Ask The Pilot

[drewbles]

I think that one of the three is currently shut down awaiting disposal, so there's your chance. You'll need a big shed, and friendly electricity supplier.

All electricity suppliers would be very friendly if you wanted the feed in for one of those beasts. I'm sure they'd be ecstatic at your first power bill after too

 

[petercr]

Nothing that an array of solar panels on the shed roof couldn't supply...

(and as long as you only flew night sims during the day)

 

[HW]

I think that one of the three is currently shut down awaiting disposal, so there's your chance. You'll need a big shed, and friendly electricity supplier.

...and an enormous block of concrete to mount it on. Think of a block of concrete about the size of an average swimming pool and twice as deep.

 

[mjt57]

...and an enormous block of concrete to mount it on.

How heavy is a B744 (or any of these sims) simulator?

And no, I won't be getting it...

 

[harvyk]

How heavy is a B744 (or any of these sims) simulator?

And no, I won't be getting it...

Me thinks that if you just rocked up with a box trailer, they'd laugh...
I can't be sure, but I suspect at least the smaller plane sims give the real planes a run for their money weight wise...

 

[markis10]

How heavy is a B744 (or any of these sims) simulator?

And no, I won't be getting it...

If you win Ozlotto there are a few on offer:

Global Simulator Exchange - Surplus/Used Simulators for Sales

 

[HW]

How heavy is a B744 (or any of these sims) simulator?

And no, I won't be getting it...

I don't mean to hijack the thread away from "ask the pilot" but since the question was asked: from my vague memory of the 737 sim project I was involved in, it weighed over a tonne. However the weight itself is not the issue - it's that this weight is being flung around, often quite abruptly, using hydraulic rams.

 

[albatross710]

JB, how is the maintenance release of the aircraft carried out. At what pilot is the aircraft handed to the captain as being "in control."

With the number of people working in and around the aircraft how is the responsibility delineated?

At what point is the captain handing over the aircraft to maintenance at the destination?

Are all airports & their contractors consistent with the Qantas system or is the system ubiquitous across international airlines.


Alby

 

[Boris spatsky]

I left the RAAF after 12yrs and 4 months and in doing so had approx 4200 military flying hours. Other than short tours as a ground instructor I had flying jobs all the time including some fairly high work loads whilst flying instructing.

Transport pilots were flying a bit more but fighter pilots were certainly flying a lot less. I seem to recall the fighter allocation was about 22 hrs per month.

I left the RAAF transport world after 15 years with 3500 hours. 4 years of that was flying a desk. Flying hours have reduced dramatically in the last few years - most guys lucky to crack 350 a year.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

Diverting the thread a little - back to the Asiana crash at SFO a while back.
There have been new pictures released by the NTSB and new video of the incident as well.
NTSB Releases New Photos, Video Of Asiana Airlines Crash: SFist

There is also a report saying that the captain was "stressed" prior to the landing for various reasons. Pilot of Asiana 214 stressed by San Francisco approach

What is worrying for me is the old "Asian cultural norm" of someone not being able to speak their concerns because of loss of face. It seems this had a bearing on the incident in SFO.

I know you can't comment, JB, on other airlines' training procedures of course, however aviation articles I've read in recent years suggest that this is a problem that all the major Asian airlines have addressed, and if someone believes there's a problem then they should "speak up" regardless of seniority / rank etc. I would have thought a "premium" carrier such as OZ would have addressed these issues too. I guess even if they have, sometimes that ingrained culture of a person will take over regardless of how much they've had something drummed into them in training.

However, I am wondering what this part means: "Two other Asiana pilots told investigators that the trainee pilot had been in class with them in April, and they warned him that if the autothrottle went to "hold," it wouldn't automatically re-engage in a descent."

What exactly is the auto-throttle? Is it the same as the (in this case) 2 throttles that control each engine, and what does it mean if it goes into HOLD mode? How does this thing work in layman's terms?

Thanks!

 

[D747]

Hi jb, I have heard a PA announcement, when leaving some overseas ports, to the effect of "Can all ground crew please leave the aircraft now". Was there an incident that has necessitated this please? Once again, thanks for this great thread.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What is worrying for me is the old "Asian cultural norm" of someone not being able to speak their concerns because of loss of face. It seems this had a bearing on the incident in SFO.

maybe this belongs in another thread? but from the link you posted there were plenty of warnings and it didn't seem anyone was scared to 'speak up' and the pilot who did speak up seemed satisfied that the others were correcting the sink rate.

 

[jb747]

JB, how is the maintenance release of the aircraft carried out. At what pilot is the aircraft handed to the captain as being "in control."

With the number of people working in and around the aircraft how is the responsibility delineated?

At what point is the captain handing over the aircraft to maintenance at the destination?

Are all airports & their contractors consistent with the Qantas system or is the system ubiquitous across international airlines.

The maintenance log is, as often as not, signed and sitting in the coughpit awaiting our arrival. At other times when the engineers are working on something it may be virtually the last thing to be done. Even if not signed off, we go through it looking for issues that have cropped up in previous flights. We talk the engineers about anything that they're working on.

Absolute control of the aircraft passes to the Captain once the doors close, but prior to that he effectively has it as soon as he's on board. Maintenance issues will require his approval if they are to be deferred, and passenger loading only starts with his approval. The airline airport manager is supposedly in charge whilst the doors are open, but of course they have no authority over the aircraft, and they're well aware that the Captains won't accept something just to get it out of their hands.

Maintenance can start working on the aircraft externally as soon as it is shut down and the doors are opened, but internally they won't until the passengers and crew have disembarked. Basically, if passengers are there, it belongs to the crew. The engineers are given a quick brief on the state of the aircraft via the headset as soon as we park, and they normally arrive in the coughpit as soon as any door opens, so that they can get their hands on the log. The A380 is fitted with an electronic logbook, and it was used for a year or so, but it ultimately proved to be slower and inferior to the piece of paper it was trying to replace, and was withdrawn.

All of the engineers that we deal with are either Qantas, or trained in our systems....though I doubt that they differ much at all.

 

[jb747]

Hi jb, I have heard a PA announcement, when leaving some overseas ports, to the effect of "Can all ground crew please leave the aircraft now". Was there an incident that has necessitated this please? Once again, thanks for this great thread.

Not that I know of, but some ground staff do have the ability to disappear in amongst the passengers, and we don't want to have to reopen the doors to push any late stayers overboard.

 

[jb747]

Diverting the thread a little - back to the Asiana crash at SFO a while back.
There have been new pictures released by the NTSB and new video of the incident as well.
NTSB Releases New Photos, Video Of Asiana Airlines Crash: SFist

There is also a report saying that the captain was "stressed" prior to the landing for various reasons. Pilot of Asiana 214 stressed by San Francisco approach

What is worrying for me is the old "Asian cultural norm" of someone not being able to speak their concerns because of loss of face. It seems this had a bearing on the incident in SFO.

I know you can't comment, JB, on other airlines' training procedures of course, however aviation articles I've read in recent years suggest that this is a problem that all the major Asian airlines have addressed, and if someone believes there's a problem then they should "speak up" regardless of seniority / rank etc. I would have thought a "premium" carrier such as OZ would have addressed these issues too. I guess even if they have, sometimes that ingrained culture of a person will take over regardless of how much they've had something drummed into them in training.

Another interesting article. Asiana crash pilots knew speed was low, hesitated | Reuters

Speaking up can be a problem in any society. It comes up with overbearing people, when juniors may be afraid to speak up, and it can also be seen in scenarios in which there is a very large experience gradient in the coughpit. Some countries seem to have much more of an issue with it that others. In Australia, we almost have the opposite, with the "tall poppy" syndrome seemingly making it easy for people to make themselves heard. Even so, it's been a training subject for at least two decades, and many command trainees have failed because of the way they interact with their coughpit crew.

I find it very hard to believe that the training captain did not take over. He was, of course, the real captain, and ultimately responsible. His student was well and truly out of his depth, and it should all have been given away at about 500' (at which point the aircraft was in about the right position and speed, but at IDLE). At that point it no longer filled any version of 'stable' and the approach was beyond saving.

However, I am wondering what this part means: "Two other Asiana pilots told investigators that the trainee pilot had been in class with them in April, and they warned him that if the autothrottle went to "hold," it wouldn't automatically re-engage in a descent."

And why would other trainees be the source of this info? Sounds like 'we told him, he knew...not our fault'. It does come out of hold by itself in most cases.

What exactly is the auto-throttle? Is it the same as the (in this case) 2 throttles that control each engine, and what does it mean if it goes into HOLD mode? How does this thing work in layman's terms?

The auto throttle automatically controls the engine thrust levers. It has many modes. At take off it will command the preset power setting (and then automatically go into 'hold'). After take off, it will come out of hold, and select climb thrust when commanded. In the cruise it maintains a set mach number. On descent, (there are a number of modes), but normally it will initially go to idle, and may later on directly control speed. It's normal for many mode changes to occur during a flight. Hold can be forced by simply moving the levers and then holding them at any position....the auto thrust will recognise that you're doing something and go to hold mode (in which case it is awake, but not moving the levers).

The Airbus system is similar, but it does not have a thrust lever servo, so the levers are not moved in concert with the auto thrust demands. I consider this a very poor system, as it further disengages the pilots from the system.

The trainee was totally overloaded, and I doubt that he even heard the comments about speed. Amazing, the admission about being stressed by a visual approach....

"Premium" carrier...nothing to do with it.

There are many facets to this accident.

In part, US ATC has some blame to bear. They have a very nasty habit of placing aircraft in high energy situations for their own (ATC's) convenience.

The trainee had just come from the A320. When stressed people will often revert to previous types. This is something that the instructors have to be aware of and react to. On the Airbus, if you turn off the flight director (there is only one switch, so it turns it off for both pilots), the auto thrust will immediately revert to 'speed' mode. This seems to be what the trainee expected. Additionally, he was used to thrust levers that don't move, so having the levers sitting in one position wouldn't have felt strange to him...whereas they're always gently moving in a Boeing when engaged in 'speed' and on approach. Also, because the Boeing levers are moved as a matter of course, you become used to the positions that they are in, and can quite accurately place the power without looking at the gauges. Idle should have just felt wrong....

 

[jb747]

....and the pilot who did speak up seemed satisfied that the others were correcting the sink rate.

I wonder how he came to that conclusion?

 

[Skyhigh777]

How strong are the throttle servos in a boeing, and Is it possible to overpower them? Would that disengage the AT?

Thanks for answering my random questions.

 

[Must...Fly!]

The A380 sim was down for about 3 months early this year as it went through a huge update, that made it much closer to the aircraft, and improved the visuals dramatically.

I'm not sure if you had any sim sessions booked during this time, but if you did, where would you be heading for a sim? DXB?

 

[jb747]

How strong are the throttle servos in a boeing, and Is it possible to overpower them? Would that disengage the AT?

They are easily overpowered, though there is enough force that it has to be intentional. If you overpower the servo, and hold the levers in any position for a few seconds, the system goes to 'hold' mode. It would often automatically go to hold mode in descents, and does so at 65 knots on take off.

On both the 767 and 747, we did it regularly...it was just a normal part of the operation. For instance, if you were in a VNAV descent, and the aircraft was going a bit low on profile, it will slow by up to 10-15 knots in an attempt to regain the planned profile. You can let it do that, or you could simply push a little bit of power in, and then hold the levers until 'hold' annunciated. The same thing was often done in FLCH too. It would wake up again when an altitude or glideslope was captured (which never happened in the Asiana case).

The Airbus won't let us do anything equivalent, so to have the same effect on the flight path you'd have to change A/P mode to V/S.

 

[jb747]

I'm not sure if you had any sim sessions booked during this time, but if you did, where would you be heading for a sim? DXB?

They planned ahead. The made sure that everybody was totally up to date before the cutoff date, and also redesigned all of the exercises, so that we could cover the normal year's matrix in 3 sessions instead of the normal 4. Made for some very busy sessions, and I'm sure we're all glad it's back to normal. I don't know if anyone needed to go overseas (though it could certainly have happened with people coming back from long periods of leave or sickness). I think KL would have been most likely, or perhaps even the UK if they had theirs running at that time.