Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

JB, last night I upgraded a media player (WDTV Live) to its latest firmware. One of the new features is something called "YouTube Leanback".

Aside from it losing all my favorites it now has a streamlined way of playing HD videos.

I did a search for "a380". Amongst them was one of yours, a night departure from LHR, and one of an Emirates A380 landing at Manchester.

Yours played so much crisper on the big screen (Panasonic LCD) than it does on my PC. Yours was flagged as "HD". The Manchester one as 1080p.

It's difficult to compare yours with the other one as the other is in daylight whilst yours is inside at night. But what I am asking, at what resolution did you produce that video?

They're shot on a GoPro 2 HD. Originally they're all in the wide and 1080p modes. When I run them through Handbrake, I normally crop them down a bit, and also reduce them to 720. They're uploaded as 720P m4v files.

Once we get the whole process a little more organised (i.e. my wife becomes an expert at Adobe Premiere), then I'll look at buying a second camera, and try to cut the two POVs together.

 

[mjt57]

They're shot on a GoPro 2 HD. Originally they're all in the wide and 1080p modes. When I run them through Handbrake, I normally crop them down a bit, and also reduce them to 720. They're uploaded as 720P m4v files.

Ok, they look pretty good at 720. How big would the files be if you upload them at 1080p?

Once we get the whole process a little more organised (i.e. my wife becomes an expert at Adobe Premiere), then I'll look at buying a second camera, and try to cut the two POVs together.

My wife has been struggling with an ancient version of Premiere. Recently she bought the complete Adobe CS6 suite, so she's learning how that works.

She's done the 2 camera merging bit but it doesn't help if the two cameras are different and the output quality differs. Hopefully you won't get that with two Go Pros.

(anyway, she'll get to practise it a bit more in coming weeks. She's doing her own ad for the local council elections. Should be interesting how it turns out).

 

[Mardi]

Harping on the no smoking theme, when we flew CBR-MEL-LAX-JFK yesterday (ish) we remarked on the fact that telling people they can't smoke is still part of the welcoming spiel. Is that to ensure that some idiot doesn't decide to smoke because he/she hasn't been told not to? It's been a long time now since you could smoke on planes so will it ever be dropped do you think?

 

[harvyk]

Harping on the no smoking theme, when we flew CBR-MEL-LAX-JFK yesterday (ish) we remarked on the fact that telling people they can't smoke is still part of the welcoming spiel. Is that to ensure that some idiot doesn't decide to smoke because he/she hasn't been told not to? It's been a long time now since you could smoke on planes so will it ever be dropped do you think?

Nope, if they don't tell you, despite the fact it's well known, there will be some drop kick who would try and get away with it and claim ignorance.
On that theme though, JB do you know of any plans to retrofit a "no electronic devices" sign in place of the no smoking sign in existing aircraft? Or will it simply remain as part of the seatbelt sign goes off you can use them unless you're told otherwise.

 

[Major]

I was just watching flightradar24 for MCY ( They go to the side of my place when landing to the N ) and noticed

Hex:7C6B3C

Squawk:1527

What does this mean ?

 

[The Rok]

Nope, if they don't tell you, despite the fact it's well known, there will be some drop kick who would try and get away with it and claim ignorance.
On that theme though, JB do you know of any plans to retrofit a "no electronic devices" sign in place of the no smoking sign in existing aircraft? Or will it simply remain as part of the seatbelt sign goes off you can use them unless you're told otherwise.

Doesn't VA's 777's already have this?

 

[harvyk]

Doesn't VA's 777's already have this?

There are some a/c's out there which do already have the sign. My question is are we likely to in 5 years time only see no electronic devices signs, or will the last no smoking sign disappear when the last of the current fleet of aircraft which has them is retired?

 

[jb747]

Harping on the no smoking theme, when we flew CBR-MEL-LAX-JFK yesterday (ish) we remarked on the fact that telling people they can't smoke is still part of the welcoming spiel. Is that to ensure that some idiot doesn't decide to smoke because he/she hasn't been told not to? It's been a long time now since you could smoke on planes so will it ever be dropped do you think?

I have no doubt that unless specifically told, MANY smokers would try to have a fa_. Beyond that, there are still many places in the world where it is much more accepted than here. And whilst I don't know if there are any places where it isn't banned in aircraft, I'm sure there are nationalities that are somewhat casual about any such rule. And passengers do come from all over, even the ones on Australian domestic flights.

As for the electronics signs...I wonder if they might be more transient than the 'no smoking'. In five years smoking will still be banned, but I wonder if the electronics rules may not have been relaxed somewhat, if not completely. If I were running an airline, I certainly wouldn't waste money changing one sign for the other.

 

[jb747]

I was just watching flightradar24 for MCY ( They go to the side of my place when landing to the N ) and noticed

Hex:7C6B3C

Squawk:1527

What does this mean ?

According to the flightradar24 web site, the Hex codes mean nothing, but are simply dummy codes generated to get the aircraft into their HEX based system.

The squawk is the transponder code that is set in the aircraft.

 

[markis10]

I was just watching flightradar24 for MCY ( They go to the side of my place when landing to the N ) and noticed

Hex:7C6B3C

Squawk:1527

What does this mean ?

Hex code is the unique identifier for the aircraft for its ADSB box, almost like a manufacturers serial number and is actually assigned to the airframe (its actually an ICAO assigned 24 bit address of which there are over 16B combinations), while Squawk is related to an earlier system still is use that identifies the aircraft on the secondary surveillance radar displays via its transponder code which is set in the coughpit.

I note you were looking at a JQ bird:

ICAO24-address 7C6B3C is from Australia [ AU ]

: 7C0000...7FFFFF (262144 allocations, 011111-- -------- --------)
7C6B3C hex = 8153916 decimal = 37065474 octal = 01111100 01101011 00111100 binary.

Registration	Manuf.	Model	Type	c/n	i/t	Selcal	ICAO24	Reg / Opr	built	test reg	delivery	prev.reg	until	next reg	status
VH-VGU	Airbus	A-320-214	A320	4245	L2J	HMJK	7C6B3C	JST [JQ] JetStar Airways	2010	F-WWDQ	2010-03-27				active	edit

[TD="class: s80, colspan: 2, align: right"]Remarks:[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 16"]owner ARCU Aircraft Leasing Ltd[/TD]

http://www.airframes.org/

 

[Alanslegal]

I flew QF1 two days ago and we had, what I thought, was a late activation of the seatbelt sign upon landing into SIN. Having the FlightMap information displayed, it said we had just go to 1,000m and 4mins to arrival when the signs turned on. Just an interesting observation from the back of the plane.

 

[jb747]

I flew QF1 two days ago and we had, what I thought, was a late activation of the seatbelt sign upon landing into SIN. Having the FlightMap information displayed, it said we had just go to 1,000m and 4mins to arrival when the signs turned on. Just an interesting observation from the back of the plane.

No, that sounds pretty normal.

The signs come on when the flaps are first selected, which will normally happen at about 14 miles....about 4 minutes to run.

The signs will also by cycled twice at 2,500 feet....about 3 minutes to go.

 

[Alanslegal]

No, that sounds pretty normal.

The signs come on when the flaps are first selected, which will normally happen at about 14 miles....about 4 minutes to run.

The signs will also by cycled twice at 2,500 feet....about 3 minutes to go.

Thats something new for me. I normally head to the bathroom around the 30minute mark before landing because I always find out that the seatbelt light comes on not too long after I'm done. Anyway since its normal, then I wont be too surprised next time

 

[RailFlyer]

Hi jb747,

Firstly, thanks for your reply to my earlier questions some months ago now. Now for a new one....

From what I have read here, am I correct in saying the majority of takeoff's are done with the engines derated and therefore not at 100% thrust. If so, I assume therefore that 100% thrust is not often used?

My question therefore is do you not feel there is some risk that if for any reason (engine failure or landing abort) you have to suddenly demand 100% thrust from a potentially depleted number of engines you may overstress a component that has been on the verge of failure (but not detected) and cause a second failure? If it was me (in an ideal world) I would like the know the engines were regularly cycled through full power so that it is not a surprise to them when needed in an emergency. I guess this query is maybe more applicable to a 2 engine jet.

Or am I just worrying too much!? (I must be as planes aren't falling out of the sky everyday)

 

[jb747]

Thats something new for me. I normally head to the bathroom around the 30minute mark before landing because I always find out that the seatbelt light comes on not too long after I'm done. Anyway since its normal, then I wont be too surprised next time

For the vast majority of a flight, there is a bit of leeway to track around, or over weather. Once you start descent though, most of the lateral leeway disappears, and of course, you may simply descend into the weather (and 'weather' may be anything that gives bumps, it doesn't have to be really nasty). So, it's certainly not uncommon for the seatbelts to be turned on early in a descent, but on most occasions, you won't need the signs to be on until very late.

 

[jb747]

From what I have read here, am I correct in saying the majority of takeoff's are done with the engines derated and therefore not at 100% thrust. If so, I assume therefore that 100% thrust is not often used?

Quite true. Whilst 380 departures from the short runway in LA are at TO/GA, most are heavily derated. The relatively short flight between Melbourne and Singapore, will almost certainly be done with only 67% of the available power.

My question therefore is do you not feel there is some risk that if for any reason (engine failure or landing abort) you have to suddenly demand 100% thrust from a potentially depleted number of engines you may overstress a component that has been on the verge of failure (but not detected) and cause a second failure? If it was me (in an ideal world) I would like the know the engines were regularly cycled through full power so that it is not a surprise to them when needed in an emergency. I guess this query is maybe more applicable to a 2 engine jet.

Firstly, the harder we use the engines, the shorter their lives. So, if you made habit of using high power settings, not only would it cost a lot more in running costs, you'd dramatically increase the chances of a failure.

Secondly, you're making the assumption that after an engine failure that we'll demand more thrust. That's not correct. In most cases, the power will be left where it is. It may be increased, but the planning is based upon the continued use of the derate. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which is that you can make the aircraft more difficult to control if you suddenly throw an even greater asymmetry into the mix. Up to about 500 tonnes, we almost certainly won't need to use more thrust...the performance will be quite adequate with both the engine loss and the continued use of the derate. Beyond that, you'll most likely select it once airborne, but you won't do so on the runway.

Or am I just worrying too much!? (I must be as planes aren't falling out of the sky everyday)

Yes....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

there will be some drop kick who would try and get away with it and claim ignorance.

'drop kick' is a bit harsh! if people are first time flyers they may not know. people smoked for years on aircraft and while the smell was not pleasant, the safety of it wasn't too bad (I think it was banned more on health grounds?). I know cabin crew who smoke on long haul TPAC aircraft, working for an american airline. For obvious reasons i won't disclose how they do it, but it's not unheard of.

 

[acoolbreeze]

'drop kick' is a bit harsh! if people are first time flyers they may not know. people smoked for years on aircraft and while the smell was not pleasant, the safety of it wasn't too bad (I think it was banned more on health grounds?). I know cabin crew who smoke on long haul TPAC aircraft, working for an american airline. For obvious reasons i won't disclose how they do it, but it's not unheard of.

I entered the coughpit of a Chinese carrier recently (I work at an airport) and had difficulty breathing with all of the lingering cigarette smoke!

 

[mjt57]

25/10 QF10 ex LHR
28/10 QF2 ex SIN

I'm guessing that your arrival in SIN would be on the same day (calendar-wise) as the date of departure from LHR?

If so, that does mean you have 2 days to kill in Singapore?

When you get extended layovers, what do you (and other crew) get up to? Is anything organised between you or do you just do whatever takes your fancy?

I would imagine that catching up on sleep would be a high priority, though...

 

[jb747]

I'm guessing that your arrival in SIN would be on the same day (calendar-wise) as the date of departure from LHR?

If so, that does mean you have 2 days to kill in Singapore?

When you get extended layovers, what do you (and other crew) get up to? Is anything organised between you or do you just do whatever takes your fancy?

I would imagine that catching up on sleep would be a high priority, though...

The flight leaves London late on the 25th, and arrives early evening on the 26th Singapore. Basically you have to get over one all night/day flight and get ready for another night. Very little is organised on slips.