Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

JB, have you ever had a stowaway?

The increase in the security around the airports and aircraft, especially in the 'western' world has pretty much eradicated the problem. It still makes the news every now and then, generally with flights from African nations. Though I see there was one within the US only a couple of years ago.

I think a large percentage of those who tried this were either immediately jettisoned at gear retraction, or crushed by it, if they managed to not fall out. And if they survived that, there is no air, and the temperature will get into the -30º region.

BBC News - How often do plane stowaways fall from the sky?

The Stowaway | THAT PANIC

 

[Skyhigh777]

There was a tahitian man who survived an 11 hour trip inside the gear bay of an air france 747. That must've been one hell of a ride...

I have a question about flight voice/data recorders. Do airlines use the recorded data for training purposes at all? Would the data be used to give a pilot feedback about his or her performance (outside of an accident)?

merry christmas to you, and thanks for all the time and insight you've given us.

 

[jb747]

I have a question about flight voice/data recorders. Do airlines use the recorded data for training purposes at all? Would the data be used to give a pilot feedback about his or her performance (outside of an accident)

Flight recorders can't be accessed unless CASA/ATSB wants them. The rules differ around the world.

QAR data (quick access recorder) is used by the airlines, but it is de-identified. Generally they just use the overall stats from it. It can also be pulled at the Captain's request.

Some years ago, the police of one otherwise sensible country, decided that they'd involve themselves in an air accident (using recorder data as evidence), and treat it criminally. This is anathema to good aviation safety. For quite some time, most aircraft operating through that country had the CBs to all recorders pulled. Sense eventually prevailed.

 

[andmiz]

Flight recorders can't be accessed unless CASA/ATSB wants them. The rules differ around the world.

Some regulations prevent CASA from accessing information provided to the ATSB, including on-board recordings; generally police, prosecutors, CASA and lawyers attempt to request information through the FOI act; which is politely refused. After all, CASA is only the regulator, and while their role goes to promote aviation safety, it's up to the ATSB to make the formal safety recommendations.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

Hello JB.

Compliments of the season to you.

I came across this (in my opinion) great video in the QF "Our Australia" series. This one is of WA.
"Our Australia" Western Australia - YouTube

It has some great aerial shots of the (I think) Pilatus PC-12, and highlights the invaluable, although sometimes forgotten work, that the RFDS does.

I was just wondering - are most RFDS pilots younger guys/girls who work there to get their hours up before moving on to the commercials?
Or maybe some older pilots who have left the commercial sector looking for something different and new challenges?

I would imagine that the flying for the RFDS would be quite challenging at times given the remoteness of some places they have to travel to. Would doing this sort of flying have some stresses and issues that other more "mainstream" flying not have given the medical conditions of some patients and the "need for speed"? Maybe even a more emotional aspect for the pilots given the medical situations they face every day?

 

[andmiz]

I was just wondering - are most RFDS pilots younger guys/girls who work there to get their hours up before moving on to the commercials?
Or maybe some older pilots who have left the commercial sector looking for something different and new challenges?

The RFDS is quite good at finding pilots who want to be there for the lifestyle, rather than using it to leapfrog their career into a major airline (the experience, while good, still doesn't meet a lot of requirements for airlines). Training pilots is a significant operational cost, especially for a not-for-profit organisation, which makes retention extremely important, and the standards & training at the RFDS are exceptional. The remoteness of the flying is no different to the majority of flying in general aviation and regional airlines, however landing to car headlights in the middle of the night does takes things to the extreme; however this is quite rare to happen given the risk involved. It does involve a different skillset to fly mission oriented flights versus passenger carrying, however urgent medivacs are only a small part of what they do; most of their flying healthcare workers to remote clinics or patient transfer from more remote clinics/hospitals back to major centres.

 

[jb747]

I came across this (in my opinion) great video in the QF "Our Australia" series. This one is of WA.
"Our Australia" Western Australia - YouTube

It has some great aerial shots of the (I think) Pilatus PC-12, and highlights the invaluable, although sometimes forgotten work, that the RFDS does.

I was just wondering - are most RFDS pilots younger guys/girls who work there to get their hours up before moving on to the commercials?
Or maybe some older pilots who have left the commercial sector looking for something different and new challenges?

I would imagine that the flying for the RFDS would be quite challenging at times given the remoteness of some places they have to travel to. Would doing this sort of flying have some stresses and issues that other more "mainstream" flying not have given the medical conditions of some patients and the "need for speed"? Maybe even a more emotional aspect for the pilots given the medical situations they face every day?

Not everyone wants to fly for an airline. Many consider that job to be the most boring on earth. RFDS work will be varied, potentially quite challenging. It certainly won't have the mundane nature of much airline work.

I've known a few RFDS pilots. They weren't youngsters looking for hours, but were well experienced operators who had found a niche they liked.

 

[legroom]

It is close to midnight SYD time.

Time to say thanks to JB and extend our best wishes for 2014

Cheers

 

[mjt57]

JB, without getting into the politics of it (that's more than adequately covered elsewhere), what do you think of the proposal to replace the Government VIP fleet with B777s or A330s?

Are there aircraft that can do the job cheaper or better than these proposed models?

Similarly, in the US they are or were considering replacing the aircraft which perform Air Force One roles with A380s til it was deemed not so patriotic. I read that maybe B777s were being looked at. What about the B747-8? Or can the 777s do what the older B747s can do but cheaper?

 

[Julesmac]

And following on - though slightly OT, Melbourne radio yesterday had an amusing little thread running, suggested call signs for the new plane. "Budgie smuggler" was one!

 

[jb747]

JB, without getting into the politics of it (that's more than adequately covered elsewhere), what do you think of the proposal to replace the Government VIP fleet with B777s or A330s?

Are there aircraft that can do the job cheaper or better than these proposed models?

It really depends upon just what the job is. The RAAF will have a list of requirements that any replacement aircraft will need to fit, and I'm sure that will narrow down to one or two types. The RAAF already has experience with the A330, and the 777 isn't that huge a step for their 737 people.

I'd expect low hour examples of both types could be found on the second hand market without having to buy new.

Similarly, in the US they are or were considering replacing the aircraft which perform Air Force One roles with A380s til it was deemed not so patriotic. I read that maybe B777s were being looked at. What about the B747-8? Or can the 777s do what the older B747s can do but cheaper?

It again depends upon just what the USAF want. The 777 isn't an immediate fit into their fleet. They will want air to air refuelling, which would be new to the 777, and there wouldn't be a wider fleet to spread the development cost across. They would probably be reluctant to move away from four engines. The 747-800, whilst new in many respects, would be a much easier fit. The A380 would be a stupid way to go. Before worrying about anything else, the aircraft is extremely restricted as to just where you can take it because of its size. The 747-8 also has issues, but not to the same degree.

 

[day-heg]

It really depends upon just what the job is. The RAAF will have a list of requirements that any replacement aircraft will need to fit, and I'm sure that will narrow down to one or two types. The RAAF already has experience with the A330, and the 777 isn't that huge a step for their 737 people.

I'd expect low hour examples of both types could be found on the second hand market without having to buy new.



It again depends upon just what the USAF want. The 777 isn't an immediate fit into their fleet. They will want air to air refuelling, which would be new to the 777, and there wouldn't be a wider fleet to spread the development cost across. They would probably be reluctant to move away from four engines. The 747-800, whilst new in many respects, would be a much easier fit. The A380 would be a stupid way to go. Before worrying about anything else, the aircraft is extremely restricted as to just where you can take it because of its size. The 747-8 also has issues, but not to the same degree.

I read something about the the new 'Air Force One' recently... 4 engines was an absolute prerequisite, no doubt to be able to keep the aircraft airborne after an engine failure which couldn't happen with a big twin like the 777. So that narrowed it down to the A340 (out of production now, so moot?), the A380 and the 747-8. It was never gonna be an Airbus, so it will be the 748.... Entry into service by 2017-ish...

 

[jb747]

I read something about the the new 'Air Force One' recently... 4 engines was an absolute prerequisite, no doubt to be able to keep the aircraft airborne after an engine failure which couldn't happen with a big twin like the 777.

A 777 is more than capable of flying on one engine. Any of the twins can fly after losing half of their propulsion....which is not something that the quads can always do.

On the other hand, it wouldn't provide the level of redundancy they require for carting around their president. I wonder if they considered a version of the C17?

 

[petercr]

I think by the time you add all the presidential flunkies, protective services, crew and press you're talking 100+ bodies on-board. Add to that all the comms gear and ECM and you'd need something bigger than a C-17 especially if part of it needed to be fitted out to VVIP standard.

Maybe a 777x once they're in production?

 

[CaviAck]

What about the youngest 2 C-5Ms refitted to VIP standards?

 

[docjames]

How often do you look at groundspeed (as opposed to airspeed)?

What's the highest groundspeed you've seen in the various commercial airliners you've operated?

 

[SenZubEanS]

Hey JB, Just wondering if you have ever operated routes that were not daily but maybe once or twice a week on your type? If so, what was the process, just kill 3 days in X location?
Was just looking at CX and how they only fly 2 744 services a week from HKG to JNB now, meaning there is a 3-4 day gap between the when crew would have flown in the 2nd service for the week and when the 1st service of the next week would arrive from HKG for them to fly out on.
Is it normal that crew would just kill time for that period or would they be paxing back and forth and only taking a crew down the day before they have to fly the service back? (hope i structured that in a coherent enough way)

 

[cove]

Has any A380 or 747 exceeded the sound barrier? Is this avoided when carrying a load of passengers?

 

[MrHyde]

Has any A380 or 747 exceeded the sound barrier? Is this avoided when carrying a load of passengers?

Google shows CA006 (747) may have broken the sound barrier in its unplanned dive.

Mod: Feel free to delete this as I know only pilots are supposed to respond to questions in this thread.

 

[jb747]

How often do you look at groundspeed (as opposed to airspeed)?

What's the highest groundspeed you've seen in the various commercial airliners you've operated?

Groundspeed is checked often during the flight...mostly comparing it to the flight planned speed.

On the ground it's relevant when taxying around. Many places have speed limits, and in Dubai there's even a guy with a radar gun.

It also comes up in some of the emergency procedures practice. For instance if you lose your airspeed displays, ground speed will get you roughly in the ball park.

Comparison of inertial groundspeed with airspeed allows the FMC to work out the wind.

Highest I've seen was in a 747-300 coming from Perth to Sydney about 25 years ago. Hit 740 knots. It was smooth in the jetstream, but very rough descending out of it. Got 690 in a 767, also out of Perth.