Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

I'm sure you have seen the 767 bounce landing video doing the rounds

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5x85YYLuCY4

I have a few questions about it.

With regard to this landing...it's quite solid, but unlikely to be 'heavy'. The 767 is a very tough aircraft. I don't think it actually bounced either. It's not a mechanical push back into the air, but rather a skip, as the attitude increases enough to generate lift and pick it up again. So, whilst it doesn't look pretty, it's not a bad result in what look to be pretty nasty conditions.

Firstly given the wind conditions do you have permission as the pilot to refuse to go for an alternate airport without even trying to land

Everything is up to the Captain. ATC are simply an 'advisory' service...they can't reach up and make the jet actually do anything.

At what point can you no longer do a "go around" can you even after the bounce throttle up and take off again?

You can go around at any time up until reverse is selected.

I've been in 4 go a rounds in my flying time, 1 in syd where we had lost separation to the plane in front and had to go around, the QF pilot was funny, he said the plane in front was on a go slow. The second and third were on the same flight, trying twice to land in WLG before giving up and going to CHC and the last was in MEL where we were very close to the ground and due to wind change he did a loop and landed on the other runway. So I'm 1 in every 120 flights. how often do you experience a go around?

Bit concerned about doing the loop...might need an F18 for that.

When I was on the 767 I averaged about 1 per year. Almost all in Australia, and mostly caused by aircraft in front being slow to vacate the runway. The only weather go arounds were in HK, were we did two or three on the same trip. So perhaps 1 in 200-300 or so. On the 747, I can only remember a couple, one in Melbourne for wind, and the other in London for crosswind...so probably about the same odds. So far none on the A380.

Do the larger planes such as the A380 have better adverse weather performance and less go arounds?

Not really. In fact the 767 is particularly good in nasty conditions, having good control response, and a lot of power. But, aircraft that fly domestically or short haul are simply exposed to landing that much more often...

In relation to the 767 in the video, after a landing like that (I'm surprised the tyres didn't pop!) would you schedule engineers to check out the plane? Is there a procedure you would follow about this sort of landing post event?

If you think you've heavy landed it, you'd write it up in the tech log, and the engineers would have a look at the various g meters on the aircraft. Depending upon their readings there are mandated checks.

I don't think this was a heavy landing, nor was there the slightest risk of the tyres 'popping'.

Do you sim for these sorts of weather conditions?

As much as they can, but it's never quite like the real world...though having said that, the real world is mostly easier.

Do earlier flights let you know about what they experienced when they landed, or does ATC let you know?

There is some feedback, especially if someone experiences a windshear warning, but the reality is that that is what 45 knot gusty winds look like. We know what to expect.

 

[williamsf1]

JB

I noticed that VH-OJC is off on its last flight today ( QF107) before being sent off to VCV. It appears it will be flying without a wing tip on one side that was donated to OEI after the recent LAX incident.

My question is related to what extra considerations would you have to take into account when flying .I assume that the aerodynamics would change how the aircraft handles etc?

 

[jb747]

I noticed that VH-OJC is off on its last flight today ( QF107) before being sent off to VCV. It appears it will be flying without a wing tip on one side that was donated to OEI after the recent LAX incident.

My question is related to what extra considerations would you have to take into account when flying .I assume that the aerodynamics would change how the aircraft handles etc?

I don't have a copy of the 744 MELs, but if I recall correctly you were allowed to fly with one winglet missing, but not two. No idea why, though I guess Boeing probably figured you wouldn't get both sides at once, no matter how badly you parked.

As for the effect..it wouldn't be noticeable. There might be a very minor fuel penalty, but small winglets have very little effect.

 

[petercr]

I guess that means that QF15 will do the LAX-JFK rotation for that trip. Would there be any reason for QF107/108 not to be converted to an A388 for the full journey now? (I've noticed there are occasional SYD-LAX rotations that are)

 

[jb747]

I guess that means that QF15 will do the LAX-JFK rotation for that trip. Would there be any reason for QF107/108 now to be converted to an A388 for the full journey? (I've noticed there are occasional SYD-LAX rotations that are)

What, to JFK? No idea.

 

[petercr]

Was thinking from an economics point but then it occurred to me that the A388's to LAX probably operate SYD-LAX-MEL and vice versa so they're not on the ground as long. Would that be correct?

 

[jb747]

Was thinking from an economics point but then it occurred to me that the A388's to LAX probably operate SYD-LAX-MEL and vice versa so they're not on the ground as long. Would that be correct?

They can operate any of the permutations. They're both on the ground for quite a long time.... The economics would only work if you have a decent load. A 747 with 360 people on board is a much better proposition than a 380 with the same load.

 

[markis10]

They can operate any of the permutations. They're both on the ground for quite a long time.... The economics would only work if you have a decent load. A 747 with 360 people on board is a much better proposition than a 380 with the same load.

Based on the figures quoted by LAX, QF average 275 people per day on the domestic hop.

 

[docjames]

Based on the figures quoted by LAX, QF average 275 people per day on the domestic hop.

Freight is also a factor I believe.

 

[mjt57]

What, to JFK? No idea.

It'd be great if they did. MEL-LAX-JFK is our most commonly flown route. It's a real PITA having to get off at LA, go through customs and immigration then scurry to the next terminal to grab the domestic leg to NY.

 

[Hvr]

It'd be great if they did. MEL-LAX-JFK is our most commonly flown route. It's a real PITA having to get off at LA, go through customs and immigration then scurry to the next terminal to grab the domestic leg to NY.

The only change would be not having to change terminals. You still have to clear C&I at your first landing point. And there is the QF flight ex SYD that continues onto JFK, you should be able to connect with it at LAX.

 

[jb747]

It'd be great if they did. MEL-LAX-JFK is our most commonly flown route. It's a real PITA having to get off at LA, go through customs and immigration then scurry to the next terminal to grab the domestic leg to NY.

This is QF stuff, which is not really the purpose of this thread. But, in any event, it will never happen, and you'd still have to get off and go through customs.

 

[zainman]

Hi JB,

I recently flew on a BA 777-300 and saw the captain strolling around in the cabin. He was quite a large man. I was wondering if QF have any limits on physical attributes of crew (particularly pilots). Maximum weight, waist etc?

 

[jb747]

I recently flew on a BA 777-300 and saw the captain strolling around in the cabin. He was quite a large man. I was wondering if QF have any limits on physical attributes of crew (particularly pilots). Maximum weight, waist etc?

No, you just have to be able to pass the CASA medical. I suspect that any Australian company making up rules like that would probably in be breach of some employment laws.

 

[zainman]

No, you just have to be able to pass the CASA medical. I suspect that any Australian company making up rules like that would probably in be breach of some employment laws.

So the BA pilot would simply have to pass the medical for the equivalent of CASA in the UK? Does CASA have any such requirements for pilots here in Australia? Obviously being obese is a health risk..

 

[harvyk]

So the BA pilot would simply have to pass the medical for the equivalent of CASA in the UK? Does CASA have any such requirements for pilots here in Australia? Obviously being obese is a health risk..

You can't judge a persons fitness based on a visual for 10 seconds...

To an actual question, during the cruise stages, when checking in with ATC to state that you're still all good, do you simply call them stating that everything is still all good, or do you relay certain information (like speed, altitude, heading etc...)?

 

[mjt57]

This is QF stuff, which is not really the purpose of this thread. But, in any event, it will never happen, and you'd still have to get off and go through customs.

Fair enough.

Speaking of ICE at LAX, you guys have your own lines to go through, I believe. Do they hassle you as much as they do with us plebs?

 

[mjt57]

Firstly, in relation to the Malaysian 777, 99% of everything I've seen so far has been total rubbish, sprinkled with a liberal dose of fabrication.

I assume then, that you've read the news articles on the conspiricy theories about this?

They mention PPRUNE. I thought that it was one of the more credible of aviation websites, but perhaps not. Probably aus.aviation would be a better read.

They were talking about this on 3AW this morning. Some caller said that ACARS would provide a data link back to whereever. Is this possible? Or is there some other system that relays flight info (live or otherwise)?

 

[markis10]

Some caller said that ACARS would provide a data link back to whereever. Is this possible? Or is there some other system that relays flight info (live or otherwise)?

That would depend on the level of service MH has paid for with one of the two service providers, that can vary from real time streaming to coughpit initiated messages only I believe.

Malaysian officials non-committal on MH370 ACARS transmissions - 3/11/2014 - Flight Global - Linkis.com

 

[legroom]

Firstly, in relation to the Malaysian 777, 99% of everything I've seen so far has been total rubbish, sprinkled with a liberal dose of fabrication.

But, to answer your question. You don't really need to disable to comms...you just don't have to answer. You would need to go into the FMC and turn off the data link, and you'd also need to turn the transponder off. Additionally, you'd have to go into the ACARs and turn it off too. Primary radar would still be able to see you, though I don't know how often the controllers actually look at it. It would still, most likely, be recorded.

Below the radar. If you are within about 20 miles of the site, there is no such thing. The radar horizon varies with your height, and that of the radar site. In nautical miles, it is roughly 1.23 times the square root of your height (in feet). Consideration of it in regard to an airliner falls in the silly category.

Hi JB,

Is there any special barrier / security requirement (say, both captain + FO are required to enter their own codes etc....) to switch off the transponder ?

Or, it is just another switch on the panel.

If not, should there be one considering it is helpful to those tracking the plane ?

Thanks