Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Are there any instances (aside from helping on a tight ground turn), where you'd deliberately have differing thrust settings on the engines? Any instances in flight when that would be used? e.g. major crosswind? or is that all handled with rudder trim?

If there are no other instances, what's the reasoning behind providing individual engine controls?

You don't use power to cancel crosswinds...that's all rudder.

Many failures involve operating engines at different settings. For instance if the digital engine control (FADEC) plays up, you could end up without any auto throttle, and depending upon the actual mode, the thrust levers could be staggered (i.e. at different positions to get the same power). Some anti ice issues (747/76) might require a particular engine to be operated to a higher maximum than the others, so you'd end up the stagger in the descent stages.

In the 380 case, one that comes to mind involves take off from a narrower than usual runway, in which case the inner engines are taken to take off power normally, but the outers aren't pushed up until 40 knots. Engine stalls are managed by reducing the power on the offending engine until it decided to behave, and only involve shutdowns if it's still stalling at idle.

 

[jb747]

I flew into/out of BHQ with Rex the other day. As the airport is tiny is there an ATC or do planes just land/go as they please?

BHQ isn't on the list of places I've operated to, but I'd be very surprised if it had any form of ATC. It isn't just a free for all though, as there are laid down procedures and radio calls for operations to any uncontrolled airport.

 

[harvyk]

How is ATC handled for an event like Bathurst. Was there yesterday and saw a wide variety of aircraft (eg heli's both civilian and military, planes again civilian, military and commercial) all operating in a very small amount of space and all very close to each other. Would all that be handled still from MEL / BNE, or would there be a controller on the ground at the mountain to keep things under control?

 

[markis10]

How is ATC handled for an event like Bathurst. Was there yesterday and saw a wide variety of aircraft (eg heli's both civilian and military, planes again civilian, military and commercial) all operating in a very small amount of space and all very close to each other. Would all that be handled still from MEL / BNE, or would there be a controller on the ground at the mountain to keep things under control?

There is no ATC involvement these days although in the past a temporary control was put in place with a portable tower. There was temporary restricted areas for both Bathurst (Raglan) airport and Mt Panorama, apart from that nothing aside from normal class G services (comms and FIS but no control).

 

[Awesom Andy]

Given the elevation of YBTH aerodrome is 2435ft and I believe the track at Mt Panorama is a little higher, a flypast at 2600ft would be extremely interesting!

Mount Panorama's website listed that the highest point of the circuit is 862m above sea level. This is a little more than 2800ft, so an attempt at 2600ft probably would have resulted in a "fly-into" rather than a fly past.

 

[harvyk]

Mount Panorama's website listed that the highest point of the circuit is 862m above sea level. This is a little more than 2800ft, so an attempt at 2600ft probably would have resulted in a "fly-into" rather than a fly past.

A good number of the fly pasts went down pit straight, the comment was made (by the announcers, so may not be true) that the airshow component is probably unique in that those up on top of the mountain would actually be looking down at the planes flying past, not up.

 

[Awesom Andy]

A good number of the fly pasts went down pit straight, the comment was made (by the announcers, so may not be true) that the airshow component is probably unique in that those up on top of the mountain would actually be looking down at the planes flying past, not up.

The pit straight is the lowest part of the circuit so I guess it would make sense.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Approaches into LAX

JB747 - Over the last few years I've done a fair number of SYD or MEL or BNE -> LAX sectors. Travelling on 744's into LAX from Australia the majority of approaches into LAX appear to track over Santa Catalina and use 25L for landing with the majority of A380 approach being made from the north and use 24R for landing. The exception to this is for an early morning (QF15 / QF107) 744 arrivals into LAX just after the curfew has lifted and we've used 06L.

A couple of questions for you around approaches / landings into LAX:

- When suitable are the A380's limited to using 24R for landings into LAX?
- Can the 744's use both 25L and 24R for landings?
- Are their any special procedures you need to adhere to when landing on either 24R / 25L? The reason I ask is after you land and take the relevant taxiway off the runway you have to cross an operational parallel runway (24L / 25R) which is being used for departing aircraft. From my limited understanding another aircraft would not be able to land on either 24R / 25L until the preceding aircraft had crossed the parallel runway containing any departing aircraft.
- Given the rate they push aircraft into LAX are there more late landing clearances / go arounds than at other similar airports.
- Would it be simpler to have arrivals onto 25R / 24L to avoid having to cross an active runway immediately after landing?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jb747]

Re: Approaches into LAX

JB747 - Over the last few years I've done a fair number of SYD or MEL or BNE -> LAX sectors. Travelling on 744's into LAX from Australia the majority of approaches into LAX appear to track over Santa Catalina and use 25L for landing with the majority of A380 approach being made from the north and use 24R for landing. The exception to this is for an early morning (QF15 / QF107) 744 arrivals into LAX just after the curfew has lifted and we've used 06L.

A couple of questions for you around approaches / landings into LAX:

- When suitable are the A380's limited to using 24R for landings into LAX?
- Can the 744's use both 25L and 24R for landings?
- Are their any special procedures you need to adhere to when landing on either 24R / 25L? The reason I ask is after you land and take the relevant taxiway off the runway you have to cross an operational parallel runway (24L / 25R) which is being used for departing aircraft. From my limited understanding another aircraft would not be able to land on either 24R / 25L until the preceding aircraft had crossed the parallel runway containing any departing aircraft.
- Given the rate they push aircraft into LAX are there more late landing clearances / go arounds than at other similar airports.

All landings are generally on 24R and 25L, with take offs on 24L and 25R. The 747 can use any of those four, whilst the A380 lands on 24R & 25L, and departs from 25L or 24L. The A380 is restricted from using 25R, and also the taxiway adjacent to it (to the east of Tom Bradley) , as there isn't enough clearance. I have landed on 25L, and then been taken across the right, but I think we actually infringe both runways when on the section between them, so it's ATC's last choice.

For departures, we will normally use 24L. That involves the least taxi distance, and also keep us out of ATC's way. Using 25L for departure will normally mean going all the way to the western end of the airfield, and then coming back past the freight aprons on the south side....a long way extra. The only time we'll do so is if we are performance limited off 24L.

ATC are normally pretty good at controlling the departures so that we (380) get across 24L without delay after landing...but they most certainly have to plan it.

Late landing clearances...not really...they actually give them out very early, even whilst the preceding aircraft is still on the runway, but clearing. I don't know how common go arounds are there. I've never done one. I would expect the main reason (especially from foreign long haul aircraft) is their predilection towards setting you up in relatively high energy situations (higher and or faster than normal) in close. This was part of what happened to Asiana in SFO.

Would it be simpler to have arrivals onto 25R / 24L to avoid having to cross an active runway immediately after landing?

It wouldn't make much difference, though I suspect that it's more dangerous having departures crossing runways (though it happens everywhere). Anyway, the landing aircraft don't need the length of 24L, while the departures may...we wouldn't be able fly to Oz from the right.

 

[Dmac6345]

Re: Approaches into LAX

jb, I noticed EK406 (MEL-AKL) which is an A380 departed off Rwy 27 this morning. I have only seen them land on 27 occasionally but never depart. I gather it would have to be very lightly loaded to do this?

 

[jb747]

Re: Approaches into LAX

jb, I noticed EK406 (MEL-AKL) which is an A380 departed off Rwy 27 this morning. I have only seen them land on 27 occasionally but never depart. I gather it would have to be very lightly loaded to do this?

As a general rule, you only use 27 when the crosswind is out of limits on 16/34. The ATIS isn't reporting any wind of note. I think a runway inspection is required any time a 380 takes off from 27, so it can delay things a bit. I've only used it once, on a flight to Singapore, but it was gusting to 65 knots.

 

[mjt57]

Re: Approaches into LAX

Hey, JB and Boris.

If you're contemplating a career change, here's something that may interest you...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/...ine-in-the-world/story-fni0bv29-1227091117899

If they can fly to Europe what min. standards do they need to meet insofar as comms and nav aids go?

These flight decks look fairly primitive (and damned ugly color scheme).

 

[jb747]

Re: Approaches into LAX

Hey, JB and Boris.

If you're contemplating a career change, here's something that may interest you...

No Cookies | Herald Sun

If they can fly to Europe what min. standards do they need to meet insofar as comms and nav aids go?

These flight decks look fairly primitive (and damned ugly color scheme).

They are mostly still banned, but they can fly their (2) Tu-204s to Europe. I expect the crew would never come back, so perhaps a bit of a one way mission. Tupolev Tu-204 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia looks like an Airbus(ski).

As a career change, I'd rather drive the local rubbish truck.

 

[Boris spatsky]

Having flown on a number of IL-76, AN-12 and AN-24 aircraft as a passenger, as well as a few Russian helos, i can say that i will never fly one of those by choice! Not sure any of them would meet Western maintenance standards either (had an IL-76 dripping significant quantities of hydraulic fluid on the ramp overnight, and all main tyres so bald that the white was showing through under the rubber).

Add to that the fact that all the flightdeck instruments i have seen have been in Russian (as well as the manuals i would suggest), and the fact that i can't stand straight vodka (yes, some of them drinking during flight) and it's pretty much a no from me...

 

[Shan Man]

Question for the Pilots out there and I don't think this one has been asked before, as the search bar returned no results.

This morning I was listening to EY450 on approach to Sydney and they were given clearance for ILS PRM 16R along with most of the other AC coming in, however they declined is citing "We aren't allowed to do PRM approaches into Sydney anymore"

I understand the way PRM works from a quick google search but the response confused me a little. So I ask:

- Who at the Airline makes the call on each airport to not be able to use PRM?
- Why would they choose not to use it, is it conditions at the airport or a difficult approach perhaps?
- If they had previously been allowed to use it, what would cause them to not allow it anymore?
- Whats the impact on ATC in regards to this? I'm assuming they would just space out the parallel approaches a little more.
- Which type of approach is your favourite to use?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Mattg]

I had an interesting experience on the weekend, approaching Venice Airport on an A320. At the time we were at approximately 6-8000 feet and they were just beginning to extend the flaps, so we would have been about 5-10 minutes from landing. All of a sudden, the engines roared and the plane made an extremely sudden and unusually steep climb. It was very uncomfortable from a passenger's point of view as the G-force was quite high and we were basically glued to our seats for about 30 seconds until the plane stopped climbing and levelled off. Several passengers threw up shortly afterwards. There were a couple of flight attendants walking down the aisle who grabbed onto the nearest seat and sort of stood unable to move & looking a bit worried until the aircraft returned to normal flight.

After levelling off for a short time we then climbed a bit more, although at a normal rate and did a few loops before resuming the approach. The landing was normal, although quite heavy. The pilots did not come onto the PA either during the flight, or after we landed to explain what happened, which I felt was a bit strange as everyone wanted to know.

My question is: what could possibly have caused this? It wasn't a simple go-around as we were not yet approaching the runway and the manoeuvre was sudden and a lot more violent (for lack of a better word) than a simple go-around. My friend & I thought a TCAS alarm might have gone off in the coughpit, but I really have no idea otherwise.

 

[Dmac6345]

I had an interesting experience on the weekend, approaching Venice Airport on an A320. At the time we were at approximately 6-8000 feet and they were just beginning to extend the flaps, so we would have been about 5-10 minutes from landing. All of a sudden, the engines roared and the plane made an extremely sudden and unusually steep climb. It was very uncomfortable from a passenger's point of view as the G-force was quite high and we were basically glued to our seats for about 30 seconds until the plane stopped climbing and levelled off. Several passengers threw up shortly afterwards. There were a couple of flight attendants walking down the aisle who grabbed onto the nearest seat and sort of stood unable to move & looking a bit worried until the aircraft returned to normal flight.

After levelling off for a short time we then climbed a bit more, although at a normal rate and did a few loops before resuming the approach. The landing was normal, although quite heavy. The pilots did not come onto the PA either during the flight, or after we landed to explain what happened, which I felt was a bit strange as everyone wanted to know.

My question is: what could possibly have caused this? It wasn't a simple go-around as we were not yet approaching the runway and the manoeuvre was sudden and a lot more violent (for lack of a better word) than a simple go-around. My friend & I thought a TCAS alarm might have gone off in the coughpit, but I really have no idea otherwise.

On TCAS- When and if the TCAS alarm/warning sounds, what procedures are used to avoid the nearby aircraft? Does the aircrafts autopilot avoid it, or do the pilots need to take evasive action? Sounds a bit silly, but which one climbs and which one descends? Which one turns left and which one right?
Thanks.

 

[jb747]

Question for the Pilots out there and I don't think this one has been asked before, as the search bar returned no results.

This morning I was listening to EY450 on approach to Sydney and they were given clearance for ILS PRM 16R along with most of the other AC coming in, however they declined is citing "We aren't allowed to do PRM approaches into Sydney anymore"

I understand the way PRM works from a quick google search but the response confused me a little. So I ask:

- Who at the Airline makes the call on each airport to not be able to use PRM?
- Why would they choose not to use it, is it conditions at the airport or a difficult approach perhaps?
- If they had previously been allowed to use it, what would cause them to not allow it anymore?
- Whats the impact on ATC in regards to this? I'm assuming they would just space out the parallel approaches a little more.
- Which type of approach is your favourite to use?

There's quite a few fingers in the PRM pie. The civil aviation organisation for both the aircraft's home and of course the destination, must have approved it. The airline itself has to be happy with it, and there's a training to be done. And the aircraft maker will have generated some form of procedure to carry it out.

CASA have mandated that the autopilot is to be disconnected if a PRM breakout has to be performed. Having done it in the sim, it's actually much easier, and more reliable to do it with the autopilot engaged (in the Airbus), so, perhaps the company is not happy with this requirement, and does not do it for that reason.

ATC should be informed early (well before you start dealing with 'approach') so that they can open the sequence a bit. That's obviously an issue for them, especially if multiple aircraft refuse to accept it. Only a guess though...

 

[jb747]

On TCAS- When and if the TCAS alarm/warning sounds, what procedures are used to avoid the nearby aircraft? Does the aircrafts autopilot avoid it, or do the pilots need to take evasive action? Sounds a bit silly, but which one climbs and which one descends? Which one turns left and which one right?

The TCAS systems work out who will climb and who will descend. It's possible for the system to change its mind too, especially if the other aircraft does not react to the TCAS. It is only in the vertical...there are never turns. It should be a very gently manoeuvre, and should not be noticed at all in the cabin...if done correctly.

 

[jb747]

I had an interesting experience on the weekend, approaching Venice Airport on an A320. At the time we were at approximately 6-8000 feet and they were just beginning to extend the flaps, so we would have been about 5-10 minutes from landing. All of a sudden, the engines roared and the plane made an extremely sudden and unusually steep climb. It was very uncomfortable from a passenger's point of view as the G-force was quite high and we were basically glued to our seats for about 30 seconds until the plane stopped climbing and levelled off. Several passengers threw up shortly afterwards. There were a couple of flight attendants walking down the aisle who grabbed onto the nearest seat and sort of stood unable to move & looking a bit worried until the aircraft returned to normal flight.

After levelling off for a short time we then climbed a bit more, although at a normal rate and did a few loops before resuming the approach. The landing was normal, although quite heavy. The pilots did not come onto the PA either during the flight, or after we landed to explain what happened, which I felt was a bit strange as everyone wanted to know.

My question is: what could possibly have caused this? It wasn't a simple go-around as we were not yet approaching the runway and the manoeuvre was sudden and a lot more violent (for lack of a better word) than a simple go-around. My friend & I thought a TCAS alarm might have gone off in the coughpit, but I really have no idea otherwise.

A go around can happen anywhere... It wouldn't have been any more violent than a normal go around, simply because a go around normally involves an attitude change of 15-20º or so, and TOGA power. By definition, you can't get any more power, and whilst the attitude can go higher a little higher (especially in smaller aircraft), it's exactly what would be used in a go around.