Ask The Pilot

[777]

Its a religious group (the exclusive brethren) and it happens every year, I don't think QF have the 744s to spare now.

I would have gone with "platinum brethren"... certainly would have made it easier to converts around here.

 

[Flying Fox]

Can you tell us about QFs method/policy on testing pilots for alcohol or substance usage (if you are allowed to do so)?

Also are cabin crew subject to alcohol/substance testing?

Also what are the implications of failing any test?

Thanks in advance and I understand if you are unable to discuss these things in public.

 

[jb747]

Can you tell us about QFs method/policy on testing pilots for alcohol or substance usage (if you are allowed to do so)?

Also are cabin crew subject to alcohol/substance testing?

Also what are the implications of failing any test?

Thanks in advance and I understand if you are unable to discuss these things in public.

There is a random testing system...and I'll leave it at that.

 

[VRC]

Hello JB. Thank you for your extensive contributions to this fantastic thread.
My question is regarding reliability and number of faults experienced with the A380. I assume we are well through the initial part of the bath tub failure curve for this product.
How does it compare with your previous experiences with Boeing's? Issues resolved quickly, number of issues encountered, more software than hardware related etc?
Thanks

 

[jb747]

My question is regarding reliability and number of faults experienced with the A380. I assume we are well through the initial part of the bath tub failure curve for this product.
How does it compare with your previous experiences with Boeing's? Issues resolved quickly, number of issues encountered, more software than hardware related etc?

I was fortunate to fly the 747-400 when it was originally introduced, and recall that it wasn't all that reliable at the start. Most issues were software, though Boeing did make a lot of mechanical changes between the 300 and 400 models, and some of them gave issues for a while.

In the 4 years that I've flown the A380, I've seen very few mechanical issues. Probably 90% of the problems have been related to software, and in part that has been caused by having tolerances that were simply set to too fine a level. In the early days it was rare to do a flight without having at least one ECAM (though generally they were 'for information' only). Now it's rare for any messages at all. Our tech logs have been progressively been becoming 'cleaner' with fewer hold items...to the point that a 'clean' aircraft is now common.

In the last year or so, I'd say that the 380 has been very good, and most likely the equal of the -400 at its best. Probably the biggest remaining issue is simply that the supply of spare parts is quite constrained. They're only kept in a few places around the world, and the aircraft itself is still a relative rarity.

 

[Flying Fox]

When pilots do a walk-around the aircraft what do you check/look-for?

In addition, are they an effective procedure in picking up problems and how often are problems picked up??

Thanks

 

[MEL_Traveller]

jb, my question relates to emergency procedures.

during an unplanned emergency, for example the recent OZ incident at SFO, or the TG aircraft running off the runway at bkk (possible undercarriage collapse on landing)... how much opportunity would either of the pilots have to issue a 'brace brace' command from the flight deck?

 

[jb747]

When pilots do a walk-around the aircraft what do you check/look-for?

In large part, look for things that are different.

Specific things are any sensors...making sure the covers are off, and that they haven't been damaged. Aerobridges get very close, and many a bridge has left a mark where it shouldn't. The aircraft have very often been towed just prior to us taking it over, so we double check that the gear pins have been removed (and we won't start the preflight until the engineers remove them). Anything that can open, you'll look at to make sure it's closed .... cowl latches in particular. Condition of engine blades and liners. Prior to any night flight, the nav lights. Tyre and brake wear.

In addition, are they an effective procedure in picking up problems and how often are problems picked up??

Is it effective? Compared to what? Not doing it? Things aren't found often, perhaps 1% of the time. And even then they are often minor. But, in aviation the more holes in the cheese that you plug the better.

Something else that I always do when doing the external preflight is to have a look around. It's a good chance to look at the sky, and see if there's anything nasty there. Have a think about the wind. Try to find the big picture....

 

[jb747]

during an unplanned emergency, for example the recent OZ incident at SFO, or the TG aircraft running off the runway at bkk (possible undercarriage collapse on landing)... how much opportunity would either of the pilots have to issue a 'brace brace' command from the flight deck?

Pretty much zero.

The SFO accident was extremely violent, and everyone would have been a passenger during it. Prior to impact, perhaps one of the non flying pilots could have said something, but I just don't think they understood what was happening.

The Thai event seems to have been a undercarriage failure, so no warning, and the pilots would have been at 100% just trying to get it under control. In that sort of event though, the cabin crew are the best placed to feel something going wrong, and to start calling 'brace'.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Pretty much zero.

The SFO accident was extremely violent, and everyone would have been a passenger during it. Prior to impact, perhaps one of the non flying pilots could have said something, but I just don't think they understood what was happening.

The Thai event seems to have been a undercarriage failure, so no warning, and the pilots would have been at 100% just trying to get it under control. In that sort of event though, the cabin crew are the best placed to feel something going wrong, and to start calling 'brace'.

thanks jb. this confirms what I suspected.

the issue arose in talking with some friends who are cabin crew (not from an australian airline) who advised they are not permitted to initiate a 'brace' command under any circumstance. this can only come from the flight deck.

I asked them to refer both the above examples to their trainers and the subsequent response was the same (you not permitted to initiate the brace command).

ironically, one airline following this procedure gives each crew member 100 per cent authority to self initiate a [slide] evacuation. the ability to initiate an evacuation is independent of the flight deck or of the cabin crew member in charge.

i have trouble reconciling the two.

 

[jb747]

The issue arose in talking with some friends who are cabin crew (not from an australian airline) who advised they are not permitted to initiate a 'brace' command under any circumstance. this can only come from the flight deck.

I asked them to refer both the above examples to their trainers and the subsequent response was the same (you not permitted to initiate the brace command).

ironically, one airline following this procedure gives each crew member 100 per cent authority to self initiate a [slide] evacuation. the ability to initiate an evacuation is independent of the flight deck or of the cabin crew member in charge.

i have trouble reconciling the two.

So do I. My experience is the exact opposite, with 'evacuation' coming from the coughpit, and 'brace' from whomever is best placed to make the call. If one (cabin crew) starts calling 'brace' then they all will, until the situation is resolved.

In the worst case, an unnecessary 'brace' call has no downside other than embarrassment. Evacuations on the other hand will always hurt some people, and once started can't be stopped. Putting people down a slide will break some bones. Additionally, the evacuation has to be timed to occur after the engines are shut down. Surviving the slide, only to be eaten by an engine wouldn't be good.

 

[Skyring]

...Additionally, the evacuation has to be timed to occur after the engines are shut down. Surviving the slide, only to be eaten by an engine wouldn't be good.

This brings up - apart from my lunch - something that I've sometimes idly wondered about. Why not have some sort of screen over the engine intake? It would prevent unwary mechanics, stray rocks and spare parts from being ingested. I realise that most jet engines can happily swallow birds, but we had that Hudson River thing a while back. Wouldn't it be a bonus to have something to stop pelicans from finding their eternal rest in a turbine?

 

[jb747]

This brings up - apart from my lunch - something that I've sometimes idly wondered about. Why not have some sort of screen over the engine intake? It would prevent unwary mechanics, stray rocks and spare parts from being ingested. I realise that most jet engines can happily swallow birds, but we had that Hudson River thing a while back. Wouldn't it be a bonus to have something to stop pelicans from finding their eternal rest in a turbine?

I think you'll find that it would simply act as an impediment to the airflow, and stop the engine working properly. They are sometimes used on smaller engines, when being ground tested, but once you start pushing them through the air at mach .8 you'd effectively have big speedbrakes.

 

[markis10]

Maybe a question for "ask the engineer", as in what sort of shield would provide little air resistance yet have the ability to absorb the kinetic energy of a 5kg mass travelling at 500 kmh?

 

[Kerrodt]

Markis10, I'm no engineer but I'm guessing that the answer is "nothing" particularly on a cost/benefit basis.

 

[Flying Fox]

I was watching a YouTube clip of an A380 doing a go around after some cross winds knocked it around during an attempted landing.

What's the time lag between the pilot pushing forward the engine levers and the A380 start to climb back into the sky?

 

[jb747]

I was watching a YouTube clip of an A380 doing a go around after some cross winds knocked it around during an attempted landing.

What's the time lag between the pilot pushing forward the engine levers and the A380 start to climb back into the sky?

If the engines are at the normal approach power setting, it's pretty much instantaneous.

I assume the video is of the Emirates aircraft...in which case the engines were at idle, and three or four seconds would be required.

 

[Flying Fox]

If the engines are at the normal approach power setting, it's pretty much instantaneous.

I assume the video is of the Emirates aircraft...in which case the engines were at idle, and three or four seconds would be required.

Thanks for the response.

The video I was watching is below

http://youtu.be/wjZV_eeiUnw

From a non-pilot, I was watching and thought with all that movement the pilot would have called a go around at approx the 10sec mark but the aircraft doesn't seem to gain any altitude until about the 20sec mark and hence I thought that the delay may have been cause by the need for the engines to spool up.

 

[jb747]

Thanks for the response.

The video I was watching is below

A380

From a non-pilot, I was watching and thought with all that movement the pilot would have called a go around at approx the 10sec mark but the aircraft doesn't seem to gain any altitude until about the 20sec mark and hence I thought that the delay may have been cause by the need for the engines to spool up.

Tokyo can be a terrible place to land....

My guess is that he starts the go around at about the 20 second mark.

The Airbus is somewhat harder to handle than the Boeing in crosswinds, mainly because it has to be aligned within 5º of the track at touchdown, whereas with the Boeing you could land with all of the drift intact. As soon as you align the aircraft, it starts going downwind, so you cannot afford to flare high, as has happened here. In a small aircraft you can drop a wing to stop the displacement, but that doesn't work well in such a large aircraft. The fact that roll control is still in normal law also tends to make getting a small amount of bank difficult.

 

[Major]

In post #4725 you noted that 90% of A380 issues were related to software.

Are software upgrades generated by the operator or must they emanate from the manufacturer ?