Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
jb747 said:
Much of the northern Pacific is controlled by Oakland Centre. So, yes, you're always being controlled by some ATC agency. A flight from Sydney to LA, will have you talking (much of the time via data link) with Sydney, Brisbane, Nandi, Oakland, SoCal. You might also deal with Tahiti, Auckland and Honolulu.

There is an entire department dedicated to flight planning...and they are an extremely professional mob.
Click to expand...

After our Tokyo-SYD flight ended up over Manila due to volcanic ash the flight planners worked like crazy to prevent us having to stop in Brisbane , they did well.
 
rechoboam said:
After our Tokyo-SYD flight ended up over Manila due to volcanic ash the flight planners worked like crazy to prevent us having to stop in Brisbane , they did well.
Click to expand...
Well, in that sort of situation, most of the work is done by the crew. Aircraft are often rerouted by events, and whilst it's sometimes initiated from the base, most times it comes from the crew/ATC. A case in point is Afghanistan, in which you will often be rerouted by ATC. That has the effect of having you leave Afghan airspace at a totally different point; quite likely a different country entirely to what was planned. In that case the crew will simply reprogram the FMC with the cleared route, and then call up flight planning and have them run a new flight plan, starting from some point 30 or 40 minutes down the road. Tell them how much fuel you expect to have at that point, and the eta, and then start the plan from there. Once completed, it will be uplinked to us, and once we're happy, loaded into the FMC. And they refile the flight plan with the downstream ATC organisations, so that our new routing doesn't come as a surprise to them.
 
Check out the latest credit card signup bonus point offers
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

jb747 said:
Well, in that sort of situation, most of the work is done by the crew. Aircraft are often rerouted by events, and whilst it's sometimes initiated from the base, most times it comes from the crew/ATC. A case in point is Afghanistan, in which you will often be rerouted by ATC. That has the effect of having you leave Afghan airspace at a totally different point; quite likely a different country entirely to what was planned. In that case the crew will simply reprogram the FMC with the cleared route, and then call up flight planning and have them run a new flight plan, starting from some point 30 or 40 minutes down the road. Tell them how much fuel you expect to have at that point, and the eta, and then start the plan from there. Once completed, it will be uplinked to us, and once we're happy, loaded into the FMC. And they refile the flight plan with the downstream ATC organisations, so that our new routing doesn't come as a surprise to them.
Click to expand...
The captain paid great tribute to tech staff over the PA. Maybe some modesty there?
 
With the fog in PER the other night, here are a few questions.

How long into the flight does one decide to divert due to fog?

773 left an hour or so earlier then 481, but had to divert to ADL, where as 481 made it in.

What is the biggest aircraft that can land at KGI? 569 (which was a 763) made it there, but there is roughly 2000 metres, so I would imagine that is not a lot of room?
 
mannej said:
With the fog in PER the other night, here are a few questions.

How long into the flight does one decide to divert due to fog?

773 left an hour or so earlier then 481, but had to divert to ADL, where as 481 made it in.
Click to expand...
Depends how much fuel you have. In a perfect world, you'd have enough to go all the way to destination, shoot an approach, and then decide at the minima. In practice, Perth is so far from its diversion options, that that becomes unlikely. And, it depends when the fog appeared on the forecasts/actuals. It is quite possible that when flight planning was done, that fog was not on the forecast, in which case there is no need for any alternate to be carried. In that case, the scenario of the earlier departure having to divert, whilst the later one (with, perhaps, a better forecast) carried enough fuel to allow an approach to be made, becomes quite likely.

When I was flying the 767, I recall sometimes carrying the east coast alternates (of course, depending upon where you've come from, you may not be able to carry that much extra fuel). The issue is that it is prone to fog that turns up quite late on the forecasts, the approach aids aren't much chop - Cat II/III is a rarity in Oz, and even where it does exist, has only turned up in the last year or so, it is a long way from anywhere (so you need even more fuel)...


What is the biggest aircraft that can land at KGI? 569 (which was a 763) made it there, but there is roughly 2000 metres, so I would imagine that is not a lot of room?
Click to expand...
It's a long time since I've been to Perth, or had occasion to look at the details for Kal, but last time I did look, the max was a 767. Problem too, is that there is only parking space for one, so if two divert there, you end up blocking the taxiway or runway. Your next option after that is Learmonth. As the fog isn't going to clear any time soon, if you do end up there, you're most likely going to be stuck for the night (consider the transport/accommodation implications)...and by the time the fog clears, the crew will be out of hours anyway. It's an alternate of sorts, but one you don't ever want to have to use.

Consider the really long haul operations. There, you're doing the planning based upon a forecast that will have been issued 18 or so hours before your planned arrival. Coming from London to Singapore, the minimum planned fuel on arrival (380) will be about 12 tonnes. That leaves a 5 tonne buffer over the absolute minimum, but it's likely to be eaten into by anything that doesn't go exactly as planned. So, if neither KL or Singapore require an alternate, but being basically untrusting of forecasts, an obvious solution is to carry KL as a alternate. The bare mimimum to do this requires about another 2.5 tonnes at destination, but because that ups the weight for the entire flight, it will cost about 1.5 tonnes, just to carry it. So, you'd need to order another 4 tonnes. Cost of that is about $1600. So, at that point, assuming I don't use any more fuel than planned (i.e. everything goes according to plan), then I will have a bare bones amount of fuel to divert to KL. But, the chances of everything going exactly according to plan are slight, and if I burn even a couple of hundred kilos more that planned, that diversion fuel won't remain sacrosanct, in which case I'll no longer have what was needed to divert....so quite honestly, I may as well not have put any extra on at all. So...now you need some extra to 'protect' that margin. And so it goes. If you divert the 32, it will add about 3 hours to the total journey time, so it is unlikely to make the curfew in Sydney....another complication to consider.
 
How much scope does a pilot have to cancel a flight if they feel an aircraft is unairworthy (or that something along the way may cause problems eg weather)? Is it a case of the pilot needs a damn fine reason or could a pilot sit down in the coughpit and simply "get a vibe" that something isn't right.

I guess the other part to this is even with scope, how confident can the pilot be that they will still have a job next week...
 
JB - awesome thread, haven't come across any other way the general public can ask questions of such an experienced pilot!

I'm assuming jet fuel is quite different to normal car petrol, but if 4 tonnes of fuel costs $1600, thats some bulk discount over what we pay at the bowser.

One question I had was that a couple of years ago flying LAX-BNE the pilot said ATC had let them land and "roll" all the way to the end of the runway rather than do the reverse thrust of a normal landing. What would be the reason for this, would it be checking conditions or performance or something else?
 
bryanjones said:
I'm assuming jet fuel is quite different to normal car petrol, but if 4 tonnes of fuel costs $1600, thats some bulk discount over what we pay at the bowser.
Click to expand...
Sadly that's not the cost of buying the 4 tonnes. But rather the cost of that part of it which will be burnt, just to carry it. If we didn't burn any of it, it would cost nothing, as it would all be intact at the end of the flight.

The fuel itself is simply kerosene, with some anti freeze additives. Jets are quite versatile in what they can burn (at the design stage anyway).

One question I had was that a couple of years ago flying LAX-BNE the pilot said ATC had let them land and "roll" all the way to the end of the runway rather than do the reverse thrust of a normal landing. What would be the reason for this, would it be checking conditions or performance or something else?
Click to expand...
Known as a "roll through". It is offered by ATC when the aircraft needs to go to a spot that is near the end of the runway (international terminal at Brisbane, after landing in a southerly direction, or domestic in Sydney after landing on 34L). Normally there will be traffic behind you, either taking off or landing, so ATC want you off the runway as soon as possible. But, if it doesn't delay other traffic, it will be offered. Allows the use of idle reverse, and minimum braking, which is much easier on the aircraft, and rather nicer in the cabin.
 
Last edited:
harvyk said:
How much scope does a pilot have to cancel a flight if they feel an aircraft is unairworthy (or that something along the way may cause problems eg weather)? Is it a case of the pilot needs a damn fine reason or could a pilot sit down in the coughpit and simply "get a vibe" that something isn't right.
Click to expand...
This is where the 'culture' of the airline comes into play. And why I've said previously that CEOs/management can reduce safety, but they can do nothing to improve it.

The culture that I've grown up with is one in which an aircraft simply will not be taken flying if there is any doubt about it whatsoever. The engineers won't sign it out, nor would the pilots accept it. End of story.

I've refused to accept MELs (which are basically 'acceptable' defects, and which are defined by Boeing and Airbus in huge manuals). In that case the engineers attempt to apply it because the manual says they can...it is up to me to decide whether I will accept the implications or restrictions it might impose. In each case where I've refused to accept the MEL, it has simply resulted in a delay which in turn gave the engineers time to fix the item to my satisfaction. A simple example...an aircraft going to HK which had a requirement for the wheels to be left extended for two minutes after take off (because the retraction braking wasn't working on one wheel). That was not an issue for me, as I was departing Melbourne. But, out of HK, off one of the 07s, you take off towards high terrain...that MEL imposes such a massive weight penalty (because they have to consider the engine failure case) that the aircraft would not be able to depart. The engineers are not pilots, they don't have to consider departure performance a sector or two away.

Just having a 'vibe' isn't going to go very far. Sitting in an aluminium tube at 1000 feet per second, gives most people bad vibes anyway. You can always quantify it...otherwise you probably should consider another job.

Weather...the Captain has absolute authority there. It's up to you whether you go, divert, return. Whatever. Again, it will normally be quantifiable. But, I've declined to depart HK twice; once in the terminal, and once after taxiing to the holding point.

I guess the other part to this is even with scope, how confident can the pilot be that they will still have a job next week...
Click to expand...
Well, we get into management politics here. I very much doubt that the culture of any of the LCCs is anything like the one I'm used to. And I'm sure that threats against jobs are very much the norm...but it won't be outright stated that way. In my case though, if I refuse to take an aircraft, I would expect a phone call from my fleet manager. Let's face it, I've just cost them a lot of money..but as it would never be something I'd do frivolously, I'd simply explain my position and I'd expect that to be the end of the story. I'm quite certain that other aviation cultures would react differently...and it was quite notable on the day that we did taxi back from the holding point that a couple of others elected to go (whilst another gaggle joined me back at the terminal).

Any attempt at forcing the issue would result in an incident report...and one might ultimately expect the sort of reaction we've seen from CASA with Tiger.
 
Don't know which airline you work with but this is why I fly QF; I work in a high risk environment too.

Having examined the Ventura approach can you tell me how a LAX to ORD approach usually goes? I assume the winds sweep in from the lake?
 
rechoboam said:
Don't know which airline you work with but this is why I fly QF; I work in a high risk environment too. Having examined the Ventura approach can you tell me how a LAX to ORD approach usually goes? I assume the winds sweep in from the lake?
Click to expand...
JB is very much Qantas.
 
Thanks samh004, very fortunate to have just logged in so have turned it on now


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app
 
Wow, amazing photography...reminded me of my Concorde flight with the view. "Coffin corner" was interesting - change the speed by more than 10 knots at that altitude and it would come tumbling down from level flight. Not something that I think any U2 pilot would want...or any pilot.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app
 
Just watched and amazed by the pictures. It is a long held dream of mine to one day see the curvature of the planet like that.

Thanks Sam for the heads up.

ejb


Sent from my iPhone so please ignore auto corrects!
 
On multi-engined plane (thinking 4 engined planes like A380 \ B747) whilst I know that each engine's throttle can be controlled independantly, is there something which "joins" all 4 throttle levers together so that the pilot doesn't need to be careful to push all levers at the same time.

For example, if a pilot pushes throttles 2-3-4 will 1 also follow? Or would engine 1 not speed up?
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 8 more.
Total: 337 (members: 58, guests: 279)
Back
Top