Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Ah ha.. like Mrs Smith trying to board with 5 bags of duty free and them having to be put somewhere (and probably lots of other things too)?

No, it's for generally for late off loads of passengers, or slight over fuelling, i.e. Mrs Smith.

 

[RSD]

No, it's for generally for late off loads of passengers, or slight over fuelling, i.e. Mrs Smith.

You mean off loading Mrs Smith because she over-fuelled at the lounge before boarding?

 

[Must...Fly!]

I don't recall what they were for the 747. 380 is 1,000 for passengers and 400 for fuel, but because of the electronic way in which it's all handled, those numbers never come into play.

10 pax! What a luxury!

Last minute changes.

Things that are within the tolerances for a late change without needing a new load sheet. But, as load sheets are actually the last thing generated these days, not something that is relevant on many occasions. Much more pertinent when we used hand delivered or manual sheets.

Am I interpreting this correctly, loadsheets for the 380s are only generated once the flight is closed and final pax load (with offloads taken in to account) known?

 

[markis10]

JB

Was wondering if you have ever been tempted to catch up with some old friends in the form of the ex RAN A4s now stateside with Draken International, being prepared to work as aggressor birds?

N142EM - NZ-6212 (A-4K) BuNo.154904, Former RAN A-4G "883".
N143EM - NZ-6213 (A-4K) BuNo.154905, Former RAN A-4G "884".
N144EM - NZ-6214 (A-4K) BuNo.154908, Former RAN A-4G "887".
N145EM - NZ-6215 (A-4K) BuNo.155052, Former RAN A-4G "871".
N146EM - NZ-6217 (A-4K) BuNo.155063, Former RAN A-4G "876".
N147EM -NZ-6218 (A-4K) BuNo.155069, Former RAN A-4G "877".

 

[jb747]

Am I interpreting this correctly, loadsheets for the 380s are only generated once the flight is closed and final pax load (with offloads taken in to account) known?

That's how we do all of the ACARs load sheets. A provisional load sheet is generated about 30 minutes prior to planned departure, and the final shows up in the last couple of minutes.

 

[jb747]

JB

Was wondering if you have ever been tempted to catch up with some old friends in the form of the ex RAN A4s now stateside with Draken International, being prepared to work as aggressor birds?

N142EM - NZ-6212 (A-4K) BuNo.154904, Former RAN A-4G "883".
N143EM - NZ-6213 (A-4K) BuNo.154905, Former RAN A-4G "884".
N144EM - NZ-6214 (A-4K) BuNo.154908, Former RAN A-4G "887".
N145EM - NZ-6215 (A-4K) BuNo.155052, Former RAN A-4G "871".
N146EM - NZ-6217 (A-4K) BuNo.155063, Former RAN A-4G "876".
N147EM -NZ-6218 (A-4K) BuNo.155069, Former RAN A-4G "877".

Yes, it was pleasing to see that they live on....but I don't think I need to catch up with them. If my experience of sitting in a Macchi coughpit is anything to go on, they would feel quite alien to me now..

 

[harvyk]

I'm not sure if this has already been asked, how many calculations are done via pen and paper / pocket calculator (or similar) / in your head vs how many are done by the aircraft's computers? For example do you simply enter in numbers into the FMC and trust what it gives back or would you also get out the pen and paper just to double check?

 

[jb747]

I'm not sure if this has already been asked, how many calculations are done via pen and paper / pocket calculator (or similar) / in your head vs how many are done by the aircraft's computers? For example do you simply enter in numbers into the FMC and trust what it gives back or would you also get out the pen and paper just to double check?

I'm not sure that you understand quite how an FMC works. It automatically calculates fuel projections, which are compared to the flight plan for 'reasonableness'. It won't add up, or behave as a calculator in any way at all. It's more like the nav computer in your car than it is to your laptop.

The OIT is a laptop (a number of them actually) which we can use to access the performance data. That's also now available on the iPad. There is no way to work this data out any other way...we don't have access to any paper manuals (either on the aircraft, or at home).

When preplanning (for instance a possible diversion) we'll normally have a look at the FMC's projections as well as working the numbers via the OIT...and they may be written on a piece of paper, if you can find one.

Common sense comes in handy too. 450 knots ground speed, and roughly 13 tonnes of fuel per hour will give a simple comparison for any calculations (30 kgs per nm).

 

[harvyk]

A example I can give, is with the PMDG 747 and it's FMC, once you have told it your weight, the airport / runway / air temp it then gives out suggested V1 / VR / V2 speeds which you simply then press button next to each value to select it, alternatively it'll let you input a different value.

I'll of course happily retract the question if this is simply a simulator quirk, but in terms of quirks it seemed like something they might have gotten right.

 

[uzza]

JB, have you heard if QF30 will be getting an Air Crash Investigation episode? I recently saw the QF32 episode with Richard et. al. and it was fascinating. Given their participation I assume management gave their blessing on them being interviewed?

 

[jb747]

The 747 FMC does calculate V numbers, but in general they are overwritten with whatever has been calculated from the performance data. The FMC data does not take into account almost all of the weather parameters (wind, wet/dry, contamination), nor does it consider things like desired derate. I don't think it even considers the actual runway, but uses a simple calculation based purely on weight and actual temperature...the manual isn't all that specific. The upshot is that it was rarely of use.

 

[jb747]

JB, have you heard if QF30 will be getting an Air Crash Investigation episode? I recently saw the QF32 episode with Richard et. al. and it was fascinating. Given their participation I assume management gave their blessing on them being interviewed?

I hope not. I certainly would not help. It's ancient history now.

Anyway, you can't make a show from "It went bang, we descended, we landed." Done.

 

[D747]

I hope not. I certainly would not help. It's ancient history now.

Anyway, you can't make a show from "It went bang, we descended, we landed." Done.

You most certainly can make a show from that. It may not be based on many facts, or be very good, but they should never get in the way of a good story. Just remember that programs are only on TV to keep you watching between the really important bits, the commercials.

 

[straitman]

I hope not. I certainly would not help. It's ancient history now.

Anyway, you can't make a show from "It went bang, we descended, we landed." Done.

You are way too humble jb747

 

[anat0l]

I hope not. I certainly would not help. It's ancient history now.

Anyway, you can't make a show from "It went bang, we descended, we landed." Done.

From what we have seen as to how the media have savaged QF32, it wouldn't surprise me if they could make an Everest out of a Death Valley.

Mind you, "it went bang, we descended, we landed"... it still begs to know how many pilots - both outside the company (or even inside it), as well as those who are not of the same training pedigree could handle the situation.

 

[RooFlyer]

I hope not. I certainly would not help. It's ancient history now.

Anyway, you can't make a show from "It went bang, we descended, we landed." Done.

I reckon they could have a decent try. One of the ... ?amusing (not quite the right word) aspects of the current series is now they have dealt with all the 'crashes' they are now going through the near misses and incidents. Hence more time spent on passengers' "terror" and less on 'long investigation finding out what went wrong'.

If they do make the episode, and you could stomach watching it, it would be entertaining for the rest of us if you ran a live commentary

 

[Himeno]

I hope not. I certainly would not help. It's ancient history now.

I wouldn't call it "ancient history". A lot of the Air Crash Investigation eps have been about incidents that happened 10+ years before the ep was made.
The QF32 ep was ep 10 of season 13 - 4 years after it happened.
Season 14 is currently in production...

 

[mjt57]

Anyway, you can't make a show from "It went bang, we descended, we landed." Done.

They can pad it out with lots of hand wringing from nervous pax, know-it-all back seat drivers giving their opinions based on what they saw on Snakes on a Plane and the chief FA confessing to her lover that he isn't the father...

And that's what caused the cylinder to explode...

 

[moa999]

I think they also like positive outcomes... Ie. cylinder blew because of this manufacturing fault, this seal etc... Its all fixed and air travel is safe again

 

[RSD]

Accident investigation and the underlying causes and human factors is something that I find quite interesting. It's a pity that the authorities that investigate air accidents don't produce informative videos like the U.S. Chemical Safety Board does when they produce their reports. If anyone is interested in taking a look here is the video that the CSB produced after their investigation into the BP Texas City refinery explosion in March 2005 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuJtdQOU_Z4 - it does a great job of not just explaining the direct causes on the day of the explosion, but also looking into the human factors that were underlying issues, and also the company culture and operating philosophies that contributed greatly to what happened. It's 55 minutes long but well worth a look if you are into this sort of thing.