheels caster to accommodate a 15 degree angle of aircraft to runway.....

If you believe flight simulators/youtube, you can do a landing wih a 100 knot crosswind and land in all of about 100 metres!

 

[jb747]

Isn't this something decided by the airline running the a/c? So if QF set a policy of "Don't land above MLW" surely the aircraft being operated should be able to deliver to that requirement otherwise what is the point of the instruction - although I work in Audit I come from the perspective that if the company doesn't feel the need to enforce the control/policy then don't have the policy/control.

The basic structure is set in place by the manufacturer. Max landing weight (as I think we've discussed earlier), isn't really the maximum weight at which you can land. That weight is defined under certain conditions, and impact (descent rate) is one of them. The limit at max weight is very nearly 1.8g, which is huge given that most really bad landings are about 1.5g.

It's quite obvious that Airbus consider anything below 440 tonnes should not be an issue...which is why the dump can't go below (approximately) that weight.

CASA gets involved here, as they set the rules under which MLW can be breached. Normally, ANY limit can be broken if the captain considers it necessary for safety reasons (i.e. in an emergency, limits don't count). In the case of the 330 and 380, they have extended the definition of an emergency somewhat, to include passenger medical issues.

So, if I have to divert due to a medical issue, I'm already authorised to breach the MLW. If the aircraft turns to a pile of poo on me, I can do anything I like anyway, and the landing weight simply becomes a factor to be considered with regard to stopping distance. If, on the other hand, an engine were to (cleanly) fail, it isn't really an emergency in a four engined aircraft, so the landing decision would be predicated upon whether I felt there might be other issues affecting the failed engine, and whether perhaps any other system might become involved (i.e. the dud fuel that the Cathay A330 had).

As soon as there is an emergency, you cannot be bound by rules. You may obey their intent as best you can, but they cannot be written to cover every situation. For instance, flying around in circles whilst some poor passenger dies of something that could have been corrected if you got to an ambulance in time, is not something that anyone would write into the rules, but that would be the effect if breaching MLW were NEVER permitted.

 

[harvyk]

On another note, given the current 747 fleet is nearing retirement for the unrefurbished units, it's interesting to read this pilots account of taking that last flight :

United captain's painful account of parking a 747-400 for good - Unusual Attitude

It must be weird to shut down the engines for the last time knowing there is every chance the bird is permanently grounded in most cases.

That is quite an emotional rant which was a little hard to follow. It does however answered a question of mine of what it would be like to take a plane to what would be it's final resting place. What would be even more interesting is doing the flight of the final type in the fleet which has a position which will no longer be required moving forwards, for example when QF retired the 747-300's, AFAIK they where the last in the fleet which required a flight engineer.

Just out of interest JB, do you know what happened to all of QF's flight engineers when they retired the B747-300's? Retraining, retiring, retrenchment?

 

[mjt57]

The engine contains a mechanically driven fuel pump. The pumps within the wings are just directing fuel to it.

I thought so. That explains why they couldn't shut down E1 on QF32. No power to close shut off solenoids, engine fuel pump being gravity fed, it'd run til the feed tank was emptied.

I remember discussing this in another forum, A.A, I think it was. I asked why there weren't fail safe close solenoids. ie. when power is lost the solenoids close. I think the response at the time was something along the lines of them not wanting to close at an inopportune time, such as Vr...

 

[jb747]

Over the past few days I've been in Manila, doing something a bit different. The cabin reconfigurations are being done by Lufthansa here. The aircraft are being delivered one at a time for that job to be carried out. (I know that there is a thread elsewhere about the configuration itself).

The process of actually getting the aircraft in and out of here is quite interesting, and not as straightforward as you might imagine. I believe the first couple of aircraft were ferried here from Australia, which is anything but ideal in terms of wasted flight hours. Our ferry was between here and Hong Kong, an obvious way to do it, but one that is fraught with likely delay if anything doesn't work as planned.

Firstly, Manila is not A380 capable. Whilst the runway is quite adequate, there is insufficient clearance between the runway and the main taxiway, so an A380 cannot pass another aircraft at all. The taxiways, especially off the runway, are narrow, and the turns are unfilleted, so keeping the wheels on the black bit is something that requires much more effort than usual. Obstacles are closer than would normally be allowed. The upshot is that a passenger carrying aircraft would not be allowed here, unless in severe strife already (yes, I know, don't go there, I think my being here was a joke by my boss anyway).

The effect of these restrictions is that the airport basically has to shut down from the time the A380 does its approach until it is shut down, and then towed into the hangar. For a busy airport, that's not good. So, to get around this, the movements are planned very late at night, just on the closure time of the airport (which, it turns out, is a bit flexible, unlike Sydney).

Departing, we have to go through the formalities in the terminal, and then be driven to the other side of the airport. Once ready to go, we are pushed out of the hangar onto the taxiway, start and taxi straight to H1 to depart on 24. We'll accept up to our max tailwind to depart from 24. We called for out push one minute late, but were then delayed by 15 minutes to allow a 747 departure.

Take off was fairly rapid. Even with maximum derate, 330 tonnes is a light A380. Climb up to FL340 and a short 1:25 flight to HK. The flight was originally planned for the previous night, but was delayed by 24 hours to allow the passage of a typhoon through HK. Weather forecast for us tonight has some rain, and crosswind off Lantau up to 30 knots...rather nicer than the 50kt from the previous evening. The actual weather when we arrived was nicer again, with only about 20 knots from the right, and no rain, though the runway was still wet. Park the aircraft at the gate, and then wander through what looked like a ghost terminal. The return journey would take place in 16 hours.

The aircraft we were taking back arrived as QF127. It was cleaned and all catering removed. Our departure was planned to have us arriving just prior to the 0030 closure at Manila. Take off was again sporting, especially as this time we weighed about 20 tonnes less. It's not normal to see any airliner climbing at 3000 fpm at high levels, but this one wanted to.

Flying down to Manila, there was extensive thunderstorm activity to the north, so we zig zagged our way along. Up at FL410 this time, so above much of it. With the FMC showing an arrival time of 0015, we expected that we'd have to wait for a while to allow other traffic to clear. Initially we were processed for an arrival onto 24, the duty runway, but this time we wanted 06 (and again with maximum tailwind if necessary). An aircraft that wants to go against the flow is a huge pain for ATC, but we advised that we were prepared to hold to get it, and were sent to a holding pattern about 20 miles west of the field. We held for a bit longer than initially expected, but once the last departing aircraft had passed under us, left the pattern and headed straight in to 06. It took a while for the ILS to switch from 24 to 06, so we flew an FLS VOR approach...basically a GPS based synthetic ILS. The Airbus does that very well, way better than the equivalent in the 747-400.

At 300 tonnes the aircraft was the lightest I've ever seen, and it was a bit more reluctant to land than usual. Rolled right through to the end of the runway, and then the reverse of the departure. Into H1, along C, and then into M3 to the maintenance apron. Guided by marshallers, with others out by the wing tips checking their clearance. Shut down, but our tail still infringes C, so the tug was waiting to immediately pull the aircraft to the hangar entrance, where it would be clear.

Customs/immigration met us at the aircraft, so we were able to head directly to the hotel for a beer.

One annoyance. I tried to get video of both flights, but had recently done a firmware upgrade on the camera. I didn't realise that that had reset it to factory defaults, so sadly ended up with nothing usable.

 

[jb747]

I thought so. That explains why they couldn't shut down E1 on QF32. No power to close shut off solenoids, engine fuel pump being gravity fed, it'd run til the feed tank was emptied.

I remember discussing this in another forum, A.A, I think it was. I asked why there weren't fail safe close solenoids. ie. when power is lost the solenoids close. I think the response at the time was something along the lines of them not wanting to close at an inopportune time, such as Vr...

They are fail safe. That's why they fail open. In the case of QF32, if they had been the other way around, when electrical power was lost to the wing, then valves to both engines would have closed. That wouldn't have mattered with #2, but I'm sure they wouldn't have appreciated losing #1 as well.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Great post jb.

Something you don't often read about, the operations behind the operations (which interests me greatly). Wonderful stuff!

 

[simongr]

Do you consciously fly the aircraft any differently when there are no pax on board? A little more casual not avoiding turbulence as you are all strapped in? Personally I certainly drive in a slightly style when I am by myself than when I have boygr on board.

 

[jb747]

Do you consciously fly the aircraft any differently when there are no pax on board? A little more casual not avoiding turbulence as you are all strapped in? Personally I certainly drive in a slightly style when I am by myself than when I have boygr on board.

No, not at all. After all, we don't want to spill our own cup of coffee either.

 

[simongr]

On that important topic - I know you said earlier in the thread that these were essential crew only so no joy rides - how many (if any) cabin crew would you take on a 90 min flight? In all seriousness would it be worth it to have someone flying just to bring you a drink on such a short flight.

Are there things like the doors that only the crew are trained to do or could the pilot(s) do the "disarm doors and cross check" thing once the aircraft has landed?

 

[jb747]

Crosswinds and the 747.

Is it possible that in a max component crosswind landing that the pilots may be physically be 'landing' to the side of the runway surface.

What is the max crosswind component?

If it is about 25 mtrs from the main gear to the nose gear with another metre (maybe) to the pilot, then working the angles must make this possible on a runway with width of less than about 32 metres. Irecall hearing somewhere that the 747 wheels caster to accommodate a 15 degree angle of aircraft to runway.

Max crosswind allowed on a 747 is 35 knots, including gusts. That reduces to 25 knots on a wet runway. There are other reductions too, which have to do with automatic landings and contaminated runways.

The 747 main wheels DO NOT caster to allow for drift. They are locked fore and aft. They do turn when the aircraft is being taxied, but that locks out on the runway and in flight.

The 747 (and the 767) can be landed with all of the drift still applied. On a wet runway, that's actually the best way to land them. The energy vector is straight down the runway, and they straighten themselves quite nicely as they sit down on the gear. Drift in those circumstances would be up to about 17 degrees, though I don't recall a specific drift figure as a limit...the technique was allowed up to the limits.

The Airbus on the other hand has a fixed 5 degree limit.

The pilot visually places himself well upwind when landing. You want the main gear to touchdown on the middle of the runway, you don't to be there yourself, with the gear at some indeterminate point out towards the edge.

 

[jb747]

That is quite an emotional rant which was a little hard to follow. It does however answered a question of mine of what it would be like to take a plane to what would be it's final resting place. What would be even more interesting is doing the flight of the final type in the fleet which has a position which will no longer be required moving forwards, for example when QF retired the 747-300's, AFAIK they where the last in the fleet which required a flight engineer.

Just out of interest JB, do you know what happened to all of QF's flight engineers when they retired the B747-300's? Retraining, retiring, retrenchment?

Aircraft do take on a life of their own, and most of us find it sad when particular machines are laid to rest. On the other hand, so had less fond memories, and you might have been inclined towards gas axing them yourself. If I had still been flying the 747 when OJK was retired, I would have asked to be on the crew that flew it to the desert (it's still flying by the way).

Agreements had been made with regard to the flight engineers way back when the -400s first appeared. Some had moved early in the piece and made the transition to pilots. One (now retired) got as far as A380 captain. Most simply retired with the aircraft. I don't think any are still around in desk jobs, or in engineering.

 

[jb747]

On that important topic - I know you said earlier in the thread that these were essential crew only so no joy rides - how many (if any) cabin crew would you take on a 90 min flight? In all seriousness would it be worth it to have someone flying just to bring you a drink on such a short flight.

Are there things like the doors that only the crew are trained to do or could the pilot(s) do the "disarm doors and cross check" thing once the aircraft has landed?

These flights can quite easily be done with just two crew. In this case a cabin crew member had been involved in inspecting the cabin after the work. We also had an S/O with us. Again, not strictly needed, but his presence allows much more latitude to handle any delays (or as we found, to very quickly get an aircraft under way). The entire back of the aircraft needs to be inspected on a ferry, and that is extremely time consuming...especially if you're also supposed to be in the coughpit getting ready.

The pilots arm/disarm the doors, and open them as needed.

 

[mosanator]

Aircraft do take on a life of their own, and most of us find it sad when particular machines are laid to rest. On the other hand, so had less fond memories, and you might have been inclined towards gas axing them yourself. If I had still been flying the 747 when OJK was retired, I would have asked to be on the crew that flew it to the desert (it's still flying by the way).

Hypothetically speaking - What do you reckon your chances would have been to a positive response to the request?

Was it retired due to hours/cycles only or would the fact that it had the repairs etc been a factor?

Who is flying it now?

Thanks in advance.

 

[markis10]

VH-OJK Boeing 747

That site tracks all the airliners that have served in VH regos.

 

[juddles]

JB, changing topic slightly, and I apoligize if this has been discussed before (this thread is humungous!!):

What is the dynamic between pax-carrying pilots vs cargo? Is one seen as more attractive than the other? I suspect that pax-carrying attracts greater salaries, but for the purists, just lugging cargo gets rid of the annoying passenger facets of the experience of simply flying. I have a couple of mates who fly cargo (Tampa - Colombian guys flying 767s - soon to be A330´s), who would nevr traade for flying pax. What are your thoughts?

 

[jb747]

Hypothetically speaking - What do you reckon your chances would have been to a positive response to the request?

Close to 100%.

Was it retired due to hours/cycles only or would the fact that it had the repairs etc been a factor?

The repair really took it back to brand new (in the repaired bits anyway). There were no patches. Everything was at manufacturing junctions. I think the decisions about which aircraft were going had a lot to do with future check requirements up to their planned withdrawal dates.

Who is flying it now?

Boeing 747-438 (5N-HMB) Aircraft Pictures & Photos - AirTeamImages.com

 

[jb747]

JB, changing topic slightly, and I apoligize if this has been discussed before (this thread is humungous!!):

What is the dynamic between pax-carrying pilots vs cargo? Is one seen as more attractive than the other? I suspect that pax-carrying attracts greater salaries, but for the purists, just lugging cargo gets rid of the annoying passenger facets of the experience of simply flying. I have a couple of mates who fly cargo (Tampa - Colombian guys flying 767s - soon to be A330´s), who would nevr traade for flying pax. What are your thoughts?

I've never flown for a cargo outfit, so I can't really say for sure. Obviously there will be a great range of quality across the various operators. FedEx for instance, is way bigger than most airlines, and has a very extensive operation. I understand that they pay quite well, and the varied operation is probably very interesting. Others seem much closer to fly by nighters, and I've heard of some appalling salaries (especially for FOs). Mind you, many of the passenger airlines aren't much better there anyway.

 

[juddles]

...
Boeing 747-438 (5N-HMB) Aircraft Pictures & Photos - AirTeamImages.com...

I know they are ¨just¨ lumps of metal, but seeing an ex-QF jumbo in some other livery just feels wrong.

 

[juddles]

.... Others seem much closer to fly by nighters.....

Tampa is small, but consistent. One friend has just reached 20 yrs with them, the other is about 12 yrs. My impression is that salaries are usually less than pax airlines. But at least they dont have to put up with pax that dont like their pj´s! :O