Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
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]

I'm quite sure in First class the chandelier was only gently swaying :)

I have to give credit to QF - they seem to be one of the least 'seat-belt sign' proactive airlines I know. Sign usually goes off right after take-off and stays off until close to landing.

Compare that to CX (with their constant announcements in three languages) or American carriers.
 
JB, a couple of quick questions:

What control of the APU do you have, instrumentation, etc.?
And what non-flight services do you control from the flight deck, for example, cabin heating, waste disposal and so on?
 
JB, a couple of quick questions:

What control of the APU do you have, instrumentation, etc.?
And what non-flight services do you control from the flight deck, for example, cabin heating, waste disposal and so on?
APU on or off. Fire suppression, bleed, and generators. The display is hidden on a lower screen synoptic.

Hidden displays are the rule, there's probably a couple of dozen hidden displays, which can contain dozens of items each. The APU is one of the simpler pages.

We have overall control of all of the cabin services, but we don't have detailed control. For instance I can take away all of the electrical power, but I can't do it to just one seat. Same with heating, where we can change the overall temp, but not small areas. Waste system looks after itself.
 
Hidden displays are the rule, there's probably a couple of dozen hidden displays, which can contain dozens of items each. The APU is one of the simpler pages.

And this begs the question; given that you don't have touch screen controls, when you bring up a screen (or synoptic as you call it) for a particular system how do you then operate that equipment? Are there sets of common buttons or switches which are assigned specific functions when a screen is displayed (cabin heating or APU, for example)? Or are they displays only and there are dedicated controls on the dash, roof, centre console, etc.?
 
And this begs the question; given that you don't have touch screen controls, when you bring up a screen (or synoptic as you call it) for a particular system how do you then operate that equipment? Are there sets of common buttons or switches which are assigned specific functions when a screen is displayed (cabin heating or APU, for example)? Or are they displays only and there are dedicated controls on the dash, roof, centre console, etc.?

You answered your own question. All switches are dedicated. I don't think touch screens have a place in aircraft, and doubt that we'll see them any time soon, if at all. The original 767 ACARs was a touch screen, and it had all sorts of issues. (Obviously, iPads are an exception, but they are not part of the aircraft).

Giving switches or dials multiple functions has a long history of being a cause of accidents. They rarely exist, though Airbus does persist with dual use for HDG/TRK and V-S/FPA. I believe that has already been implicated in at least one accident, but in true AB form, they blame the pilots, not their designers. It was the cause of the only fatal X15 accident.
 
I don't think touch screens have a place in aircraft
Thanks for the answer, JB. However, I don't think that I was refering to touch screens, particularly as it's been discussed earlier. Rather, what you said, either dedicated controls or multi-function ones.

In the power industry, dedicated controls and instruments were the norm. However, the advances of digital systems means that many plants are being "upgraded" to screen based control systems. It makes it cheaper to maintain and to fine tune auto systems, but from an operator's perspective, it can become less than friendly, particularly if the owners are cheapskates and minimise the number of consoles.

To put it into your perspective, imagine how the B747 Classic would be if they ripped out the existing panels and put in say, 2 CRTs or (LCD displays) and you had to drive everything off of them.

This is why I'm so interested in how modern glass coughpits function in terms of ergonomics and operator interaction. We're looking at some major design changes, and I'm dreading what some of those who have a say in this are thinking about doing...

One of the lead engineers and I were discussing this and aircraft control systems came up. Hopefully we may get to see something like the Airbus or Boeing to get some ideas.
 
Thanks for the answer, JB. However, I don't think that I was refering to touch screens, particularly as it's been discussed earlier. Rather, what you said, either dedicated controls or multi-function ones.

In the power industry, dedicated controls and instruments were the norm. However, the advances of digital systems means that many plants are being "upgraded" to screen based control systems. It makes it cheaper to maintain and to fine tune auto systems, but from an operator's perspective, it can become less than friendly, particularly if the owners are cheapskates and minimise the number of consoles.

To put it into your perspective, imagine how the B747 Classic would be if they ripped out the existing panels and put in say, 2 CRTs or (LCD displays) and you had to drive everything off of them.

This is why I'm so interested in how modern glass coughpits function in terms of ergonomics and operator interaction. We're looking at some major design changes, and I'm dreading what some of those who have a say in this are thinking about doing...

One of the lead engineers and I were discussing this and aircraft control systems came up. Hopefully we may get to see something like the Airbus or Boeing to get some ideas.

I can't see things moving away from dedicated controls any time soon. Buttons do fail, but only affect one item. Imagine losing a control that does ten things. But, beyond that, we need to be able to operate and interpret things quickly and without error. Giving anything multiple functions makes it certain that they will be misread, or operated in the wrong mode. Additionally, we need to be able to operate without the displays...they fail more often than anything else (actually lost one last night). We don't need the synoptics to carry out procedures...but we generally look at them at some point LATER ON just to resolve what is/has happened.
 
Another sim exercise. I've done this one three times, once for myself, and twice supporting others.


It starts with the standard (optional) circuit for each pilot. Once in a suitably embarrassed frame of mind, you move on to the real exercise.


As usual, it will randomly include a couple of stop/go decisions during take off.


Firstly, with the captain flying, you depart from runway 18C in Amsterdam. You're cleared for a complete SID, but you only do the first part of it. All of the flight displays are then turned off, and you do a couple of minutes flying on the standby attitude indicator. Almost a pointless exercise, given that you can bring up a real AI on six of the displays, but it's a CASA requirement.


Next you're cleared back to Schipol to carry out the NDB approach for 18C. That involves are fairly rarely seen procedural hold, in which a single holding pattern is actually a part of the approach, and which the aircraft will automatically fly and exit. Basically it's a bit of a lesson in reading some of the things the FMC is saying. You need to modify the approach if you want to carry out more than one holding pattern. From there the approach is flown to a landing. Once on the ground, the aircraft is jumped back to a point on the approach (about 8 miles out) from which a visual approach is flown, but without any approach slope guidance (another CASA requirement).


The exercise is then repeated for the FO, only this time there's a go around. That in itself is interesting, as the level off is at quite low level, and things happen pretty quickly. The FO doesn't have to do the no guidance landing. Throughout all of this the cloud base and vis are being varied to suit, but the wind stays at a pretty steady 20 knots of crosswind.


We then jump to London for a low vis package. These are always flown by the captain, and supported by the FO. A couple of take offs are done, with the visibility at 125 metres, and 10 knots of crosswind (both of which are limits). There will be an engine failure resulting in an abort, and another from which you continue the take off. You might even do one where things work. In all cases the engine failures are worked to completion of the ECAM and passenger PAs, so just stopping on the runway isn't the end. The GO case invariably involves an outboard engine…the hardest case.


After the 3 engined take off, you clean the aircraft up, and then go through the steps you'll need to consider. Can you go back, or must you divert? As the vis is so poor, to go back you'll need CAT IIIB, but with a generator gone, you're reduced to CAT III A, so can you get the capability back? Will the engine restart (it virtually never will, but it needs to be considered). We elect to go back and start the APU to get another generator. The approach is normal until about 200 feet, at which point the localiser tracking goes outside of limits, so a 3 engined go around. Shoot the approach again, and this time land.


After that the only item left to cover is a two engined approach. This time they've decided to give the dual failure simultaneously, at about 1,000 feet during departure. It isn't covered procedurally, as it's starting to fall into an area in which the only rule is not to crash…and how you do that doesn't matter. Weight this time is an unusually light 391 tonnes (max landing), but I expect it will be ramped up over the next few sims until we near the point at which it can't be done. When the failure occurs we immediately level off, and accelerate, whilst cleaning up. Once the aircraft is clean and accelerated to green dot, it flies away quite well, and the remainder is a standard two engined approach. Initially though, you're right back at VMCA2 (or even slightly below), so maintaining control is an issue. At heavier weights, we'll need to descend to accelerate, and fuel dump will have to be started immediately. Once you land, that completes the exercise.
 
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing (love reading your posts on your latest sim successes!

Why Schipol and not somewhere else?
 
Just a note to say that OJH (the Golfer) is now withdrawn from service and currently in Sydney getting prepared for its last flight.
 
That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing (love reading your posts on your latest sim successes!

Why Schipol and not somewhere else?

Amsterdam is a very likely diversion field (I took a 747 there once). Plus it has the procedural hold that I mentioned. There's no point to doing exercises at places we never/can't go to.
 
How long does that sim take?

They're all scheduled the same way. 45 minutes for briefing/quiz/discussion, 4 hours in the sim, and then 15 minutes debrief. The exercises use every available minute, so you can't hang around in the holding pattern scratching your whatever.
 
They're all scheduled the same way. 45 minutes for briefing/quiz/discussion, 4 hours in the sim, and then 15 minutes debrief. The exercises use every available minute, so you can't hang around in the holding pattern scratching your whatever.
I have two days of simulator training on Wednesday and Thursday. They are 12 hr days and cover all aspects of power plant operation.

They can be long, and sometimes boring, particularly doing the mundane stuff.

After reading what you do for your sim training, I'm trying to convince the training dept to adopt a similar thing. Instead of 2x12 days a year, have shorter, more frequent days. But it's a struggle...

And interesting points you make regarding controls failure, particularly controls that may do multiple things.
 
After just seeing a pax offloaded from QF9 on the 16th, how much thought process goes into making the decision from the POV of the Captain?

I won't go into the reasons why, but due to the offloading, the flow on affect was missing the Afghanistan slot.

Do other pressures (such as slots) influence the decision to offload or not offload a pax?
 
On last Saturday's flight to Perth I noticed we took a completely different approach path. While the kids were having a look in the coughpit I mentioned this to the Caption and he said that the ILS was down and that he flew the GPS approach. I would have though that the approach paths whether ILS or GPS would have been exactly the same.
 
On last Saturday's flight to Perth I noticed we took a completely different approach path. While the kids were having a look in the coughpit I mentioned this to the Caption and he said that the ILS was down and that he flew the GPS approach. I would have though that the approach paths whether ILS or GPS would have been exactly the same.
The final approach will be very similar but getting to final can be very different depending upon the circumstances.
 
After just seeing a pax offloaded from QF9 on the 16th, how much thought process goes into making the decision from the POV of the Captain?

I won't go into the reasons why, but due to the offloading, the flow on affect was missing the Afghanistan slot.

Do other pressures (such as slots) influence the decision to offload or not offload a pax?

I think I've said it before, but if a person is painful enough to make you think of offloading, then you should. They never improve, and at the terminal is the best place to resolve such issues. Other items, such as the Afghan slot are an annoyance, but, you can always get another one.
 
I think I've said it before, but if a person is painful enough to make you think of offloading, then you should. They never improve, and at the terminal is the best place to resolve such issues. Other items, such as the Afghan slot are an annoyance, but, you can always get another one.

I would rather be late than have a problem passenger on a long flight.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top