Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Last Sunday I flew on the QF127 SYD-HKG A380 Service. Speaking with the tech crew they said they had a 96hr layover in HKG before taking Thursday's evenings QF128 service back to Sydney. From what I understand the long layover is driven by the mix of 744 / 380 services currently operating the 127/128 flights. At what point (layover wise) is it determined the company would pax the crew back to Sydney rather than have them hang out in HKG?

They do the sums on all of these patterns. If it is cheaper to leave someone in place, then that's how it will be done. But, to swap them over, you'd have to 'buy' tickets for the crew southbound, and then the following day 'buy' another set for a crew to replace them. There is virtually no pay saving, but you save a little on hotel costs. You've lost access to at least 6 passenger seats, which would be a big cost if you have decent loads on the sector. I see they're adding another 380 service, so this long slip will soon disappear.

Typhoon Utor is currently bearing down on the Chinese mainland. This morning the Hong Kong Obversatory issued a Number 8 storm warning with winds reaching 86mph across Lantau island. CX have announced a bunch of cancellations and delays for today with potential for more tomorrow depending on the weather. I see the QF127 744 service is still operating today (14th August) and hopefully the QF127 A380 service will operate tomorrow (15th August) - as I am currently booked on this flight. The question for you is at what point if at all does QF operations look at the conditions and determine that a flight (todays QF127 744 service) would not depart SYD due weather at the destination? If you were PIC would Operations work that decision with you or make the determination by themselves? Alternatively if the flight has departed SYD heading to HKG is the PIC the sole determining factor on whether the flight proceeds to HKG or a suitable alternate or does QF Operations get involved?

The fleet management keeps a pretty good handle on things like typhoons. It's rare for them to discontinue operations to a place, but it does happen a few times per year, and cyclonic weather is a good driver for this sort of decision. The decisions will come from fleet captains, not planning departments. Once a flight is airborne it's up to the Captain, but ops will send you any info they find interesting.

On one occasion in the 767, fleet rang me prior to departure to suggest that I put an intermediate stop into the flight (MEL-HKG) to ensure that we arrived in HK with sufficient fuel for holding, go around, and diversion to Bangkok. So we stopped in Darwin for more fuel, flew two go arounds in HK, and then landed, still with plenty of fuel to go to BKK.

Tomorrow's forecast for HK isn't all that nice, but it's within the limits for most of the day. Might be some holding, and perhaps a few diversions, but I'd expect most arrivals would get in without issues.

 

[Alanslegal]

On one occasion in the 767, fleet rang me prior to departure to suggest that I put an intermediate stop into the flight (MEL-HKG) to ensure that we arrived in HK with sufficient fuel for holding, go around, and diversion to Bangkok. So we stopped in Darwin for more fuel, flew two go arounds in HK, and then landed, still with plenty of fuel to go to BKK.

Hi JB, using this example, if you had to divert to BKK what are the processes involved in getting permission to land there? I guess I see it from the angle that BKK isn't expecting you but now you have to go there, they have to give you the OK, slot your landing in etc so I just want to get a generally idea how diversions work in action.

 

[jb747]

Hi JB, using this example, if you had to divert to BKK what are the processes involved in getting permission to land there? I guess I see it from the angle that BKK isn't expecting you but now you have to go there, they have to give you the OK, slot your landing in etc so I just want to get a generally idea how diversions work in action.

Generally they just happen, and ATC do all they can to help. You aren't expected to have a slot, so diverting aircraft may well be pushing in, in front of aircraft that actually had BKK as a destination. I've actually done very few in my career, with most being within Australia.

There are a couple of forms of diversion. Most are initiated from the cruise, when the weather at the destination drops below what you can cover. These are pretty low key, and are mostly to closer destinations (i.e Frankfurt on the way to London). Somewhat more interesting is the case where you've actually had a go (or two) at the destination, and then need to divert. Fuel levels will be lower, and the passengers already tend to be a stressed by the go arounds (they're a pretty normal aviation event but that's not how passengers feel about them). These should be preplanned though, with the routing already loaded into the FMC, and much of the work already done. Even a simple thing like telling ATC during the approach, that if you go around you will need to divert makes all lives easier.

It's unusual to have to divert with no notice at all. Such diversions are most likely the result of aircraft problems.

 

[harvyk]

With alternate routings in the FMC. Do you keep updating the FMC along the way with alternate routing so if for instance you decide to divert to Frankfurt rather than continuing onto London you simply press a single button (we'll the minimum required to execute route 2) to enact the second routing, or if for instance you decide to divert to Frankfurt would you program in / select the correct route from where you are to Frankfurt at the time the decision was made?

 

[jb747]

With alternate routings in the FMC. Do you keep updating the FMC along the way with alternate routing so if for instance you decide to divert to Frankfurt rather than continuing onto London you simply press a single button (we'll the minimum required to execute route 2) to enact the second routing, or if for instance you decide to divert to Frankfurt would you program in / select the correct route from where you are to Frankfurt at the time the decision was made?

I keep airports of interest loaded as fixes. That gives me a constant image of where they are relative to me. I've seen people load routings, and it makes no sense to me, as the route you'd use is constantly changing as your flight progresses.

The only time I load actual routes is for 'escape' routes, used in areas of very high terrain, and for diversions from destination.

 

[Alanslegal]

Generally they just happen, and ATC do all they can to help. You aren't expected to have a slot, so diverting aircraft may well be pushing in, in front of aircraft that actually had BKK as a destination. I've actually done very few in my career, with most being within Australia.

There are a couple of forms of diversion. Most are initiated from the cruise, when the weather at the destination drops below what you can cover. These are pretty low key, and are mostly to closer destinations (i.e Frankfurt on the way to London). Somewhat more interesting is the case where you've actually had a go (or two) at the destination, and then need to divert. Fuel levels will be lower, and the passengers already tend to be a stressed by the go arounds (they're a pretty normal aviation event but that's not how passengers feel about them). These should be preplanned though, with the routing already loaded into the FMC, and much of the work already done. Even a simple thing like telling ATC during the approach, that if you go around you will need to divert makes all lives easier.

It's unusual to have to divert with no notice at all. Such diversions are most likely the result of aircraft problems.

Thanks, just so this is clearer for me if a diversion decision is made, is it as simple as telling HKG that you aren't going there (or don't want to attempt the third landing), so you radio into BKK and tell them you're on the way?

 

[jb747]

Thanks, just so this is clearer for me if a diversion decision is made, is it as simple as telling HKG that you aren't going there (or don't want to attempt the third landing), so you radio into BKK and tell them you're on the way?

There's a few people between HK and BKK. Basically HK will simply process you to leave their airspace. You may need to get onto the company to have them file a plan for you, you might do it yourself, or it may even have been a part of the original plan (or it may not even be needed). Each ATC area will simply process you along the way to the next one, until you eventually reach destination. On that particular routing, you wouldn't even talk to BKK until quite close to top of descent.

As a general rule, when diversions are happening, you aren't the only one, so you tend to follow a well worn path.

 

[docjames]

This is an interesting event, as there are a couple of different components to it.

Hail cracking a windscreen is the first part, and throws up the question as to why the approach was being flown into the weather anyway.

Alpha floor is max angle of attack, i.e. stall, protection. Basically, in normal law the aircraft will stop any further angle of attack increase, and simultaneously select TO/GA power (irrespective of the thrust lever position). It exists across all of the FBW Airbus aircraft. To get rid of TO/GA lock, you have to disconnect the autothrust, but you can immediately reengage it, and it should go back to normal operation.

I don't really see how they got from a hail event, to an alpha event, followed by what sounds like a pretty uncontrolled climb, so there is much more to this tale. I see that they landed 7 minutes later, so they must have continued the SAME approach. The pitch up/alpha event is almost certainly associated with windshear. So we have hail, windshear, thunderstorms (on the weather). Sounds like a good time to have been holding. I wonder what fuel they landed with, as any of these encounters would normally push you to a holding pattern for a while?

Interesting assessment, and I see nothing here that takes AF off my own personal "do not fly" list.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Interesting assessment, and I see nothing here that takes AF off my own personal "do not fly" list.

It almost sounds like if they were in alternate law instead of normal law, history would've repeated itself?

 

[Sprucegoose]

Interesting assessment, and I see nothing here that takes AF off my own personal "do not fly" list.

Couldn't agree more!!

 

[legroom]

Hi JB

I was browsing the Internet reading up on AF447 incident where it was mentioned that pilot errors had materially contributed to the crash:

* The junior pilot (2,500 hrs exp) kept the plane climbing up instead of descending;

* The more senior pilot in the coughpit (6,000 hrs exp) did not realise the junior's error;

* The captain (11,500 hrs exp) came on board with only one hour's sleep after some good times with his girlfriend in Rio and took > 1 min to be roused from his sleep to come up to the coughpit in response to his juniors' cry for assistance.

Leaving aside the technical aspects of the case, I wish to ask you about the pilot aspects.

Accepting that anything could happen and anyone could make errors, could you discuss why such an incident would be less likely (or quite unlikely) with QF pilots? And why, in your opinion ?

* Better selection process ?

* More frequent / realistic SIM sessions ?

* More hands-on supervision of junior with critical feedbacks on regular basis ?

And others ?

Also, for an experienced pro like yourself, what lesson(s) did you take away from AF447 ?

Cheers

 

[jb747]

I was browsing the Internet reading up on AF447 incident where it was mentioned that pilot errors had materially contributed to the crash:

Whilst the pitot issues started the whole event, and Airbus didn't make it particularly user friendly, I think most pilots consider this to be totally an 'own goal'.

The junior pilot (2,500 hrs exp) kept the plane climbing up instead of descending;

If he'd kept it climbing, there wouldn't have been a problem. What he actually did was to pitch it up, and to then hold full back stick in an attempt to hold the nose high pitch attitude. I don't think anyone in the pilot world understands why he did this. My mum could do better.

The more senior pilot in the coughpit (6,000 hrs exp) did not realise the junior's error;

Senior/junior might not have much relevance here. Who had the captain left in charge of the aircraft? I don't like the crew structure anyway. If you are going to have relief pilots, then have specialists for that job (i.e. SOs).

He had no realistic way of knowing that the other pilot was holding in aft stick. The joysticks are not interlinked, and holding aft stick is so against normal piloting logic that it just wouldn't have occurred to him to consider it.

The captain (11,500 hrs exp) came on board with only one hour's sleep after some good times with his girlfriend in Rio and took > 1 min to be roused from his sleep to come up to the coughpit in response to his juniors' cry for assistance.

That's a somewhat uncalled for leap. One hours sleep prior to long haul operations is nothing uncommon. Staring at the hotel ceiling as you try to sleep at some stupid time is the norm. And how quickly can you wake from a deep sleep and leap to the top of your game?

Leaving aside the technical aspects of the case, I wish to ask you about the pilot aspects.

Accepting that anything could happen and anyone could make errors, could you discuss why such an incident would be less likely (or quite unlikely) with QF pilots? And why, in your opinion ?

* Better selection process ?

* More frequent / realistic SIM sessions ?

* More hands-on supervision of junior with critical feedbacks on regular basis ?

Let's leave individual airlines out of this and just consider the pilot world.

In years past, the airlines got their pilots from a mix of GA and military. Both had lots of experience operating in varied conditions, without much in the way of automatics. In the case of the military guys, many would have had extensive experience of losing control of their aircraft, or at least of operating on the cusp. In some branches, if you didn't lose control every now and then, you simply weren't trying hard enough. Even the cadet schemes that existed then, fed the pilots through GA.

Contrast that with the new world. Pilots who have minimal actual flying experience, but lots of time gaining 'hours' in an airliner simulator. They are aces at procedures, and manipulating the automatics, but take them off the known path, or take the automatics away, and they really don't have much to fall back on. People in the right hand seat with 250 hours is now the norm. And yes, they'll get more hours, but they won't actually gain much more flying experience. Perhaps a few minutes here and there. Eventually they'll have 2,500 hours (pick a number) and get to move to the left hand seat. But, they'll still have less hands on experience than the average young bloke doing tourist rides in outback NT. They are gamers, but not really pilots.

AF447 should not be a flight number that we all know. There was no reason for the flight to end the way it did. A reversion to a lower law is little more than interesting. Holding the aircraft's current attitude, and perhaps adding a percent or two of power would have resulted in continued safe flight.

Power + attitude = performance. That's a mantra that is taught to all pilots. In the case of AF, they knew the power and attitude...the really didn't need to know the performance.

The Asiana accident doesn't seem that different.

 

[Skyring]

Contrast that with the new world. Pilots who have minimal actual flying experience, but lots of time gaining 'hours' in an airliner simulator. They are aces at procedures, and manipulating the automatics, but take them off the known path, or take the automatics away, and they really don't have much to fall back on. People in the right hand seat with 250 hours is now the norm. And yes, they'll get more hours, but they won't actually gain much more flying experience. Perhaps a few minutes here and there. Eventually they'll have 2,500 hours (pick a number) and get to move to the left hand seat. But, they'll still have less hands on experience than the average young bloke doing tourist rides in outback NT. They are gamers, but not really pilots.

Granted, an airliner isn't a hot-rod fighter, and the closest one gets to aerobatics is a bit of yanking and banking along the Potomac, but what you say makes a lot of sense.

Any one of us - even grandma - could be a simulator pilot with enough practise. Put a good sim pilot in a real aircraft, I dare say they could make a fist of flying from Melbourne to Sydney. But it's the times when things aren't routine that are going to catch such pilots. In my own taxidriver world, there were times when things didn't seem quite right and I made my own judgement calls not to get into a situation I couldn't handle. Or to push the panic button in good time, or whatever.

The AF447 seems like a good example here. Systems malfunctioning, middle of the night, something comes at you from nowhere. Not a spaced-out drunk with a knife, but something equally dangerous if not handled the right way.

As a passenger, I have a keen interest in knowing that the folk pulling the levers and pressing buttons up front are going to be able to handle emergencies. There's only so far a tight seatbelt and a brace position is going to go for me.

More actual experience in feeling the wind, flying with the body and not the brain, seems to be a very useful thing to have in a pilot. In the US space program, there were a couple of instances where having astronauts who were experienced combat and test pilots saved the day through what can only be described as "seat-of-the-pants". Simulators alone would not and could not have prepared the astronauts.

But my question to you - and to any other pilot - is how do we get there? Military aviation is dangerous - and expensive - and general aviation is also risky. I can understand why some nations and some airlines aren't going to have a good shot at getting the best pilots. You've mentioned the downside of lower fares previously and it seems that this is one of them.

Seeing that Asiana 777 tumbling and sliding along the ground was horrific. It could have been so much worse than it turned out. As in fact the AF447 crash was. This isn't a price I'm happy to pay. Even if I'm not on the plane.

What can we - as a community, as a nation, as a species - do to make things better if fancy computers alone aren't the answer?

Is there an answer?

 

[mjt57]

Any one of us - even grandma - could be a simulator pilot with enough practise. Put a good sim pilot in a real aircraft, I dare say they could make a fist of flying from Melbourne to Sydney.

I've flown in the B737 sim at the Flight Experience place in Melbourne. It was interesting. And as I was "flying" I knew that if something happened then we would merely reset the sim or backtrack or whatever.

At FL330 you don't have that option when doing it for real.

Where I work we have a simulator for training. Unlike JB's sessions in the sim our continued employment doesn't rely on us passing it. It's more for refresher courses and to use up owed time. Not many of us take it seriously as we can't break anything.

I watched the young guys on the simulator do OK, but then when working for real and something goes wrong, invariably they have problems dealing with it, particularly when they're hearing loud noises outside that aren't normally there...

Reading JB's take on this issue it makes me nervous to fly with the likes of VB or Tiger. So I don't. I'd like to think that Jetstar employs pilots of JB's and his colleagues' calibre since that's who I've flown with recently.

One day we'll have a bad crash in Australia. Pilot error will be the first port of call for the authorities. And how much emphasis will be placed on a lack of training or real world experience? My guess would be bugger all...

 

[jb747]

I can't really think of a good way of wording a reply, other than to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with one of your statements....

 

[legroom]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

... Contrast that with the new world. Pilots who have minimal actual flying experience, but lots of time gaining 'hours' in an airliner simulator. They are aces at procedures, and manipulating the automatics, but take them off the known path, or take the automatics away, and they really don't have much to fall back on....

Does SIM time get counted as "flying" hours ?

Scary if it did.

.... [referring to reports of the AF447 Captain having only one hour's sleep in the previous 24 hrs prior to the flight] That's a somewhat uncalled for leap. One hours sleep prior to long haul operations is nothing uncommon. Staring at the hotel ceiling as you try to sleep at some stupid time is the norm. And how quickly can you wake from a deep sleep and leap to the top of your game? .

I was more disturbed by press reports of the captain having a night out in Rio with his girlfriend the night before which may have left him "empty" in the tank.

That's somewhat different than lying in your hotel looking at the ceiling willing to relax / sleep.

The operative word is "deep" sleep.

I wonder if he had not been that exhausted and only had a light nap, would the outcome have been different ? Speculation of course.

 

[jb747]

Might I suggest that the last couple of pages don't belong in this thread....

Anyway, looking ahead.....

31/8 QF1 SYD-DXB
2/9 QF1 DXB-LHR
5/9 QF10 LHR-DXB
7/9 QF10 DXB-MEL

20/9 QF1 SYD-DXB
22/9 QF1 DXB-LHR
25/9 QF10 LHR-DXB
27/9 QF10 DXB-MEL

7/10 QF1 SYD-DXB
9/10 QF1 DXB-LHR
12/10 QF10 LHR-DXB
14/10 QF10 DXB-MEL

 

[NM]

Might I suggest that the last couple of pages don't belong in this thread....

Several posts discussing fuel costs, specific weights etc have been moved to their own thread in the Your Questions forum. All please follow that discussion in that thread.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....sion-fuel-costs-airline-operations-53166.html

 

[markis10]

The former VH TAU has been given a repaint back into QF colours, there is some discussion in the other thread about the silver strip under the retrofitted door, any ideas why it's there and not painted please:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....first-qf-737f-repainted-53173.html#post882846

I wonder what makes some aircraft suitable for freighter conversion while others take the one way trip to being parted out?

 

[Skyhigh777]

JB, i have a bit of a random question. Do pilots own their own headsets, or do you use whatever's in the coughpit? Seems like it would be a personal piece of equipment. Do you have a personal preference of what headset you like to use?

Thanks