Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
Re: QF510 SYD-BNE Aborted take off Tues 18 Feb

tgh said:
I think the tale strike is the best guess so far.. but it doesn't address the second approach.
The camera angle seems to confuse our perception of the approach line such that he may have been drifting too far cross track downwind to get back on line.
Click to expand...

No tail strike, and the no1 Engine gets interesting at ten seconds.

Here is a tail strike at the same airport
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=atFZU8NHibo



Tortuga said:
I only noticed 2 things. The first was the lack of rudder being used on the vertical stabilizer on the first Etihad approach compared to the landing with the 767. The second was the Etihad approach applies up movements to elevator on the horizontal stabilizer which would push the tail down and nose up I think - maybe this was a mistake? I am just guessing.
Click to expand...

Here is the EK bird from a different angle

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-CTFESsA28Q[/video]
 
Last edited:
Re: QF510 SYD-BNE Aborted take off Tues 18 Feb

I was going to wait until MooNoi had a go, but ... my mug punter's guess is that the flaps on both occasions appear to be fully extended and in the 'down and drag' position (you can see how technical I get ...) well after the aircraft is powered up for a go around. I would think the flaps should be moved to the 'extended but not dragging' position as soon as the decision to go around is made ... before the landing gear is retracted?

And yes, a 'The pilot asks' thread might be fun if JB and the other pilots here can be bothered.:)
 
Re: QF510 SYD-BNE Aborted take off Tues 18 Feb

Hi JB,

Landing in wet weather (rain, snow - dry or melting) with the risk of aquaplaning, what would go through your minds i.e. your mental checklist ?

Would that risk itself require you to "take over" from the FO even though you had planned to give him / her the sector at the beginning ?

If you know you are arriving in such a condition (prior to take off), would you do anything differently (e.g. have a second look at the tyres etc...) ??

If it happens (aquaplaning), is that such a big deal or it is a non event ?

Another related Q, if I may:

Icing apparently could form on plane surfaces during cruising high up (10,000 ft or above) as temp is quite low up there.

When does that matter, if at all ?

How do you detect it: looking outside at the windscreen ??

What could you do - switch on a demister / heater ?

Thanks again for "talking" to the masses.
 
Last edited:
Unlock 20,000 Bonus Points on just $10K in Business Expenses
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

According to Google and Flightradar24, QF93 left about 75mins behind schedule and looks like it hasn't made much headway on that
 
Last edited:
The Emirates landing...

He's got it nicely under control, with his track pretty much straight down the runway. Then, with no change to the heading, the aircraft starts to drift rapidly to the right across the runway. This is normally the result of trying to align the aircraft heading with the runway, and doing it too early, but in this case he's made no change at all. My guess is that the wind has suddenly backed, with the result that he has more crosswind, and less headwind.

The gear and flap being left alone, plus the quite steep initial climb, looks like the response to a reactive windshear warning...configuration changes aren't allowed until the warning has stopped.
 
petercr said:
According to Google and Flightradar24, QF93 left about 75mins behind schedule and looks like it hasn't made much headway on that
Click to expand...

Realistically, you can't get back much of that sort of loss in flight. A minute or two an hour if I happen to have the fuel available. As it turned out though, it was possibly to our advantage, as LAX had fog, and even with our late arrival it was still a Cat III approach and landing. Earlier the visibility was below what's needed even for that.
 
Re: QF510 SYD-BNE Aborted take off Tues 18 Feb

legroom said:
Landing in wet weather (rain, snow - dry or melting) with the risk of aquaplaning, what would go through your minds i.e. your mental checklist ?
Click to expand...

There are procedures for handling any of those items. It's always common sense to have read of them before the approach. The landing distance will need to be calculated, taking the contamination into account.

Would that risk itself require you to "take over" from the FO even though you had planned to give him / her the sector at the beginning ?
Click to expand...

There are nominated company limits for FOs...crosswind, visibility and cloudbase. He loses the approach if any are reported outside those limits. And if I don't like it, I'll either take it, or command a go around.

If you know you are arriving in such a condition (prior to take off), would you do anything differently (e.g. have a second look at the tyres etc...) ??
Click to expand...

No.

If it happens (aquaplaning), is that such a big deal or it is a non event ?
Click to expand...

It can go either way. Momentary planing is nothing, but mix it with a bit of crosswind, and you might get to see the grass.

Icing apparently could form on plane surfaces during cruising high up (10,000 ft or above) as temp is quite low up there.

When does that matter, if at all ?

How do you detect it: looking outside at the windscreen ??

What could you do - switch on a demister / heater ?
Click to expand...

Icing can form in any visible moisture if the temperature is between +10ºC and -40ºC. The bigger jets don't normally have problems with wing icing airborne, but we'll use the engine anti icing in that temperature range. You can see ice accrete on the window frame, and it will lead us to turn on the wing anti ice (bleed air), but it only does a very small section on the 380...it's not seen as an airborne issue by Airbus. The big problem is for aircraft that are on the ground, where the ice and snow can build up on the wing...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There has been a lot mentioned about crosswinds on landing, but what is the impact when trying to get into the air? Is it not as severe as the pilot has an element of control as to when they can start the roll?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can one of the mods fix the title of the thread replies.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alieninperth said:
There has been a lot mentioned about crosswinds on landing, but what is the impact when trying to get into the air? Is it not as severe as the pilot has an element of control as to when they can start the roll?
Click to expand...

Aircraft will have similar limits for crosswinds on take off and landing. Whilst they can certainly cause issues on take off, the basic difference is that we're on a runway (i.e. a fixed surface), and we don't actually care exactly where in the air we get airborne. Landing, you have a very definite target, and normally need to get rid of any of the wind effects before touchdown.

Basically it's easy to jump off a moving train on to the platform, but going the other way is somewhat less forgiving.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi JB

Here is something silly for you to ponder (and hopefully as distraction from all this QF32 business).

I have a silly question that has been in the back of mind ever since I saw something on Mythbusters.

If a jet such as an A380 or B747 was placed on a huge treadmill such that it always remained stationary as far as forward motion was concerned; could the engines move enough air over the wings or provide enough thrust such that the aircraft could become airborne?

I have always have had thoughts for both yes and no but really I'm just guessing. So I thought that a pilot is probably the best person that I know to answer something as silly as this.

Many thanks
 
Flying Fox said:
If a jet such as an A380 or B747 was placed on a huge treadmill such that it always remained stationary as far as forward motion was concerned; could the engines move enough air over the wings or provide enough thrust such that the aircraft could become airborne?
Click to expand...

As jb747 noted, by specifying that the aircraft "always remain stationary" you've nixed your thought experiment before it has begun. However, holding the usual assumption for this problem of non-slip tyres and frictionless axles, your treadmill is theoretically impossible to create - even at idle thrust, on a treadmill belt moving at infinitely high speed, the aircraft would still be able to move forward relative to the ground and, more importantly, the surrounding air mass.

So the reason it won't fly is not because it's on the treadmill, but because you've specified that it's stationary.
 

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 11 more.
Total: 632 (members: 61, guests: 571)
Back
Top