Ask The Pilot

[flychrisfly]

As an aside, it's currently 6 am in Dubai, and the view out the hotel window (only a couple of kms from the airport) is of thick fog.

Is there equipment/ technology that permits take offs and landings in thick fog? Are there conditions when you, say, can takeoff but can't land in fog?

 

[docjames]

As an aside, it's currently 6 am in Dubai, and the view out the hotel window (only a couple of kms from the airport) is of thick fog.

Since we're on fog, it appears it wasn't a great weather day in SYD today and some a/c had to declare (fuel) emergency.

What repercussions are there for the crew if they reach this point?

(No doubt there may be either "extenuating circumstances" and/or "not as big a repercussion as if they didn't declare and ran out completely"!).

 

[Bjet]

ATC that I've seen thus far is excellent. Given that they spoke with a mix of English, US, and Aussie accents, it would seem that many (most?) of the controllers are expats.

Yes that's correct. I have heard about it too...maybe from aviation forum website.

Have a wonderful time in Dubai!

 

[jb747]

Is there equipment/ technology that permits take offs and landings in thick fog? Are there conditions when you, say, can takeoff but can't land in fog?

Limitations vary from airport to airport, and airline to airline. But, for us, we can land in conditions with 75 metres vis, and no decision altitude. Take off minimum is restricted to 125 metres vis, so basically we can land in worse conditions than we'd use for take off. The reason for that is that the landing will be automatic, whereas the take off will be manual and allowance has to be made for the engine fail and abort/continue cases. A 3 engined autoland is a doddle, whereas loss of an outboard at V1 and heavy weight is a handful, and you cannot afford to lose visual contact with the centreline.

Operations like this require particular equipment on the ground, and the aircraft, and then crew qualification as well.

 

[jb747]

Since we're on fog, it appears it wasn't a great weather day in SYD today and some a/c had to declare (fuel) emergency.

What repercussions are there for the crew if they reach this point?

(No doubt there may be either "extenuating circumstances" and/or "not as big a repercussion as if they didn't declare and ran out completely"!).

Interesting. You don't hear fuel emergencies declared too often. I don't know what the weather was like or the circumstances, so it's really hard to say. Generally though, if the crew passed their decision points with the legal amounts of fuel, and the conditions subsequently deteriorated, or ATC wanted holding beyond what had been promulgated, there would be no repercussions for the crew.

If, on the other hand, you didn't have the fuel at the check points and continued anyway, you should place your licence in the mail to CASA and find a new job.

 

[markis10]

Believe QF108 did an autoland after declaring a PAN, TAF changed 9PM night before to be 30% chance of FOG

FT	11/05/2013 05:05->	[SIZE=-1]TAF YSSY 110505Z 1106/1212 05012KT 9999 SCT025 FM111400 29008KT 9999 FEW025 FM120200 03012KT CAVOK=[/SIZE]
FT	11/05/2013 11:00->	[SIZE=-1]TAF YSSY 111100Z NIL=[/SIZE]
FT	11/05/2013 11:06->	[SIZE=-1]TAF AMD YSSY 111106Z 1112/1218 05008KT 9999 SCT025 FM111400 29008KT 9999 FEW025 FM120200 03012KT CAVOK FM121200 29008KT 9999 FEW025 PROB30 1118/1123 0500 FG RMK=[/SIZE]

2123 was the first speci indicating RVR issues, QF108 was less than an hour out.

SPECI YSSY 112123Z 32007KT 0900 R34L/1100V1100D R34R/0175N
FG VV010 13/12 Q1026 FM2130 33005KT 3000 BR FM2230
33008KT 9999 FEW025=

 

[jb747]

TAF changed after departure. They'd be perfectly legal to continue using the TTFs, and it would only become an issue once the TTF went below the criteria.

If it changed less than an hour out, they could well have already picked up what would be intended to be the 'last' TTF for the flight, and as they have a 3 hour coverage period, a change that falls within that period is more 'gotcha' than anything else.

TTFs don't automatically uplink. You have to go and get them, so there's just always a time lag, plus you need a perceived need.

Basically it looks to me as if they were legal at the decision point, and the change was very shortly thereafter.

 

[AVC]

Mr Julesmac goes off his brain if I let my petrol get to the "lights on" stage because of the cough in the bottom of the tank.

Not wanting to start a debate here (well, maybe a little) but the tank feeds from the bottom. So any cough in the bottom of the tank is going to be fed into the fuel pipe. It's filtered before it gets to anything important, so I find this to be a strange concept. Even though I have heard it many times from many sources.

I used to have the habit of refuelling when I got down to half. Which means you always have sufficient fuel and don't end up with things like this happening (last weekend in actual fact):



Impossible to run the tank dry, btw. Being a diesel, it goes to protection mode, which reduces the engine power and basically gives you enough time to get off the road, or make to the servo if you can see it at the time.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Basically it looks to me as if they were legal at the decision point, and the change was very shortly thereafter.

I suppose we could call that a bad day at work? Not that anything would happen, but I would guess that pilots would much rather have a nice and smooth flight rather than going, at 45mins before arrival, oh, the conditions just changed...

 

[jb747]

I suppose we could call that a bad day at work? Not that anything would happen, but I would guess that pilots would much rather have a nice and smooth flight rather than going, at 45mins before arrival, oh, the conditions just changed...

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly...but, if the conditions just changed, and you have the fuel, then you fulfil them. So, if London goes out of limits, whilst I'm on the approach, and I have sufficient fuel to go to (for example) Gatwick (and it's within limits), then I go there.

But, if you then join a queue, and the expected delay is beyond the legal fuel limits, then you declare an emergency. You don't have to be out of fuel...just with a projection that is below the requirements.

We'd all prefer smooth and nice, but the reality of aviation is that we constantly make decisions that affect when, and where, we go. Sometimes that will entail a diversion, whilst at others it means going around in circles for a while. Believe me, that 'total fuel' number, is watched closely, especially when ATC start handing out low level holding.

 

[jb747]

Not wanting to start a debate here (well, maybe a little) but the tank feeds from the bottom. So any cough in the bottom of the tank is going to be fed into the fuel pipe. It's filtered before it gets to anything important, so I find this to be a strange concept. Even though I have heard it many times from many sources.

I used to have the habit of refuelling when I got down to half. Which means you always have sufficient fuel and don't end up with things like this happening (last weekend in actual fact):



Impossible to run the tank dry, btw. Being a diesel, it goes to protection mode, which reduces the engine power and basically gives you enough time to get off the road, or make to the servo if you can see it at the time.

You'll have about 5% left when it (your car) shuts you down. Which is more than a normal airline operation, on a normal day. And, as I said a few entries ago, we regularly (i.e. every flight), run tanks dry.

 

[docjames]

Aircraft fuel, including all supply chain and storage (land tanks, pipelines etc) are made/kept to a much higher standard than the average service station / petrol. So I would pass comment that car tanks/ fuel filters / engine are directly comparable to a 380/744 etc. ie. fuel quality /tanks etc in cars is a completely separate discussion to aviation....

 

[AVC]

And, as I said a few entries ago, we regularly (i.e. every flight), run tanks dry.

Don't tell Mr Julesmac! When I operated a long range truck with multi tanks I ran them dry too (not all at once)

While we're on the subject, do ground engineers still (visually) check fuel samples. I remember years ago when I worked at SYD guys poking long poles with some sort of transparent device which grabbed a fuel sample from under the wing. Presumably checking for water which would sit at the bottom of the tank.

 

[jb747]

While we're on the subject, do ground engineers still (visually) check fuel samples. I remember years ago when I worked at SYD guys poking long poles with some sort of transparent device which grabbed a fuel sample from under the wing. Presumably checking for water which would sit at the bottom of the tank.

Don't know for sure. I'll ask next time I get a chance.

 

[jb747]

Something different in London the other day....I was interviewed by the BBC (in a 380's coughpit) for an upcoming show called "Airport Live". Hopefully I didn't make a prat of myself.

The gave me a couple of GoPro 3 Blacks to get some coughpit shots with. The quality of the 3, especially in low light, is dramatically better than the 2 that I've been using, so I guess I'll have to buy my own soon. If I can arrange another flight back into London in the next couple of weeks, the aim is to simultaneously get the GP shots, plus footage from ATC and by the runway, as we land. That's been passed to the QF hierarchy to work out if they want to do it, and if so just how. It's not quite as easy as it sounds, as all of the trips within the BBC's time limit are already allocated to other pilots. I guess it amounts to free advertising though....

 

[Major]

I was bored silly at Changi this morning, so passed the time watching aircraft land. There seemed to be about 3 min between each aircraft.
Is this normal separation, I assume there need to be an allowance for any wake turbulence to dissipate ?

 

[jb747]

I was bored silly at Changi this morning, so passed the time watching aircraft land. There seemed to be about 3 min between each aircraft.
Is this normal separation, I assume there need to be an allowance for any wake turbulence to dissipate ?

The spacing has to be varied based upon the aircraft types. There is a table here....Wake turbulence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 minutes at the average approach speed would give you about 6.7 miles of separation. That would be about right for a 737/320 following a 777. For the 380, they'll keep us 4-5 miles behind the previous traffic. It's not just for wake. The preceding aircraft has to have time to actually land and then clear the runway, before the next can be given a landing clearance.

 

[oz74]

Something different in London the other day....I was interviewed by the BBC (in a 380's coughpit) for an upcoming show called "Airport Live". Hopefully I didn't make a prat of myself.

The gave me a couple of GoPro 3 Blacks to get some coughpit shots with. The quality of the 3, especially in low light, is dramatically better than the 2 that I've been using, so I guess I'll have to buy my own soon. If I can arrange another flight back into London in the next couple of weeks, the aim is to simultaneously get the GP shots, plus footage from ATC and by the runway, as we land. That's been passed to the QF hierarchy to work out if they want to do it, and if so just how. It's not quite as easy as it sounds, as all of the trips within the BBC's time limit are already allocated to other pilots. I guess it amounts to free advertising though....

Richard might get jealous if you start doing the tv work jb lol

 

[Lucky_man]

Hopefully a new question. When taxiing out to the runway for take off I wondered - do plans like 737 and a320 etc have horns? As in Beep beep. I undertsand their utility for avoiding mid air incidents would be 'limited' but it might get a ground crew out the way.

 

[jb747]

Hopefully a new question. When taxiing out to the runway for take off I wondered - do plans like 737 and a320 etc have horns? As in Beep beep. I undertsand their utility for avoiding mid air incidents would be 'limited' but it might get a ground crew out the way.

I suspect the average, or even noisier than average, horn, would be drowned out by even a small jet engine.

There is a horn associated with the intercom system, for calling the ground crew when they aren't plugged in. It's drowned by the air-con and APU, so is of limited use.