Ask The Pilot

[anat0l]

A shiny new aircraft, and pretty hostie does not an airline make....

I agree, but talking to many uninformed people, they definitely talk more about the <5 year old plane and hot FAs than they do about the skilled pilot which navigated a complex rigmarole of a contraption across several thousand miles.

The public have ill perceptions too, and that's also helping dictate (perhaps unfortunately) the course of the airline industry going forth. Oh for the romantic days.

Sorry, didn't mean to politicise this thread.

 

[mjt57]

When discussing airlines and which ones to choose, people seemed to prefer the ones with the "hotter hostesses". That and cheaper airfares, too.

Me, my first priority is how well the aircraft are maintained and the level of training and standards to which pilots are trained.

JB talking about low or zero hour FOs is a bit of a concern. You'd hope that the guy sitting in the left seat would be a tad more experienced (and talented), though...

When QF32 (I think) had its engine incident, it was interesting to read that the SO, the lowliest of the crew members, was an ex-F18 driver. If that's the min. level that QF has then I think that we should be in good hands.

 

[Boris spatsky]

Historically the RAAF guys have no trouble getting into any of the airlines, though Cathay was always their airline of choice. From what rumours I've heard, the military no longer bother with QF as they are not interested in Jetstar, and mainline hasn't recruited for years.

Unfortunately, a lot of RAAF pilots are not moving to the airlines. A starting salary on an Australian airline now as an FO on a jet is 45-55% of the salary a RAAF pilot is on when they can leave. And these are not the larger legacy carriers like QF and VA, as neither airline is recruiting for jet slots at present. Cathay is only accepting local pilot applicants now, and most RAAF pilots don't meet the minimum entry requirements for Emirates etc.

Plenty are either staying in the RAAF system, or taking up other vocations. A lot of pilots going to the mines as managers as well.

The industry unfortunately has chased the cheap fares which has in turn eroded crew salaries. The influx of ex-military now i would call a trickle (since Jan 13).

 

[mjt57]

most RAAF pilots don't meet the minimum entry requirements for Emirates etc.

What are the RAAF guys missing here?

As for military pilots leaving the industry it must suck, I reckon.

We had a guy who left the airlines (not sure which, either Jetstar or Qantas) and got a job in the power industry so he could be closer to family. He lasted about a month before returning to flying. I heard as an A380 driver, but not sure.

Certainly, if he is/was/now is with Jetstar he'd have taken a pay cut to go back to flying.

 

[Boris spatsky]

What are the RAAF guys missing here?.

Emirates FO requires 4000 hours total hours minimum, and 2500 multi-crew, multi-engine jet to apply.

Very few RAAF pilots who choose to leave have 4000 total hours, and even fewer have 2500 MC, ME jet.

A Hornet is not multi-crew, and few of the transport guys get the 2500 hours jet before they leave (although that may change soon with the increase in jet types online now in the RAAF such as C17 and KC30).

 

[markis10]

Emirates FO requires 4000 hours total hours minimum, and 2500 multi-crew, multi-engine jet to apply.

Very few RAAF pilots who choose to leave have 4000 total hours, and even fewer have 2500 MC, ME jet.

A Hornet is not multi-crew, and few of the transport guys get the 2500 hours jet before they leave (although that may change soon with the increase in jet types online now in the RAAF such as C17 and KC30).

Not to mention the wedge tails and BBJs, of which there has been a close link with VA for many of the crew since 2002 since they do the training.

 

[mjt57]

Emirates FO requires 4000 hours total hours minimum, and 2500 multi-crew, multi-engine jet to apply.

Wow, that seems to be a lot.

How many years of airline service would it take for a pilot to get 4,000 hrs? Presumably Emirates is targeting current airline pilots in its recruitment process?

 

[Boris spatsky]

Wow, that seems to be a lot.

How many years of airline service would it take for a pilot to get 4,000 hrs? Presumably Emirates is targeting current airline pilots in its recruitment process?

Yes, i don't know any Emirates guys who have recently joined who have not flown airlines or corporate jets first.

Airline guys will get 4000 hours in 5-6 years; corporate will generally take a little longer, and military would take over 10 years.

 

[FuzzyAUS]

Hi JB747,

As always, thanks for the effort you put in here!!

I am sitting in the Qantas SYD lounge at the moment, OQE is QF1 this afternoon (i am heading over the pond to NZ), however she is running quite late, the question i have for you..

She is still at the gate, i cant see the APU running (looking for heat haze from the tale), there are 2 air-bridges still attached and upstairs has its apron/cover pulled back, the bit that gets me is the tug isnt connected, the strobes have been turned on and #1 has been fired up... there is about 8 people around the nosewheel (who have now just disconnected ground power)..

i have never seen an engine fired up while at the gate, i am used to the APU running and providing startup power after pushback etc.

Could it be that the APU is US so they are using #1 for power? is that normal? i cant see #2,3,4 from where i am sitting so would there be another running or can #1 provide enough power etc?

Thanks
Fuzz

 

[FuzzyAUS]

So further to my previous post, she has now pushed back (an hour late) and i can see #3 and #4 are running to, only #2 is at natural slow windmill for the ground.

I understand from previously that there is no issues as long as its noted and you follow a slightly different procedure.. so a follow up question would be how long would/could OQE go without the APU being fixed.

To be clear, i dont have any issues with the situation, thats life, thats why there are other options, but would it be fixed in Dubai or London or would it be fixed back here in AUS when she returns? (obviously we dont know what the issue is etc)

Thanks again

 

[jb747]

So further to my previous post, she has now pushed back (an hour late) and i can see #3 and #4 are running to, only #2 is at natural slow windmill for the ground.

I understand from previously that there is no issues as long as its noted and you follow a slightly different procedure.. so a follow up question would be how long would/could OQE go without the APU being fixed.

To be clear, i dont have any issues with the situation, thats life, thats why there are other options, but would it be fixed in Dubai or London or would it be fixed back here in AUS when she returns? (obviously we dont know what the issue is etc)

The red strobes are on any time the aircraft engine(s) are running.

The APU isn't very high on the list of important items. It's quite possible that the APU is actually working but it may not be providing sufficient bleed to start the engines. In any event, it's normal to start a couple of engines at the gate in that circumstance, and to then cross bleed start the others. Lack of the APU doesn't affect the in flight operation at all.

Nothing will happen in Dubai. It may be looked at in London. It could operate like that for quite a few days...all depends what the issue is.

 

[QF WP]

Listening to ABC Radio - Steve Austin is interviewing Dave Evans, the SCC aboard QF32 with Richard Champion de Crespigny.

My wife let me know about it, so I have missed the beginning. Whilst he was the most senior officer aboard, he decried the fact that he should have taken over.

Which made me think, jb747 what are the situations (medical incapacity, etc) where an FO (or SCC if on board) should take over controls. Does the PIC actually have to cede control formally (verbally)?

 

[jb747]

Listening to ABC Radio - Steve Austin is interviewing Dave Evans, the SCC aboard QF32 with Richard Champion de Crespigny.

My wife let me know about it, so I have missed the beginning. Whilst he was the most senior officer aboard, he decried the fact that he should have taken over.

Which made me think, jb747 what are the situations (medical incapacity, etc) where an FO (or SCC if on board) should take over controls. Does the PIC actually have to cede control formally (verbally)?

It's not "Pilot in Command" subject to the whims of others. Richard was the boss. The other two Captains were simply additional. It doesn't matter who is senior, they aren't at the top of the tree in that aircraft.

The way it operates differs depending upon just what is going on. For instance, on my sector to Dubai the other day, because I hadn't flown for a couple of months, I was flying with a training Captain. Whilst there are some elements of a check to this sector, its main aim was to give any training necessary after the time off. So, in that case, I sat in the left seat and made all the decisions as usual, but the TC displaced the FO and sat in the right. Legally he was really the Captain.

A route check is a normal line operation which the training guys are there to OBSERVE. They are not in the chain of command of the aircraft.

SCCs are really no different to CCs (or TCs) except that they spend most of their lives in the simulator.

Dave is very interesting to listen to. He is very humble, and extremely knowledgable. I must admit that I'm surprised there are still interviews. Are people really still interested?

 

[QF WP]

It's not "Pilot in Command" subject to the whims of others. Richard was the boss. The other two Captains were simply additional. It doesn't matter who is senior, they aren't at the top of the tree in that aircraft.

The way it operates differs depending upon just what is going on. For instance, on my sector to Dubai the other day, because I hadn't flown for a couple of months, I was flying with a training Captain. Whilst there are some elements of a check to this sector, its main aim was to give any training necessary after the time off. So, in that case, I sat in the left seat and made all the decisions as usual, but the TC displaced the FO and sat in the right. Legally he was really the Captain.

A route check is a normal line operation which the training guys are there to OBSERVE. They are not in the chain of command of the aircraft.

SCCs are really no different to CCs (or TCs) except that they spend most of their lives in the simulator.

Thanks for the clarification about the chain of command jb747. So where does the FO sit in those instances when a TC is onboard and what functions did they (the FO) perform during the flight (normal functions just without any flying)?

As an aside, I understand there was an AFF'er on your SYD/DXB flight - hope they got to introduce themselves.

Dave is very interesting to listen to. He is very humble, and extremely knowledgable.

That's how he came across as well.

I must admit that I'm surprised there are still interviews. Are people really still interested?

Perhaps they asked for an interview with Richard and he was unavailable so Dave took the slot? Would like to know how many people (like me) were interested and tuned in; compared with how many tuned out (no interest in aviation or superstitious/uncomfortable about listening).

 

[jb747]

Thanks for the clarification about the chain of command jb747. So where does the FO sit in those instances and what functions did they perform during the flight?

On the flight the other day he performs the function of 'safety pilot'. Basically he's there to yell at us both if we do something wrong. He displaced an SO.

As an aside, I understand there was an AFF'er on your SYD/DXB flight - hope they got to introduce themselves.

Wrong flight. I came out of Melbourne.

Perhaps they asked for an interview with Richard and he was unavailable so Dave took the slot?

I think it's fair to say that different members of that crew have treated the event in vastly different ways. For most it's a good bar story...but after a while you'd really like it all to go away. Others have a more entrepreneurial bent.

 

[QF WP]

On the flight the other day he performs the function of 'safety pilot'. Basically he's there to yell at us both if we do something wrong. He displaced an SO.

Perish the thought - but always good to have someone who's got your back. The poor SO still has a seat on the Flight Deck??

Wrong flight. I came out of Melbourne.

Whoops, quite correct - meant to type MEL (QF9) but SYD came out

I think it's fair to say that different members of that crew have treated the event in vastly different ways. For most it's a good bar story...but after a while you'd really like it all to go away. Others have a more entrepreneurial bent.

You're the type 1 then...

 

[mjt57]

The red strobes are on any time the aircraft engine(s) are running.

It's quite possible that the APU is actually working but it may not be providing sufficient bleed to start the engines.

I'd have to guess that the APU's performance would suffer in hotter climates. ie. ambient air not as dense, compressors work harder for the same amount of airflow, etc.. So, in Dubai, for example, how do your APUs go in starting the engines?

 

[jb747]

I'd have to guess that the APU's performance would suffer in hotter climates. ie. ambient air not as dense, compressors work harder for the same amount of airflow, etc.. So, in Dubai, for example, how do your APUs go in starting the engines?

The APU has no problem starting the engines (which we do two at a time). We could always reduce the load just by starting one.

APU issues were showing up in Dubai during the hot months. The problem wasn't so much the APU, but whilst it was being run to keep the air-conditioning going, the ducts were overheating. This was being sensed by the system as a 'duct leak', which led to the system automatically closing off the APU bleed. The workaround was to ensure that air was provided from the terminal for as long as possible (basically make the air-con plumbing the last thing disconnected before push back). The engine bleed had no problem running the packs.

Additionally, because heavy weight take offs in hot conditions are quite limiting, one procedure for getting better performance is a 'packs off' take off. Having no air-conditioning to the cabin, even for the few minutes needed, is undesirable, so the other way of doing this is to run the packs off the APU for take off. Normally you'd set this up as soon you started, but again, to limit the time the APU was used for this, the technique was to select the APU bleed as we neared the runway. It's the last checklist item anyway, so that isn't an issue.

I understand that by next season the system logic will have been changed....

 

[harvyk]

Additionally, because heavy weight take offs in hot conditions are quite limiting, one procedure for getting better performance is a 'packs off' take off.

In the 747, is it standard to turn off one or two of the packs leaving only run running during take-offs, or would you simply leave all three going unless circumstances dictate?

 

[jb747]

In the 747, is it standard to turn off one or two of the packs leaving only run running during take-offs, or would you simply leave all three going unless circumstances dictate?

I don't recall ever doing one in the 747. Looking at the manual there are two procedures, one using the APU to feed just the centre pack, and the other with all off.