Ask The Pilot

[Mogul]

What you are describing happens every day, and is a great example of some of the illusions you get when flying. That particular departure threads its way through other traffic, so having another aircraft go right over you, quite closely, is normal.

It's most evident in the 767s. You've been climbing steeply, and simultaneously accelerating. They reach their cleared altitude, and push the nose down quite a way to hold level. The acceleration momentarily increases, until they approach the speed limit of 250 knots, at which point the power is dramatically reduced. Shortly thereafter, you'll have passed under the arrival track, and the power goes up again, and back into a normal climb.

Thanks JB for the reply.

 

[johnrm]

Hi JB

Many thanks for an absorbing thread. May I ask if you feel that you achieve sufficient time hand flying the aircraft in actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions using raw data? Are you (and crew generally), able to retain sufficient currency in your view to be able to safely hand fly in IMC if this were to become necessary? Thanks.

 

[Julesmac]

Anything that is flat (i.e. stratus) you can just fly through. Convective clouds (coughulus) range in size from puffy little things, to huge monsters. Little doesn't matter, but it's generally a good idea to at least strap everyone down for a larger one. If it has lightning, then don't enter it if you have any choice at all. Convective cloud will have vertical motion, and that's what gives you the bumps.

Oh, and contrary to the media, the atmosphere does not contain 'air pockets', nor do aircraft that encounter turbulence 'drop thousands of feet'. Imagine what driving over a plowed paddock would be like at 100 kph...you only need a foot or so to make it very uncomfortable. A really huge bump might drop the aircraft 10 feet, but that will be more than enough to throw those would don't like seat belts all the way to the ceiling, from where they will fall back onto whatever/whomever is below.


The air isn't homogenous. There are layers, and they often travel at quite different velocities and directions. Normally, in the middle of a layer it will be smooth (which is how we can use jet streams to dramatically increase the ground speed on the Perth - Melbourne flight), but anywhere near the junction, where the layers mix, the air will be rougher. Climbing or descending, even as little as a thousand feet, can often get you clear of the boundary and find smoother air.

JB this is a really interesting thread which I have just discovered (I'm 12 pages in of 300+ !) so someone may have asked this question before. You say the air has layers, which I understand, but how do you find a smooth layer as opposed to a bumpy one? And at what height is the jetstream? You mentioned it in relation to Perth-Melbourne flights. I flew Mel-Per a few years ago and our flight was very quick, I'm sure the pilkot said due to the jetstream, would that be right? Wouldn't the prevailing wind be w-e and not the other way? So how come we picked up time? Thanks for your time - what an interesting thread.

 

[Julesmac]

I just thought of another question JB. Flying into Canberra about ten years ago, we seemed to be coming in very fast; the plane hit very hard and then immediately powered up into a steep climb. The pilot announced that the FO had muffed the landing and we were going round to try it again, and we then landed safely to great applause. (One droll chap was heard to say 'For Chrissakes don't go for best out of three' which cracked the whole plane up.) But what happened there?And why did they take off again, not just jump on the brakes?

 

[jb747]

Many thanks for an absorbing thread. May I ask if you feel that you achieve sufficient time hand flying the aircraft in actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions using raw data? Are you (and crew generally), able to retain sufficient currency in your view to be able to safely hand fly in IMC if this were to become necessary? Thanks.

We can hand fly as much as we like. The problem with hand flying is that when people are 'practising' it, they are devoting about 90% of their brain power to doing so, and have very little left to actually do the management that the flying pilot is supposed to be doing. I consider that to be very poor operation. The sims are there for practice, and everyone can either book a session late at night, or come in to support someone else if they feel the need. A large percentage of the exercises drop us back to pretty basic configurations anyway.

Is that enough? I think so. I've had two events in the past five years that resulted in the loss of all of the automatics. QF30 is pretty well known, and another occasion in a 380 when it decided to drop us back to alternate law II, and to take away all of the driver's aids. Five hours of manual flying (shared in short lots) was tiring, but the aircraft stayed within a few feet of where it should be for the entire time.

 

[jb747]

You say the air has layers, which I understand, but how do you find a smooth layer as opposed to a bumpy one? And at what height is the jetstream?

The jets are described in our weather briefings, so we have an idea of the height. If it gets bumpy, there'll often be some discussion with ATC about reported smooth/rough levels. If there's no information, we'll try a climb or descent and have a look.

You mentioned it in relation to Perth-Melbourne flights. I flew Mel-Per a few years ago and our flight was very quick, I'm sure the pilkot said due to the jetstream, would that be right? Wouldn't the prevailing wind be w-e and not the other way? So how come we picked up time?

I don't know why you picked up time on that particular flight, but you're right that the jet is from the west. Perhaps the schedules were taking into account an average westerly wind that wasn't actually there at the time.

 

[jb747]

Flying into Canberra about ten years ago, we seemed to be coming in very fast; the plane hit very hard and then immediately powered up into a steep climb.

It's impossible for me to accurately comment on a flight that I wasn't present for....

Perceptions of speed in the cabin are very deceptive. I use the aircraft attitude to get an idea of what is happening, but you can easily have a 50-60 knot difference in ground speed on an approach (15 knot tailwind, to 35 knots (or more) of headwind), and yet the approach will still be quite acceptable.

The pilot announced that the FO had muffed the landing and we were going round to try it again, and we then landed safely to great applause. (One droll chap was heard to say 'For Chrissakes don't go for best out of three' which cracked the whole plane up.) But what happened there?

Really? What is the captain there for, if not to ensure that the FO doesn't muff the landing? I've instructed FOs to go around...I've never let one get me to the ground without being in more or less the right spot and speed. If that was what was said, it really annoys me...the buck stops with the bloke with four bars...you aren't there for the ride.

And why did they take off again, not just jump on the brakes?

Again, without being there I can't say for sure, but I expect that every landing overrun accident that has ever occurred would have been a non event if they'd taken off again and not jumped on the brakes.

 

[Poisson]

The pilot announced that the FO had muffed the landing and we were going round to try it again,

Apart from the question of accountability, wouldn't it be extremely poor form for the captain to make a public announcement blaming the FO? I imagine that would spoil their working relationship in future...

 

[legroom]

...... I've had two events in the past five years that resulted in the loss of all of the automatics. QF30 is pretty well known, and another occasion in a 380 when it decided to drop us back to alternate law II, and to take away all of the driver's aids. Five hours of manual flying (shared in short lots) was tiring, but the aircraft stayed within a few feet of where it should be for the entire time.

JB,

Did you announce / explain to the passengers when that happened ?

Was that necessary ?

Any safety precaution(s) was needed ?

How many Alternate Laws are there?

One for Y, one for J and one for the F ???

Thank you, Captain

 

[Awesom Andy]

Apart from the question of accountability, wouldn't it be extremely poor form for the captain to make a public announcement blaming the FO? I imagine that would spoil their working relationship in future...

I suppose none of us here would really know what happened, but rather than taking it literally, I interpret it as a somewhat light-hearted way of saying the landing didn't work out, and we'll go around and try it again. I guess what happened wasn't pretty, but they fixed it up eventually and landed in one piece, which in the end is all that matters.

 

[harvyk]

More of an ask the ATC question, if an aircraft declares an emergency and they state that they want to land on a certain runway, will that runway be closed to all other traffic until the stricken plane has landed? Or is the stricken plane's landing slotted in around other traffic movements (obviously giving priority to the plane which declared the emergency)? Or is it a combination of the two, eg the runway is closed to all other traffic a certain number of minutes before the stricken plane lands?

 

[jb747]

Did you announce / explain to the passengers when that happened ?

Why? Passengers can't tell if the autopilot is working or not. A good percentage are worried anyway, so giving out totally unnecessary information would just as likely freak a few out....for no reason.

Any safety precaution(s) was needed ?

I don't really understand your question? Precautions because the pilots are being pilots? The only thing that was needed was to tell ATC that we were no longer RVSM capable, as that requires the use of autopilots. And all they did was increase the vertical separation around us to 2,000 feet (as it always was before RVSM came into force).

How many Alternate Laws are there?

Normal law, alternate law I, alternate law II, abnormal attitude law, flare law, direct law.....

 

[jb747]

More of an ask the ATC question, if an aircraft declares an emergency and they state that they want to land on a certain runway, will that runway be closed to all other traffic until the stricken plane has landed? Or is the stricken plane's landing slotted in around other traffic movements (obviously giving priority to the plane which declared the emergency)? Or is it a combination of the two, eg the runway is closed to all other traffic a certain number of minutes before the stricken plane lands?

All emergencies aren't the same, and their treatment will need to vary according to the circumstances. I can think of many cases where keeping the aircraft airborne whilst as many other aircraft as possible land would be the best way to manage things (as you'll possibly lose that runway for a long time after the landing). I once landed in Cairns with an hydraulics failure, and in that case we slowed a bit to allow all of the other aircraft that were approaching to get in first, as we expected to close the runway for at least a few minutes (very few as it turned out, we stopped right next to the tug).

What is an emergency anyway? An engine failure in a four engined aircraft is a non event. It's bit more interesting in a twin, but still not particularly dramatic. Hydraulics malfunctions happen quite regularly, and are generally little more than an inconvenience. Systems failures can generally be resolved, and whilst that could mean you need help to taxi, often have little residual effect whilst airborne.

 

[Julesmac]

Thanks jb747 for that response. We did note a few puzzled looks when the captn made the comment on the FO's error. I guess your comment about perception of speed, pilot's view as opposed to pax, makes perfect sense. Ever taught a learner driver? 60 k's seems extraordinarily fast to be driving in a car when the person holding the wheel has not much flipping idea what they are doing!! I'm sure we all appreciate the time you have put into responding to all our questions. Great insights

 

[Julesmac]

JB747, another from me (I'm still churning my way thru this terrific thread - am up to September 2011. Forgive me if my question's already popped up further along.) Couple of years ago flying MEL-AKL my husband (with a heart history) had a funny turn 3/4 hour into the flight. Got up to go to the loo feeling ill and faceplanted in the aisle. We were taken down the back of the plane and administered oxygen. (in fact he went through 2 bottles of oxygen) No call over the PA for a doctor that I remember. Arrived at AKL and he was removed from plane & transferred by ambos to hospital.

The ambos asked me why the plane hadn't turned back to Melbourne and seemed quite surprised especially as it was not that long into the flight. I recall that the CSO was asking me some questions about his history - I was feeling pretty scrambled and can't remember exactly.But the ambos asked what was the point of him asking as he wasn't qualified to make a judgement on how well or able MrMac was able to continue the flight. Ambo said it would have been better to turn back than have someone cark it on the plane and have to continue for a couple more hours with a deceased person sitting up the back
How likely would the pilot have been to turn back?
What if I was seriously worried (I was!) would there have been any point in my requesting this? Would the pilot have been influenced?
What are the consequences for the pilot in turning back?
Ridiculous thought perhaps - would there be any financial consequences for the pax. Try putting in a claim for that on your travel insurance.....!
Have you ever had someone die on your plane?
What do the crew do?
Thanks!

Happily it turns out MrMac was simply severely dehydrated; a night in hospital on a drip and he was fine. I was interested that I didn't ever get any follow up from QF. I must say though that the travel insurers were absolutely fantastic. Mondial Assist I think? Great deal of assistance via 24 hour helpline with follow up phone calls throught rest of our NZ holiday and another on our return home.

 

[Must...Fly!]

This post from 2011 may partially satisfy your curiousity until jb747 has some time to reply in detail on the procedures for you.

Ask The Pilot

 

[jb747]

JB747, another from me (I'm still churning my way thru this terrific thread - am up to September 2011. Forgive me if my question's already popped up further along.) Couple of years ago flying MEL-AKL my husband (with a heart history) had a funny turn 3/4 hour into the flight. Got up to go to the loo feeling ill and faceplanted in the aisle. We were taken down the back of the plane and administered oxygen. (in fact he went through 2 bottles of oxygen) No call over the PA for a doctor that I remember. Arrived at AKL and he was removed from plane & transferred by ambos to hospital.

I expect they did call for a Doctor, and you were otherwise occupied. There is no reason why any crew wouldn't....

The ambos asked me why the plane hadn't turned back to Melbourne and seemed quite surprised especially as it was not that long into the flight.

It isn't that simple. If I turned back every time a passenger had an issue, I'd never have completed any flight...ever. That flight is about 3 hours long. By the time he'd had his issue, and some advice (either from an onboard source, or the ground) had been obtained, you'd easily be at, or past, the half way point.

I recall that the CSO was asking me some questions about his history - I was feeling pretty scrambled and can't remember exactly. But the ambos asked what was the point of him asking as he wasn't qualified to make a judgement on how well or able MrMac was able to continue the flight.

The CSO (?) wouldn't ever get to make the decision. Most likely the call will be made by one of the aeromedical companies that provide inflight assistance to us. The information you were being asked for would have been fed directly to an emergency specialist in the USA, who is contracted by the airlines. He'll provide his advice to the Captain, who will then make the decision.

Ambo said it would have been better to turn back than have someone cark it on the plane and have to continue for a couple more hours with a deceased person sitting up the back. How likely would the pilot have been to turn back?

The ambo is now talking outside his field of knowledge. We'll divert if needed, often at huge cost to the companies (and I might add that this is not a consideration).

What if I was seriously worried (I was!) would there have been any point in my requesting this? Would the pilot have been influenced?

Not at all.

What are the consequences for the pilot in turning back?

None.

Ridiculous thought perhaps - would there be any financial consequences for the pax. Try putting in a claim for that on your travel insurance.....!

Nothing other than the ambulance. You won't be charged for the diversion.

Have you ever had someone die on your plane?

Twice.

What do the crew do?

I don't really understand the question. The crew will do all they can for the sick passenger, whilst at the same time managing the rest as best they can.

Happily it turns out MrMac was simply severely dehydrated; a night in hospital on a drip and he was fine. I was interested that I didn't ever get any follow up from QF.

Which possibly shows why going with the medical advice and not the worried family member might be the better way to go.

I must say though that the travel insurers were absolutely fantastic. Mondial Assist I think? Great deal of assistance via 24 hour helpline with follow up phone calls throught rest of our NZ holiday and another on our return home.

As opposed to the ones who insured my mother's recent trip to NZ. They haven't coughed up for anything so far...and seem to be in the 'not answering the phone' stage.

 

[Julesmac]

Oh thanks for all those answers. In the light of day of course your answers make perfect sense,
Re: what do the crew do, I mean, with the body, when someone dies on the plane? Move pax away and cover with a sheet?
And with insurers? You only find out what you're covered for -when you find out you're not covered for it!

 

[jb747]

Oh thanks for all those answers. In the light of day of course your answers make perfect sense,
Re: what do the crew do, I mean, with the body, when someone dies on the plane? Move pax away and cover with a sheet?

They do what they can. It varies from aircraft to aircraft. If there are empty seat around, then that's exactly what they'll do. They might have to put passengers into crew rest seats. If the crew rest is accessible from the cabin (as the 767 one was) they may use that. They may not be much choice....

 

[markis10]

Oh thanks for all those answers. In the light of day of course your answers make perfect sense,
Re: what do the crew do, I mean, with the body, when someone dies on the plane? Move pax away and cover with a sheet?
And with insurers? You only find out what you're covered for -when you find out you're not covered for it!

Was talking with a crew member that had a 35 year old women pass on a flight from LAX to SYD, it was on the last stage of the flight but she mentioned CPR was needed to be performed until death could be confirmed by a trained medic, in this case after landing. I felt for her as it must be terrible to end your day with such an event, as unavoidable as it is, and its a good reminder that people looking after our needs have so much to contend with as part of their job.