Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

QF44 just missed curfew by 20s the other day, what would have been the penalty if they had landed?

I understand the number is well over half a million dollars. It was in the tens of thousands until a few years ago, but one particular Asian airline considered the cost of the fine to simply be a business expense, as it was way less than the cost of an overnight stop.

As best I can tell it's about the most harshly applied, and rigid, curfew of any place that I've operated to.... Most have at least some element of common sense.

If he missed the curfew by only 20 seconds, then he possibly went around from low level, and had already flown over all of the houses on the approach..... So, it would have made less noise to land.

 

[Alanslegal]

We don't time it, so I can't give you an accurate answer. Probably about an hour in flight. Most likely spot for a long period on is departing and arriving when the weather is suss. You might have to allow for the entire descent, holding, and then the time on the ground. Which is why you should never wait until near the end for either the toilet break or to get out of the pyjamas. Bay of Bengal/Andaman Sea can be pretty bad too.

On the ground I've had a couple of very extensive delays (five or so hours). Basically JFK in thunderstorms and London the day of the liquid bombs. You can't turn the signs off, but you need to come up with a way of managing toilet access.

Cheers for that. I didn't expect pilots to be actually timing seat belt lights, after all it is a pretty trivial matter in the scheme of things when you are sitting in the coughpit and wanting to ensure people safety, so any estimation is fine with me. Just from a passenger POV sitting there, buckled in, and doing nothing other than thinking of toilet and seat belt lights coming off, those minutes add up

 

[jb747]

Just from a passenger POV sitting there, buckled in, and doing nothing other than thinking of toilet and seat belt lights coming off, those minutes add up

We understand that. Remember we can't do a crew roster change, or go to the toilet ourselves. And whilst we hopefully haven't had any red, there's a lot of coffee drunk up front.

One issue that does come up during these periods is that some people start to feel we have the signs on unnecessarily. Mostly we're very successful in avoiding any real bumps, and people take that the wrong way. As often as not, when we hear cabin crew on the PA reminding people to sit down (mostly we keep the PA turned on...in the cruise anyway), we're surrounded by red radar paints, and are weaving, carefully, between them. The lack of bumps doesn't mean there isn't something nasty, not very far away.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

We understand that. Remember we can't do a crew roster change, or go to the toilet ourselves. And whilst we hopefully haven't had any red, there's a lot of coffee drunk up front.

One issue that does come up during these periods is that some people start to feel we have the signs on unnecessarily. Mostly we're very successful in avoiding any real bumps, and people take that the wrong way. As often as not, when we hear cabin crew on the PA reminding people to sit down (mostly we keep the PA turned on...in the cruise anyway), we're surrounded by red radar paints, and are weaving, carefully, between them. The lack of bumps doesn't mean there isn't something nasty, not very far away.

Unfortunately QF is pretty much alone in being the most reasonable airline when it comes to the use of the seat-belt sign. If you are used to flying other airlines (particularly those from the USA, but CX is also pretty bad) the sign comes on at the first hint of turbulence and can stay on for very long periods. Some US carriers even leave the sign on to allow the cabin crew to conduct their beverage service. So if people come to treat the seat belt sign as not really meaning anything it can rub off on later flights.

On QF the seat-belt sign really does mean be seated, but that is pretty rare these days.

 

[serfty]

...
If he missed the curfew by only 20 seconds, then he possibly went around from low level, and had already flown over all of the houses on the approach..... So, it would have made less noise to land.

There's a bit more here: [FWIW, Travel was AKL-SYD(Holding)-MEL(Splash and go)-SYD(Missed by that Much)-MEL].

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/qf44-last-night-not-great-45444.html

 

[Alanslegal]

One issue that does come up during these periods is that some people start to feel we have the signs on unnecessarily. Mostly we're very successful in avoiding any real bumps, and people take that the wrong way. As often as not, when we hear cabin crew on the PA reminding people to sit down (mostly we keep the PA turned on...in the cruise anyway), we're surrounded by red radar paints, and are weaving, carefully, between them. The lack of bumps doesn't mean there isn't something nasty, not very far away.

From reading your posts on this thread I totally understand that the seat belt there is on for a reason. You have also clearly illustrated in this post and a few past posts that just because there were no turbulence encountered, it doesn't mean there were no real risks. I agree with you that it means the pilots successfully threaded the plane in the right line, or maybe just had a 'smoother' path in the splash of 'red paints' and that were lucky to have missed all the nasty stuff. That said, when I happen to speak to other lay flyers regarding this issue, I always try to suggest to them that the lights were on not because the pilot forgot to turn it off, but that it was because the pilots saw the risks and successfully found a smooth path through. Anyway thank you for taking the time to reply to my beginner questions once again.

 

[SenZubEanS]

My fallback as a youngster would have been IT, as it was only a really new field then.
In reality I was fortunate enough to actually get what the 5 year old wanted.

As a chap who is currently employed in and IT role but working towards my pilots licenses, I'd be more than happy to swap for a few days if you're ever keen to see how the other half live, hahaha

 

[jb747]

As a chap who is currently employed in and IT role but working towards my pilots licenses, I'd be more than happy to swap for a few days if you're ever keen to see how the other half live, hahaha

The other man's grass I guess.

As a teenager, my father, who was a scientist, taught me Fortran and got me limited access to a mainframe. I found it extremely interesting, and dabbled in Algol and Cobol. Dad would have loved to have seen the sort of computer power that now lives in our briefcases.

The 5 year old just looked up at the Sabres operating to Laverton, and the Mirages (well, 8 then) to Avalon, and wanted to be up there. Nothing really changed. Whilst I can be very blase about an A380 or 747, I truly understand that when I look down at a city as we depart, about 50,000 five year olds (of all ages) are looking back and wishing they had my seat. And some of them will get it.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Thanks for answering my above question JB and once again, for all the other answers. As always, there are more (I have searched and do not believe these have been answered)...

Harking back to your domestic days, do you recall roughly what a regular day is for a domestic pilot at Qantas in regards to flight sectors? Say a pilot starts and finishes in their home port (we'll say MEL, excluding the obvious transcontinental runs), is it as simple as a MEL-SYD-MEL, or would a typical day be something like MEL-SYD-BNE-MEL or different?

And something relating to your current equipment. QF32 occurred back when the flight timings allowed for a daytime departure from Singapore - If the engine failure and associated problems occurred at night, would it be any more complicated/take more time to deal with? I know that half of the day is actually night, so one should be equally confident in operating in both conditions. However something I notice, for example, is how much easier some tasks are in the daylight, purely because of the high level of ambient light.

 

[jb747]

Harking back to your domestic days, do you recall roughly what a regular day is for a domestic pilot at Qantas in regards to flight sectors? Say a pilot starts and finishes in their home port (we'll say MEL, excluding the obvious transcontinental runs), is it as simple as a MEL-SYD-MEL, or would a typical day be something like MEL-SYD-BNE-MEL or different?

A 767 day varied...a lot.

It could be as simple as SYD-MEL-SYD. Or just half of that. Or perhaps, SYD-MEL-BNE-MEL-SYD. The variations are just about endless. Whatever the schedulers can fit into 11 hours duty or 8 hours flight time. The monorail is SYD-MEL-SYD-MEL-SYD (repeat). Domestic trips last 5 or so days, so you can imagine how many permutations can fit.

And something relating to your current equipment. QF32 occurred back when the flight timings allowed for a daytime departure from Singapore - If the engine failure and associated problems occurred at night, would it be any more complicated/take more time to deal with? I know that half of the day is actually night, so one should be equally confident in operating in both conditions. However something I notice, for example, is how much easier some tasks are in the daylight, purely because of the high level of ambient light.

I'd have to admit that I don't even think about day or night now, other than the better view that one offers. All of our sims are run at 'night' so you do your training for the day that things go wrong, in the dark.

QF32 would have been no different had it happened at night. Nor would QF30.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Just what I wanted to know jb, thanks again! (and extra credit for the very quick response!)

 

[QF WP]

Love a good read of your thread in the morning.

Just met my neighbour, a DJ Training Captain, on our morning walk (dogs).

I mentioned some of your recent comments jb747. Similarly he was slated for the Check Captain role and 10 mins into the interview at DJ Village, walked out because he was answering their questions and they kept saying "anything else". He told them that he had nothing else to add, it was all in his original answer (well there may have been an epithet or two in addition ). The Management captain then rang him, offering to coach him in interview techniques to pass the interview. He countered with "how is that going to change things - I'm not a yes man".

He said a pilot is only as good as your last flight, SIM or check.

 

[serfty]

...

Total fuel burn on an ultra long sector is higher than it would be for the same sector divided into two, given the same payload.

Payload for ultra long sectors is dismal. Basically most of the people, and all of the freight, are offloaded and replaced by fuel.

The gain, for all of this pain, is quite minimal. For a 9000 nm sector, total flight time is about half an hour less without stopping. Total trip time is about 2 hours less. Passenger loading would be so low (and the costs so high) that passengers (the few that you can actually carry) would need to be paying a very hefty premium. Most likely you're looking at purely business class, but you may not actually be able to afford the weight of the sort of seating that these passengers are used to. Upshot is that they'll get to pay more, but likely get less.

Just playing with some 380 numbers. For a 9000 nm sector (but using standard atmosphere temperature, and nil wind, plus assuming you get every altitude that you want, when you want it). Fuel burn would be 236 tonnes (which, plus reserve, is full tanks); flight time 19:15. Available payload? No freight, and about 200 passengers. With the same (obviously non viable payload), and two sectors, fuel burn is about 216 tonnes.

But, again divided into two sectors, and this time with a decent reserve of 18 tonnes, and maximum possible payload (i.e. max zero fuel weight), total burn is 240 tonnes, flight time 19:45, and you've carried maximum possible people and freight. Economics are dramatically different. ...

Another point...at intermediate landings, problem passengers are often removed. There are some people I'd rather not be stuck with....

There is a discussion going on in the following thread regarding economics of using 744ER's over the A388 on the route:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....hen-will-syd-dfw-canned-45472.html#post721950

In a similar manner as you did for a 'notional' 9000nm route are you able provide some feed back for the 'real' 7500nm SYD/DFW route?

 

[jb747]

In a similar manner as you did for a 'notional' 9000nm route are you able provide some feed back for the 'real' 7500nm SYD/DFW route?

Assuming a tailwind of 50 knots on the way over, and a headwind of the same on the way back...

Going over is easy and could be done by the 380 with a full payload. Coming back, it looks like you'd need to have a reduced payload, down to about 420 pax to make it to Sydney, with minimum legal reserves. Looking at Brisbane, and you're back to full payload.

Every 10 knots that the average wind increases from that 50, is going to take about 40 pax off the load.

 

[serfty]

Thankyou for that - I have a further question. Given the same parameters, approximately how many tonne of fuel would be required (for comfort reserves - not minimum) each way?

 

[jb747]

For the more limiting trip back to Oz, with reserves of 12 tonnes, you'd need to order about 240 tonnes. It would leave a payload of about 42 tonnes.

Whilst it could be done, it doesn't strike me as particularly viable, whereas the established route to Brisbane would be more reliable and have better payload.

 

[AVC]

Dad would have loved to have seen the sort of computer power that now lives in our briefcases.

Or our pockets. My latest phone has more power than my desk PC at work, and it's internet connection is faster than the connection the entire floor shares.
One of my tech friends even said "a quad core phone? LMAO"

I'd have to admit that I don't even think about day or night now, other than the better view that one offers. All of our sims are run at 'night' so you do your training for the day that things go wrong, in the dark.

QF32 would have been no different had it happened at night. Nor would QF30.

What about the Hudson River ditching? Would that have gone all to hell in the dark?

 

[jb747]

What about the Hudson River ditching? Would that have gone all to hell in the dark?

I don't consider the Hudson ditching to be the 'miracle' that the US media did. Nicely done, but nothing miraculous. A ditching onto a calm stretch of water is effectively just a landing...something that happens rather often. Being able to see the water clearly certainly helped, but there's so much lighting in that part of the world that I expect it would have stood out anyway. And, on the other side of the coin...do flocks of Canada geese fly at night?

The most important facet of the ditching was the very early decision by the Captain to do so. The temptation to try for Teterborough airfield must have been strong, and would have ended badly.

 

[Tortuga]

When a jet completes a journey and is re-fuelled is it ok to just top up the tanks or do they need to remove the left over from the previous trip. Who is in charge of making sure the plane has the correct amount for its next journey? Are you aware of any cases where a fuel gauge was off and a plane departed without correct fuel reserves?

 

[Simo]

When a jet completes a journey and is re-fuelled is it ok to just top up the tanks or do they need to remove the left over from the previous trip. Who is in charge of making sure the plane has the correct amount for its next journey? Are you aware of any cases where a fuel gauge was off and a plane departed without correct fuel reserves?

There was a episode of Air Crash Investigation that that happened on.