Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

So to take that to the next step, because it was considered a Fail (due to input from the checkers) what are the ramifications for a pilot? Does it mean that its totally game over? or going back to a certain level then retraining? Only working for Aeroflot? whats the next steps from there?

Also does it happen often in the Australian aviation industry?

Whilst failures in checks are not common, there's a percentage every time around. Mostly they are for pretty minor transgressions, and the check will be redone, and everyone moves on. Making a habit of it is bad, and will initially result in some remedial training (followed by another check). Ultimately it will result in either demotion or removal from the line (i.e. you're fired).

Once that happens, I have no idea. Perhaps you get a job with Emirates.....

 

[fresherbill]

To be fair, he didn't say he failed, rather he "didn't pass". That'd be consistent with JB's analysis, with a little artistic license thrown in.

 

[Craigie]

I also just finished QF32 and absolutely loved it and was utterly disappointed at the end when Richard said he was failed the check. Only because earlier in the book he made mention of failing leads to job loss. I'm wondering if I skim read that and got it wrong?

His account of the incident and the fall out was incredible, and the professionalism shown by him and the crew speaks volume to the safety culture evident on that plane. Good read if anyone's thinking about it

*edit* oops, my question answered above 1 minute earlier, thanks JB*edit*

 

[harvyk]

Do the FA's ever call through to the coughpit and let the pilots know that the seat belt sign is still on?
On some flights I've seen the seat belt sign stay on for an extended period with no actual bumps and it almost feels like the pilots have forgotten about it. (That said, weather radar is usually not an option on IFE)

 

[jb747]

Do the FA's ever call through to the coughpit and let the pilots know that the seat belt sign is still on?
On some flights I've seen the seat belt sign stay on for an extended period with no actual bumps and it almost feels like the pilots have forgotten about it. (That said, weather radar is usually not an option on IFE)

Yes, they do. Quite regularly. I'm sure it's occasionally forgotten, but the lack of coffee offers tends to remind us.

Generally we're quite successful at avoiding weather/bumps, and sadly that has the effect of making everyone think that we've either forgotten the signs, or are too conservative. I've had calls about the signs when we are literally surrounded by nasty red radar paints. It's one of those things for which you really must stick to the safe side of the road...you only have to be wrong once. A bad turbulence encounter can quite easily kill people, and for some forms of turbulence there will be no warning at all...which is why you should never sit in your seat with the belt undone.

 

[Tortuga]

Yes, they do. Quite regularly. I'm sure it's occasionally forgotten, but the lack of coffee offers tends to remind us.

Generally we're quite successful at avoiding weather/bumps, and sadly that has the effect of making everyone think that we've either forgotten the signs, or are too conservative. I've had calls about the signs when we are literally surrounded by nasty red radar paints. It's one of those things for which you really must stick to the safe side of the road...you only have to be wrong once. A bad turbulence encounter can quite easily kill people, and for some forms of turbulence there will be no warning at all...which is why you should never sit in your seat with the belt undone.

Is it difficult to control the plane with turbulence, I can't imagine trying to press small buttons and switches with the aircraft being tossed around like a rag doll. On your videos it looks like the coughpit gets the shakes just as much as other parts of the aircraft.

 

[jb747]

Is it difficult to control the plane with turbulence, I can't imagine trying to press small buttons and switches with the aircraft being tossed around like a rag doll. On your videos it looks like the coughpit gets the shakes just as much as other parts of the aircraft.

You shouldn't need to be playing with small buttons in bad turbulence.

Most people, including pilots, have never experienced really bad turbulence. On a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the max the aircraft can handle, I'd say that very few pilots have ever seen beyond 5, and most passengers consider 3 to be horrid.

The coughpit certainly moves around, though, within limits, we tend not to even notice it. Have a look at some coughpit videos from Shuttle launches...that really shakes.

 

[anat0l]

You shouldn't need to be playing with small buttons in bad turbulence.

Most people, including pilots, have never experienced really bad turbulence. On a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the max the aircraft can handle, I'd say that very few pilots have ever seen beyond 5, and most passengers consider 3 to be horrid.

The coughpit certainly moves around, though, within limits, we tend not to even notice it. Have a look at some coughpit videos from Shuttle launches...that really shakes.

Is flying in really bad turbulence (i.e. a 5 or 6 and beyond on your scale) something which is simulated or trained for? Are there subtle differences in the procedure depending on the kind of turbulence (i.e. what "rating" you are on your scale), or is handling the aircraft in such situations mostly the same, irrespective of the severity?

 

[jb747]

Is flying in really bad turbulence (i.e. a 5 or 6 and beyond on your scale) something which is simulated or trained for? Are there subtle differences in the procedure depending on the kind of turbulence (i.e. what "rating" you are on your scale), or is handling the aircraft in such situations mostly the same, irrespective of the severity?

Whilst it's trained for, I doubt that you could reasonably simulate it...without breaking the sim.

Basically, you give up trying to fly an exact height. You keep the automatics engaged (especially the autopilot), but if the thrust is hunting outside an acceptable range, then you may have to take out the autothrust. In some aircraft you need to turn on the engine ignition, though later ones will take care of that themselves.

Older aircraft autopilots had a 'turbulence' mode, in which they simply tried to keep the aircraft wings level and at a steady pitch.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Interesting that turbulence severity is mentioned, I watched this video only yesterday.

[video=youtube;7UO-wYpNN0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UO-wYpNN0s[/video]

 

[tuppaware]

Interesting that turbulence severity is mentioned, I watched this video only yesterday.

[video=youtube;7UO-wYpNN0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UO-wYpNN0s[/video]

Its hard to see really how bad the turbulence really is as the camera was being hand-held

 

[harvyk]

A rumor I have heard is that the A380's needed to have a software upgrade to randomise the exact position on the runway it lands as according to my friend, the A380 was so good at landing on the exact same spot on the runway each time, that it was causing uneven wear on the runway.

Is this true, did the early A380's land so exactly each time that this would be a problem? If this is, how can it be a problem specifically for the A380's if only 2% of all landing are actually autolands?

(I should point out that this rumor came from a friend who works at CASA in a support role, not in an advisory or aviation role, who loves to quote "facts" at parties, which often don't quite gel with either things JB has said, or manufacturers specs)

 

[jb747]

A rumor I have heard is that the A380's needed to have a software upgrade to randomise the exact position on the runway it lands as according to my friend, the A380 was so good at landing on the exact same spot on the runway each time, that it was causing uneven wear on the runway.

Is this true, did the early A380's land so exactly each time that this would be a problem? If this is, how can it be a problem specifically for the A380's if only 2% of all landing are actually autolands?

(I should point out that this rumor came from a friend who works at CASA in a support role, not in an advisory or aviation role, who loves to quote "facts" at parties, which often don't quite gel with either things JB has said, or manufacturers specs)

Well, I've never hit the same spot twice, so I think you can call b/s on that....

 

[Flying Fox]

Hi JB

This isn't a flying question as such and you may choose not to answer it which is fair enough.

Given your experiences at the front of the plane and direct interactions with customers/passengers; what 5 or 10 changes would you make to QF to bring QFi back to profitability?

Thanks

 

[Awesom Andy]

A rumor I have heard is that the A380's needed to have a software upgrade to randomise the exact position on the runway it lands as according to my friend, the A380 was so good at landing on the exact same spot on the runway each time, that it was causing uneven wear on the runway.

Is this true, did the early A380's land so exactly each time that this would be a problem? If this is, how can it be a problem specifically for the A380's if only 2% of all landing are actually autolands?

(I should point out that this rumor came from a friend who works at CASA in a support role, not in an advisory or aviation role, who loves to quote "facts" at parties, which often don't quite gel with either things JB has said, or manufacturers specs)

Similar rumours were around before when autoland was invented, that the planes kept landing in the same spot so that a randomised offset was programmed in. I really doubt that is true though, since all planes are supposed to land at around the same spot anyway, whether it's manual or auto land.

 

[medhead]

I was wondering today about how you log/account for hours flown between the various people upfront. Just that you often talk about the FO landing or taking off sometimes instead of the main pilot/captain. I assume the FO needs to do X number of hours or landings/takeoffs. So if an FO does a take off is that one tick in takeoffs or do they get logged whatever hours of flying in command, or perhaps both. Then extending that say for the flying that you do - long haul. Is it simply a matter of noting times for each person in charge during the trip and then logging them at the end. Is some agreement needed or something.

Sorry for a fine detail of administration type question. Please feel free to ignore if it's too boring.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Sorry for a fine detail of administration type question. Please feel free to ignore if it's too boring.

I'll leave the answer to the pilots, but be assured that the log book is a very important part of any pilot's flying career, be it commercial or purely for leisure, so this question is definitely valid and be of interest to at least some who frequent this board (myself included).

 

[jb747]

Hi JB

This isn't a flying question as such and you may choose not to answer it which is fair enough.

Given your experiences at the front of the plane and direct interactions with customers/passengers; what 5 or 10 changes would you make to QF to bring QFi back to profitability?

Thanks

I think it's best if I leave this one alone.

 

[jb747]

I was wondering today about how you log/account for hours flown between the various people upfront. Just that you often talk about the FO landing or taking off sometimes instead of the main pilot/captain. I assume the FO needs to do X number of hours or landings/takeoffs. So if an FO does a take off is that one tick in takeoffs or do they get logged whatever hours of flying in command, or perhaps both. Then extending that say for the flying that you do - long haul. Is it simply a matter of noting times for each person in charge during the trip and then logging them at the end. Is some agreement needed or something.

Sorry for a fine detail of administration type question. Please feel free to ignore if it's too boring.

I log 100% of any flight that I do as command hours. The FO is never in command, though he may be in charge whilst I'm not on the flight deck. On those sectors that I give away, he can log ICUS (in command under supervision). Otherwise all of his flight time is co pilot. Landings and take offs are logged by whomever does them, as are the various types of instrument approach. Instrument flight time is also logged by whomever did the flying.

All other things being equal, I alternate sectors with the FO.

 

[medhead]

Thanks. Sounds like there are multiple categories that are logged. Eg In command, co-pilot, and instrument hours as well as landing/take off. So I guess the landings and takeoffs are pretty much a tally where the hours don't count as such?

Sorry for mixing up in command and in charge.


Sent from the Throne