Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Do you ever fly Ga aircraft in your spare time? say out of Bankstown or morrabbin?

No. I've never flown GA. Not quite, but I only have the minimum hours for a licence..33 or so. The lightest thing I've flown in the last 28 years weighed 87 tonnes.

Whilst I don't fly anything in GA, many of my friends and RAAF course mates do. Warbirds are pretty popular, with some of the guys being shareholders in various Yaks (and their ilk). One owns an A-37 (but the bang seats aren't live, so I'm not going in it). I'd guess that about half of the airline pilots have some GA involvement.

Secondly does the captain always taxi the aircraft?

Again no. Some airlines don't order aircraft with right hand seat nose gear steering controls, so in their case, the taxi is always done by the captain. But, QF long haul has always had it available on both sides, so the driving is done by whomever is doing the sector. The only proviso is that the aircraft must always be parked at the bay by the captain...that's because the parking alignment systems only work from the left seat.

 

[Jordy992]

No. I've never flown GA. Not quite, but I only have the minimum hours for a licence..33 or so. The lightest thing I've flown in the last 28 years weighed 87 tonnes.

Whilst I don't fly anything in GA, many of my friends and RAAF course mates do. Warbirds are pretty popular, with some of the guys being shareholders in various Yaks (and their ilk). One owns an A-37 (but the bang seats aren't live, so I'm not going in it). I'd guess that about half of the airline pilots have some GA involvement.




Again no. Some airlines don't order aircraft with right hand seat nose gear steering controls, so in their case, the taxi is always done by the captain. But, QF long haul has always had it available on both sides, so the driving is done by whomever is doing the sector. The only proviso is that the aircraft must always be parked at the bay by the captain...that's because the parking alignment systems only work from the left seat.

Thanks for the quick reply!

I currently have my ppl and fly from ybaf, I am currently hour building for my cpl and would love to get into the qlink with the cadet program. Any advice for a aspiring pilot?

 

[straitman]

I currently have my ppl and fly from ybaf, I am currently hour building for my cpl and would love to get into the qlink with the cadet program. Any advice for a aspiring pilot?

Jordy992,

How is Archerfield these days. I have flown near it and over it many time but never actually landed there.

I am quite sure that JB will agree with me on this one that the best training is via the military. That is not an option for many unfortunately so the next best is to find a company that gives you as much flying, with as much variety as possible. It also needs to be one who is prepared to conform to the regs as there are many out there who cut a lot of corners.

 

[Jordy992]

Jordy992,

How is Archerfield these days. I have flown near it and over it many time but never actually landed there.

I am quite sure that JB will agree with me on this one that the best training is via the military. That is not an option for many unfortunately so the next best is to find a company that gives you as much flying, with as much variety as possible. It also needs to be one who is prepared to conform to the regs as there are many out there who cut a lot of corners.

Archerfield sadly is very quiet ATM. Apparently a ghost town compared to years ago which is unfortunate as a lot of flight schools are closing down. I have recently gone down the ra side of things as it's cheaper option to fly jut means no flying in cta which is fine. I still have my ga ppl if I want to take a sr20 for a spin.


unfortunately I wish I could have gone through the raaf but a minor colour deficiency does not allow me or a atpl

guess when your starting out with low command hours you don't have a choice but to hour build as a instructor or go do mail runs in Darwin.


one day!

 

[defurax]

Hi JB,
Is it standard practice for a captain to glance over the passenger manifest and look at the names of the passengers? A good friend of mine was quite surprised when he was called at the desk in the gate lounge to be told that he was upgraded to business class on the captain's request. The A380 captain happened to be a childhood friend.
He was very happy indeed, but wondered why a captain would go through the whole list of names...

I should mention that this was not on a QF flight...I'm sure you don't want all your old classmates to harass you for upgrades

 

[jb747]

Hi JB,
Is it standard practice for a captain to glance over the passenger manifest and look at the names of the passengers? A good friend of mine was quite surprised when he was called at the desk in the gate lounge to be told that he was upgraded to business class on the captain's request. The A380 captain happened to be a childhood friend.
He was very happy indeed, but wondered why a captain would go through the whole list of names...

I should mention that this was not on a QF flight...I'm sure you don't want all your old classmates to harass you for upgrades

We very rarely see the passenger list at all. We have enough things to do before going flying without adding looking at a list of 500 names.....

If someone is on board that I know, I generally don't find out until after the introduction PA.

 

[straitman]

unfortunately I wish I could have gone through the raaf but a minor colour deficiency does not allow me or a atpl

The colour issue sidelines a lot of people from my experience.

guess when your starting out with low command hours you don't have a choice but to hour build as a instructor or go do mail runs in Darwin.


one day!

Unfortunately yes.

As I mentioned just ensure they are reputable as there are a lot of sharks out there. Sorry I can't help as all my contacts are in the heli ops side of things.

I am quite sure that JB will agree with me on this one that the best training is via the military.

...and I did forget to mention previously that jb747's vintage were extremely fortunate to do their training when they did due to the extremely classy and knowledgable flying instructors that were around at the time. :shock: :mrgreen:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hi jb

This report indicates a rejected take-off after cabin crew called the flight deck (during the take-off) to advise of smoke in the cabin: SKYbrary - B738, Glasgow UK, 2012 (FIRE AW)

I recall an earlier comment that some airlines do not allow cabin crew to contact the flight deck under any circumstance once the take-off roll has commenced... whether cabin crew see smoke, fire or anything else.

What would be the rational behind the 'no contact' period when it seems there may be circumstances when it might be beneficial?

 

[andmiz]

I recall an earlier comment that some airlines do not allow cabin crew to contact the flight deck under any circumstance once the take-off roll has commenced... whether cabin crew see smoke, fire or anything else.

What would be the rational behind the 'no contact' period when it seems there may be circumstances when it might be beneficial?

There are exceptions to the sterile flight deck, and no contact period. Cabin crew can contact the us 'during times of emergency' such as when smoke and/or flames are visible.

 

[jb747]

Hi jb

This report indicates a rejected take-off after cabin crew called the flight deck (during the take-off) to advise of smoke in the cabin: SKYbrary - B738, Glasgow UK, 2012 (FIRE AW)

I recall an earlier comment that some airlines do not allow cabin crew to contact the flight deck under any circumstance once the take-off roll has commenced... whether cabin crew see smoke, fire or anything else.

What would be the rational behind the 'no contact' period when it seems there may be circumstances when it might be beneficial?

Seems like there's a good reason shown in the example. A totally unnecessary high speed abort and evacuation....

There is no time for discussion, or answering the phone, during the take off roll. You should all have you mind on the job at hand...a ringing phone shouldn't even be noticed.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Seems like there's a good reason shown in the example. A totally unnecessary high speed abort and evacuation....

There is no time for discussion, or answering the phone, during the take off roll. You should all have you mind on the job at hand...a ringing phone shouldn't even be noticed.

thanks for the reply. appreciate the circumstances of that particular case but what if there actually was a fire (let's say galley or WC fire which the flight deck crew are unaware of).

what are the merits of continuing to take off vs a high speed abort?

 

[markis10]

thanks for the reply. appreciate the circumstances of that particular case but what if there actually was a fire (let's say galley or WC fire which the flight deck crew are unaware of).

what are the merits of continuing to take off vs a high speed abort?

While not technically an abort as the aircraft actually took off, the report on TWA843 makes for interesting reading on why rules and procedures are in place.

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR93-04.pdf

I was on short final in a NW 747 behind the event and saw the aftermath.

 

[jb747]

thanks for the reply. appreciate the circumstances of that particular case but what if there actually was a fire (let's say galley or WC fire which the flight deck crew are unaware of).

what are the merits of continuing to take off vs a high speed abort?

A high speed abort is quite likely to have a negative outcome. At the very least, a wheel/brake fire is likely to ensue. Abort past V1 will almost certainly end up as a crash. It's possible that in some circumstances that could be the best outcome (the Concorde and the recent 747 at Bagram come to mind), but in the vast majority of cases getting airborne, and carrying out a relatively quick circuit and then landing with all of the runway available will be both safe and fast.

 

[legroom]

A high speed abort is quite likely to have a negative outcome. At the very least, a wheel/brake fire is likely to ensue. Abort past V1 will almost certainly end up as a crash. It possible that in some circumstances that could be the best outcome (the Concorde and the recent 747 at Bagram come to mind), but in the vast majority of cases getting airborne, and carrying out a relatively quick circuit and then landing with all of the runway available will be both safe and fast.

Hi JB

In the scenario that MEL_Traveler to which you replied, would fuel dumping still be a necessity for a safe landing?

How would that be done in the vicinity of a metropolitan city airport like SYD / MEL ?

How would the requirement for a fast landing be reconciled with that for a safe landing ?

Many thanks

 

[jb747]

In the scenario that MEL_Traveler to which you replied, would fuel dumping still be a necessity for a safe landing?

You can always land without dumping fuel, though it is an option that you'll have airborne that won't exist in the abort. You don't have to get below max landing weight if the need to land is great.

How would that be done in the vicinity of a metropolitan city airport like SYD / MEL ?

How great is your need? If I were to lose two engines after take off, the dump would be turned on immediately, and at low level. I wouldn't care about the outcome for someone's washing. From about 3,000 feet it doesn't reach the ground. If I have a situation in which I'm going to do a quick circuit, and so will be airborne for 5-10 minutes, I could get rid of 10-20 tonnes.

How would the requirement for a fast landing be reconciled with that for a safe landing ?

Not necessarily all that fast. In any event, landing at the start of the runway, and having its full length available for the stop is much better than trying to stop from about 80% of that speed about half way down it (as in an abort).

A max weight take off would give a V1 of about 139 and Vr of 164, and use most of the runway getting those numbers. An immediate landing would give a Vref of 162 knots (at about 10 tonnes less weight), and you'd have all of the runway to play with.

The upshot is that the high speed abort is almost always a worse choice than going for a quick fly.

 

[legroom]

....You can always land without dumping fuel, though it is an option that you'll have airborne that won't exist in the abort. You don't have to get below max landing weight if the need to land is great....

Interesting !

My simplistic (school-boy physics) notion of "max landing weight" is that the supporting struts / gears won't be able to cope with the landing pressure from the extra weight but apparently it could - in the right circumstances.

Please note I am not an aviation person at all.

 

[jb747]

My simplistic (school-boy physics) notion of "max landing weight" is that the supporting struts / gears won't be able to cope with the landing pressure from the extra weight but apparently it could - in the right circumstances.

Max landing weight is simply the weight at which there will be no damage with a touchdown at a defined sink rate (not sure of the exact figure). So the real limitation is simply the ability of the pilot (or the autoland system) to give a smooth touchdown.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A high speed abort is quite likely to have a negative outcome. At the very least, a wheel/brake fire is likely to ensue. Abort past V1 will almost certainly end up as a crash. It possible that in some circumstances that could be the best outcome (the Concorde and the recent 747 at Bagram come to mind), but in the vast majority of cases getting airborne, and carrying out a relatively quick circuit and then landing with all of the runway available will be both safe and fast.

thanks.

so I guess the question that springs to mind then is why do some airlines allow crew to contact the flight deck for specified emergency events (fire, smoke etc) but other airlines don't?

would some pilots want to know if there was a fire and then decide to abort/continue vs some not wanting to know?

 

[jb747]

so I guess the question that springs to mind then is why do some airlines allow crew to contact the flight deck for specified emergency events (fire, smoke etc) but other airlines don't?

would some pilots want to know if there was a fire and then decide to abort/continue vs some not wanting to know?

I don't know what other airlines do. Quite honestly, once the take off roll has started I'm surprised that anyone would entertain the concept of even answering the phone. A take off roll lasts for about 60 seconds. Most likely some of that (perhaps up to 20 seconds) is already past the refusal option. So someone in the cabin has to become concerned enough to actually ring, the phone has to be answered (find the right switch and select it...it's not in your field of view and won't be on). Conversation has to ensue. Then the gist has to be passed to the captain. And then he has to decide, based on third hand information. The time window is miniscule and the information too vague.

It's not a case of not wanting to know. Getting airborne is almost certainly the BEST option.

There are some scenarios where an abort at any speed might be best, and the one that comes to mind is what you might describe as 'self rotation'. If the aircraft attempts to rotate, by itself, well below Vr, then you might be looking at a CofG shift, or large loading error. That's something that you can't fix in flight.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't know what other airlines do. Quite honestly, once the take off roll has started I'm surprised that anyone would entertain the concept of even answering the phone. A take off roll lasts for about 60 seconds. Most likely some of that (perhaps up to 20 seconds) is already past the refusal option. So someone in the cabin has to become concerned enough to actually ring, the phone has to be answered (find the right switch and select it...it's not in your field of view and won't be on). Conversation has to ensue. Then the gist has to be passed to the captain. And then he has to decide, based on third hand information. The time window is miniscule and the information too vague.

It's not a case of not wanting to know. Getting airborne is almost certainly the BEST option.

There are some scenarios where an abort at any speed might be best, and the one that comes to mind is what you might describe as 'self rotation'. If the aircraft attempts to rotate, by itself, well below Vr, then you might be looking at a CofG shift, or large loading error. That's something that you can't fix in flight.

thanks. What you are saying makes sense, i was just interested in the differing policies as highlighted by the earlier link I posted.